How strongly will the town of Blue Hill, Maine, and food sovereignty supporters,(not necessarily in that order) stand up to the state’s pressure to push the town aside while it prosecutes a local farmer for selling raw milk and other foods directly to town residents?
That is the question in this politically charged clash between a state and one of its tiny towns (Blue Hill population: 2,217). The amount of resistance displayed by citizens of Blue Hill, and its supporters everywhere, will send a strong message… to dozens, and possibly hundreds of other towns and cities around the country considering food sovereignty ordinances similar to that passed by Blue Hill last April…and to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which is watching this whole chain of events very nervously.
Dan Brown, the Blue Hill, Maine, farmer being sued by the state. Already, as many as a dozen towns around the country, most of them in New England, have passed food sovereignty ordinances–laws or advisories that allow local farmers to sell food directly to their town’s residents, without the need for state permits or other regulatory authority. In Maine, alone, five towns have passed food sovereignty ordinances. Los Angeles County has such an advisory under consideration.
The state of Maine is obviously very concerned about the Food Sovereignty movement–its commissioner of agriculture last April wrote a letter of warning to Blue Hill (and other towns) within days of passage of the ordinance, saying in part, “The ordinance purports to exempt local residents from certain food licensure and inspection requirements…the ordinance is preempted by state law…town residents involved in food processing and sales activities which are subject to state licensing and inspection are not exempt from those requirements…persons who fail to comply will be subject to enforcement, including the removal from sale of products from unlicensed sources and/or the imposition of fines.”
True to its word, state inspectors began monitoring local farmers selling food to town residents. They took note of Dan Brown, a Blue Hill farmer, selling raw dairy products, pickles, and jam, half a dozen times from his farm stand and at a couple of local farmers markets.
Two weeks ago, the state of Maine and its agriculture commissioner, Walter Whitcomb, filed suit in state court seeking an injunction against Brown for selling milk without a permit and pickles and jam without a food establishment license.
Food Sovereignty supporters are lining up–they have a Facebook page, a legal defense organization, and lots of energy to convince Maine officials they are making a big mistake in challenging the food sovereignty ordinances.
Brown explains in a brief YouTube recording his reasons for avoiding the conventional dairy business (take a guess at the main one).
The supporters have been busy mobilizing local political support. According to Bob St. Peter, a leader of the Food Sovereignty campaign, “In the fall of 2010, both the Hancock County Democrats and Republicans received presentations from local farmers on the ordinance. The farmers were warmly received and both parties expressed their support for the effort. Following the passage of the ordinance in Sedgwick and Penobscot, local farmers and organizers received a request from the Libertarian Party of Maine to include the ordinance as part of their platform. While there is strong feeling among farmers and farm patrons who led the organizing effort that the ordinance should not be an issue owned by any one political party, it is noteworthy that support for the ordinance crossed party lines.”
The bootprint of the FDA is all over the state’s rapid and aggressive move against Blue Hill. The fact that the letter to the town, followed by the court suit, have happened at lightning speed (for a state bureaucracy), is an indication of how concerned the FDA is. It is pushing the state, holding the carrot of lucrative cooperative agreements, and the sweet federal cash behind them, supplied by FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, as incentive for the state to do the agency’s bidding.
It looks like another situation similar to that of Michael Schmidt and his hunger strike. Lots of people, in Maine and outside, need to let the Department of Agriculture and the governor’s office know about their outrage. The food sovereignty movement is only spreading because rapidly growing numbers of people are worried about the food they find at WalMart and big supermarkets. They want access to real food, and are voting with their feet. But the farmers will only be able to provide the food if lots of people tell the politicians and bureaucrats in no uncertain terms to get out of the way.
The first step in the Maine situation is a press conference and rally outside the Blue Hill town hall Friday at noon, timed to coincide with a selectmen’s meeting. “Residents of Blue Hill will be attending the selectmen’s meeting…to enforce the provisions of the ordinance by instructing the Town of Blue Hill to send a letter to the Maine Department of Agriculture requesting the State withdraw the lawsuit and recognize the authority of the Local Food and Community Self-Governance Ordinance,” says St. Peter.
***
I feel pained whenever I hear about an outbreak of food-borne illness, especially when it involves children and is likely caused by a small committed producer. I don’t care what the product is. When it happens, it creates terrible suffering for all involved–the obvious suffering for children made ill (and their parents), and the suffering of the producer, who feels tremendous guilt, and faces the possibility of losing his or her livelihood.
We are seeing such a situation with Organic Pastures Dairy Co. right now.
The suffering is only compounded when various outsiders feel compelled to jump in and obtain some sort of revenge for previous hurts or slights or resentments. We saw examples of that after the arrests in the Rawesome Foods case.
I sense some of that happening now in the comments from some individuals following my previous post. It could be some are motivated by a desire to use this situation to educate and inform (especially about the shortcomings of our knowledge about pathogens and food outbreaks), and I think that is appropriate. It can be an important learning experience.
But to the extent that some are being driven by a sense of revenge, in hitting a guy when he’s down, all I can say is that I feel badly for you. Revenge rarely provides any kind of lasting satisfaction. Gwen Elderberry and Marietta Pellicano capture some of these concerns for me.
I can’t begin to analyze and unravel the Mark McAfee/Mary Martin/Bill Marler triangle. It has gone on so long, through so many phases, involving all manner of slights and misunderstandings, it would challenge the most sophisticated psychologist to make sense of. All I can say now is that something within me recoiled at seeing the 2006 photos of Chris Martin on life support on the newscast that Mary Martin linked to. And it wasn’t the shock of the photos–I’ve seen them before. I’m sure Martin has a cogent explanation for her motives, but there was something about hitting below the belt on that one, on misusing a child, on mixing politics with revenge.
Mark McAfee has definitely been a lightning rod during his years running OPDC, and he hasn’t always said the right or most soothing things at the right time. In the current situation, his inference that herdshare operations could be the source of the currentE.coli O157:H7 outbreak was ill advised, inappropriate, and almost certainly wrong.
To McAfee’s credit, though, he’s never avoided even the toughest questions, and that’s something you can’t say about too many business owners accused of producing food that sickens people. In the last few years, I believe he’s shown a genuine commitment to truly serious food safety standards. Sure, not everyone is going to agree with his vision, and that’s been a subject of very constructive debate on this blog.
My hope in this situation is merely that OPDC be treated by the regulators like any other food producer facing a possible outbreak crisis. No better and no worse. I know that is quite a fantastic hope in today’s highly politicized food-safety environment, in which raw dairy, in particular, is often singled out for special attention, and special punishment.
If you look at the link Milky Way provided (to suggest OPDC is not being “lynched”), to the timing and stages of the investigation into the cantaloupe outbreak that has sickened 72 and killed 13, you find that the farm was never shut down. It engaged in a voluntary recall, and its distributor stopped selling the product. But at the end of the process, it received a warning letter from the FDA, and presumably can re-open when it wants to. That’s not what happens to raw milk and raw cheese producers, even those that haven’t made a single individual sick (as in Morningland Dairy and Estrella Cheese).
The OPDC situation is still very much in a state of flux. Let’s not be too quick to pre-judge.
***
Food poisoning lawyer Bill Marler posted a link to data he’s accumulated over the last two years on dairy outbreaks. Curiously, there’s no analysis of the data, no totals at the end of the tables (despite the foreboding heading, “Dairy Unhinged”).
So I did a quick back-of-the envelope tally of the raw dairy outbreaks he’s identified (it includes pasteurized milk outbreaks as well), and came up with the following: During 2010, there were 158 illnesses attributed to raw dairy, and in 2011 so far, 39 illnesses. I left out two incidents he lists–the queso fresca illnesses in Utah attributed to “Mr. Cheese” that have been going on for years, without officials intervening, and the Wisconsin illnesses earlier this year from a CAFO dairy that inadvertently let some of its milk intended for pasteurization be fed to schoolchildren. (I predicted at the time the raw milk opponents would try to categorize that case as a raw milk problem.)
When I’m interviewed by media on the subject, I say there are generally 50 to 150 reported illnesses from raw dairy each year. It looks like 2010 and 2011 are roughly at the edges of my asessment. Those illnesses are in a total of 21,000 to 25,000 annual reported foodborne illnesses from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control each year.
The raw dairy illnesses are obviously a tiny fraction of the total reported illnesses–in the range of one-half of one per cent, typically. Ever wonder why the CDC, FDA, and others don’t provide data totals, and instead cherry pick particular numbers on outbreaks or specific cases? When the numbers suggest a reality that is different from the one they want to project, they ignore the numbers.
You are so right, the cantaloupe farm was never shut down and received a slap on the wrist. Raw milk is ostracized because it goes against big ag and the govt. Many other foods are much more lethal and they aren't treated as raw milk. Indeed, the numbers are ignored.
I appreciate this blog (our virtual vigil) and David's words of wisdom that keep us focused on the important questions and provide valuable information and perspective.
Wow, Pattie tests her milk and she is a cow share. She also confers with UC Davis often. Does the law in CA require the cow shares to be tested or inspected? I think the limit is 2 cows before any regulation is required by the state.
Ryan Parker is a former staff member of the United States House of Representatives. Currently, he runs a diversified, beyond organic, small family farm and writes in Central Maine.
Anyone curious to know what small, unobtrusive, fiscally responsible government looks like need look no further than Hancock County Superior Court where Maine Department of Agriculture Commissioner Whitcomb recently filed a very telling lawsuit. This suit is not against the federal government or other outside entity on behalf of Maine people. Rather, Mr. Whitcomb, a Republican, appointed and approved by a Republican governor and Legislature with a chorus of campaign promises for the wise use of tax dollars still ringing in the ears of Mainers, has filed a lawsuit against Dan Brown, a small farmer in Blue Hill.
Mr. Browns offenses according to the summons he received include selling unpasteurized milk without a license at a farmers market in Blue Hill and from the stand at his farm. One might presume, based on the amount of taxpayer dollars being used on this case and lawsuit, underway since at least January 30th, that the Department of Agriculture is responding to multiple complaints and an exploding health epidemic caused by Mr. Browns farm stand wares. At the very least, one might assume that even one person complained of being misled since the Departments lawsuit claims that the milk in question wasnt labeled, Not Pasteurized. But Mr. Browns customers are happy and the state has not claimed otherwise.
Absent a full blown outbreak of food borne illness, the Department may be acting on behalf of the citizens of Maine who have spoken in unified opposition to the idea that a small farm entrepreneur, could provide a small, personally connected customer base with a product they need. However, in this case, exactly the opposite is true. Indeed, Blue Hill is one of five towns in Maine to pass, nearly unanimously, the landmark Local Food and Community Self-Governance Ordinance, a move that has spawned similar efforts nationwide.
The Ordinance allows people to patronize local farmers for the real, healthy foods they need without interference from state or federal authorities which, unbeknownst to the majority of the population, have been persecuting small farmers, and their customers across the nation and here in Maine. In other words, if a person wants to buy a locally grown and raised food from a farmer down the road, and that person can go and see the farm, know the farmer, understand for him or herself the processes surrounding the creation of that food, then that person doesnt need the government to be involved. This seems to be in perfect alignment with the rhetoric of the LePage administration.
And yet, Maine taxpayers are funding an inspection regime that pursues one small farmer for nearly a year, including hours worked, reports filed and miles driven to and from farm and farmers market, and a lawsuit involving the Attorney General. Meanwhile, there are no inspections of the food available at the grocery stores across this state. No inspections of the pasteurized milk at the supermarket, milk which has actually caused more deaths than raw milk in the last decade according to the governments own data.
And raw dairy products are not the only real food being targeted by our small, unobtrusive, government. Lets not forget the direct farmer to consumer sale of on farm processed poultry that was the original impetus for the Ordinance. While the Maine Department of Agriculture prevents small farmers from processing chickens and turkeys in the safe way it has been done for literally thousands of years and selling or trading them to neighbors and community, Consumer Reports found that over sixty percent of supermarket chickens are contaminated with salmonella or campylobacter. This chicken, by the way, has been through the regulatory regime and is stamped with approval by you guessed it, both federal and state governments around the country. Presumably we will soon be learning of the summons issued to executives of Tyson, Smithfield, Cargill and the other giants of the agribusiness world who are actually poisoning people. In the meantime, Ill be trying to figure out how to get to my plate around the tiny, unobtrusive Department of Agriculture that invited itself to my dinner table with a flourish of wisely spent tax dollars.
Newly improved? LMAO
"There is a lot of information out there about raw milk that lacks scientific merit," said Jay-Russell."
Having a patient soak their toes with toenail fungus in plain white vinegar for 15 minutes a day consistently until the toe nail is completely grown out…has no scientific merit either, yet it works on most nail fungus and there doesn't appear to be any side effects. She also neglected to state that the "scientific" evidence appears skewed and if you follow the money of those "scientific studies" you'll see why then lean the way they do. Her statement shows narrow mindedness.
Also raw milk does not go bad like pasteurized milk. Raw milk just sours, no problem. If you can buy raw milk in a store and it's supposed to be fairly fresh (and make a mistake of buying skim milk instead?) – why not return it to the store for your $$$ back rather than pour it down the drain?
TPTB always want to point the finger at GOOD raw milk, so sad. Need to look at the lifestyles and EVERYTHING the person ate.
Something wrong with this story. They had only been buying OPDC milk for 3 weeks. He had been drinking raw milk throughout the weekend. THEN on Monday she poured him a glass of milk from the inadvertent half gallon of skim milk and noticed it smelled sour. He ate a salad with the spinach on Monday. Hmmmm – spinach outbreak….
"They shopped at a local health food store, Sprouts Natural Market, on Friday, September 1, purchasing their usual grocery items, including Organic Pastures raw milk and spinach from an open bin. The Martins had been buying Organic Pastures milk for about three weeks, previously opting for quarts but this time buying a half gallon with an expiration date of September 10.
They did not realize until they got home that they had inadvertently picked up a bottle of
skim milk. Throughout the weekend, Chris drank raw milk along with his meals. For lunch
Monday, he ate a salad made with lettuce, spinach, grated carrots and zucchini. That
evening, as Mary was about to pour a glass of the milk for Chris, she noticed it looked
odd; it appeared to be separating. It also had a faint odor that suggested it might be
turning sour. Frustrated that she had spent about $7 for a half gallon of milk that was
going bad, she poured the remainder in the sink and put the container in the trash."
To keep up on the Maine Food Sovereignty issue, suggest you go to the Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/wearefarmerbrown?sk=app_2309869772
And you can write or call Maine Commissioner of Agriculture:
http://www.maine.gov/agriculture/contacts/index.html
As for the suggestion that Chris Martin got sick from spinach in 2006, Mary Martin has explained many times why that couldn't be so, and I believe her. The case is very convincing that it was Organic Pastures raw milk. Let's remember also, that was five years ago. I think it's time to move on from that.
David
Yes, I am learning! I think this is an excellent answer to my query about e.coli:
http://www.emaxhealth.com/8782/top-10-faqs-about-e-coli-bacteria-released-academy-microbiology
Maybe some raw milk newbies like myself will get something out of it.
Kristen
"The recovery was a very long process, a lot of emotional damage, a lot of post-traumatic stress disorder."
"I had a false impression because it was tested then there couldn't be a pathogen in their milk. But that's not true, they don't test every single batch.
Nourish Yourself,
Back when Chris was seven, we purchased spinach from an open bin at our local health food store. Every night at dinner he ate a small spinach, zucchnni, carrot, lettuce salad. So yes, for the 2 weeks Chris drank raw milk, he also ate a spinach in a salad every night at dinner.
How much spinach do you think is sold in a day in the U.S.? Does it all come from the same source? No. The outbreak was caused by DOLE PACKAGED baby spinach. When you prewash leafy greens, it makes them more vulnerable to contamination. This is the ONLY brand that made people ill. All spinach sold in the U.S. in August and September of 2006 was not contaminated. The outbreak was not caused by the spinach purchased at our local health food store. Spinach is a non-issue in this story.
As for the 3rd batch of milk we purchased, here are the details. We bought it Friday night September 1st. It had an expiration date of September 10th. By September 4th it had turned sour. Over the years I have learned why the milk soured so quickly. Nourish Yourself, lets see what you know about raw milk. Why did it sour so quickly? It starts with a C. Ill give you another hint; they talk about these high levels in the 2006 outbreak report.
There is a tendency to oversimplify that which is poorly understood.
The following article I believe is one you should find very interesting.
http://textbookofbacteriology.net/e.coli.html
The article states, Once established, an E. coli strain may persist for months or years. Resident strains shift over a long period (weeks to months), and more rapidly after enteric infection or antimicrobial chemotherapy that perturbs the normal flora. The basis for these shifts and the ecology of Escherichia coli in the intestine of humans are poorly understood despite the vast amount of information on almost every other aspect of the organism's existence.
I think it can be safely said that E coli is a highly complex organism that is more than capable of dealing with any and all attempts we use to control it. Unfortunately humans are an extremely arrogant lot and although we have the ability to understand, it takes a lot of humble pie to convince us that Gods creation is beyond our control.
Ken Conrad
For example, this recall is in the news today. http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/11/e-coli-concern-spurs-bagged-romaine-recall/ All lettuce is not contaminated with E.coli 0157:H7. Only Ready Pac brand is.
Again, packaged leafy greens are very vulnerable because they are prewashed and the lettuce comes from all different sources and is mixed together. A little e.coli on a portion of lettuce is now spread all over the place. Very similar to hamburger meat; a small amount can be contaminated and then it is mixed with other meet and contaminates a large batch.
I am very serious when I ask this as a customer of OPDC. Can you please clarify or enlighten me on this statement:
"In the last few years, I believe he's [Mark McAfee] shown a genuine commitment to truly serious food safety standards."
I read it as that he has only become committed to serious food safety standards at his own dairy in the last few years. But I am sure I am wrong. What do you mean by this statement?
I am concerned because of the 2006 outbreak, and now this one. I know OPDC prides itself on quality. I guess I am just reading with a critical eye and in no way want to kick OPDC while it is down.
Curiouser and curiouser,
Kristen
Ok I'll take Mary and Kristen's words that they aren't extracting revenge and that the source of e-coli is definitely organic pastures milk and that spinach, cantelope, turkey or water or whatever is out there isn't responsible because they said so because they read about it here and there or they did their own testing or whatever. Let's go shut down McAfee and Organic Pastures – he probably feeds his cows corn and grain and inject them with growth hormones and anti-biotics and he probably has a high fence so you can't see what they are doing at his farm.
I'm being sarcastic here and I think folks like Mary and Kristen are the reason why we're losing the whole war against food – GMO, food safety bill, etc. Why don't they expend their energy on all the factory farms and such. Or may they just like to be negative, take everything personally and take satisfaction in expending their energy attacking people.
Bottom line is where are there any farms that does more than what Mark does – grass fed, no anti-biotic, no growth hormone, test their cows and samples regularly, etc. If you want to find me and hand me a list of farms that do a better job than Organic Pastures, let me know.
It saddens me to see folks kicking down on folks when they are down. I like to encourage folk to think positively and move on!
David,
I've noticed that when I read any information from the govt entities, they tend to leave out the deaths from the recent pasteurized milk. Why is that?
"investigation prompts McDonald's to look for a new egg supplier."
There must be a way to instruct the population in detail how their food is grown, raised, fed, environmental, etc. This would be teaching…. Mass public out-cry would have a better affect then small groups.
Mark McAfee said a number of times, in explaining the need for the Raw Milk Institute, that he personally didn't want to experience a repeat of the 2006 illnesses, which linked OPDC via epidemiological evidence to six illnesses. All the victims had consumed OPDC products, and five of the six victims had the same strain of E.coli O157:H7 (no pathogen was found in the sixth victim). I took McAfee's statements to mean that he felt there were shortcomings in OPDC's production process that led to the 2006 illnesses, shortcomings he wanted to fix. His passionate discussion in recent months of OPDC's RAMP (safety) program and his push for a safety-based organization in RAWMI convinced me he had become newly committed to raw milk safety as a top priority for his dairy, and for the entire industry.
I don't think he wasn't committed to safety as a top priority in 2006–I know he was doing some pathogen testing at that time. I sense he's come to understand the vagaries of large-scale food production, and the reality that spot testing doesn't ensure that no safety risks exist.
In some sense, what is happening now seems to be a repeat of 2006. Of course, we don't know yet the full outcome of testing that has been conducted in recent days, and other aspects of the situation. In any event, I was hoping the new priority accorded safety standards would make McAfee and OPDC truly transparent about what happened in 2006–allow that what happened actually happened, and that possibly there are new lessons to learn from what may have happened in 2011.
Part of the problem with the 2006 experience, and why you are asking the question, is that McAfee explains it differently at different times. In his press conference yesterday, he provided yet another variation of his version of events, suggesting the sick individuals didn't have matching pathogens and that the illnesses might have been related to the national spinach outbreak that occurred at the same time, among other things. (The pathogens found in the raw milk drinkers were a different strain than that found in the spinach consumers.) I have to assume he's under a lot of stress, the "fog of war," as it were.
Hope that helps.
David
MW
Cheering for those in Maine.
The following is what I've been reading on other blogs and news releases regarding the recall of OP:
"The govt just wanted to shut them down. They have no proof that e coli came from this dairy,,,,,,. The government doesnt want you eating live food because they dont want you to be healthy. Healthy people dont need pharmaceutical drugs…….more people are sickened each year from pasteurized milk and you NEVER hear about it. That would be bad press for big business!! There is more E-coli & Listeria bacteria in conventional dairies processing and holding tanks than in those of a raw milk dairy. Main reason is the cows are well care for and much healthier ..they arent the sick, crowded and hormone injected cows of conventional dairies."
Of course there were posts from those who think consuming raw dairy is foolish, bet those are the ones who consume the highly processed phoods, and never question anyone….
Education is needed from all corners.
http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/homepage-feature/item/29904-nj-bill-would-legalize-raw-milk-sales&Itemid=1
"I know there's all kinds of allegations about FDA supposedly being in bed with Big Ag (also nonsense), but CDC is a purely scientific (not regulatory) agency."
The above person must be wearing blinders.
http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/cdc-admits-no-one-has-died-from-drinking-raw-milk-in-last-11-years/?mid=52
It is a shame the govt "PR machine" continues to be on overdrive with misinformation.
That was the rally cry today in Blue Hill, Maine . . .
Thanks for the link to the Bangor Daily News , Sylvia . . . My son Declan, is in the second photo! (he is on the left with the hunter orange baseball cap:)
Will be posting a detailed recap of the rally on my blog . . . . So many people there (I would say about 150) . . .and the speakers were great . . more on this tomorrow . . .
Kind regards,
Violet
http://www.kilbyridgefarmmaine.blogspot.com
I recently pursued a "clinical question," for a paper I wrote for a class, as an exercise on how to use several scholarly search sites I've been given free access to as a student; sites people otherwise often have to pay for, to see whole studies or documents. The clinical question I chose was, "How often is Escherichia coli 0157:H7 missed in clinical assessments?" I printed out quite a few articles in attempt to find an answer to this question. By nature of the assignment, they all had to be from peer reviewed journals, and meet the criteria of evidence-based practice.
See, in 14 years of being a nurse, I have never, ever, ever, EVER, knowingly collected a stool for an E-coli test. Ever. From what I'm reading, the test for E-coli 0157:H7 has to be ordered specifically. In contrast, I send stool down the pneumatic tube system to the lab at least once a week; more often at times; for c-diff tests or for occult blood tests, and rarely for ova and parasites. But NEVER for e-coli. I have, in my career, seen NUMEROUS outbreaks of diarrhea. I can get graphic about it if you like. A few years back, I asked a doctor, in exasperation, if they tested for e-coli. He told me, "no." End of story.
So, here's my question. HOW MANY children in the hospitals in the area of this 2011 outbreak presented with diarrhea during the months of July, August, Sept and Oct.? Total, please. What criteria do doctors use to order an e-coli 0157:H7 test? On how many of these children was it ordered, and why? How many e-coli tests were ordered that came back negative, and why were THEY ordered?
If the test was ordered based solely on the patient history having drank raw milk (and I'm not saying that it was in most cases), then the only thing the involved children would have in common would be drinking raw milk, whether or not the infectious e-coli came from raw milk. In other words, the epidemiology pointing to raw milk would be invalid because only children who had had raw milk would have been tested in the first place.
Lets say Joe doctor read about the past controversy over O.P. in the paper, and he is taking care of a child with severe diarrhea, and he learns that this child drinks raw milk. So based on the diet history, he orders a test, just to see if the child has e-coli. And voila, the child does. However, the 30 other children he treated this month had limited episodes, and no raw milk history, and the diarrhea was not given a direct cause for the 30 other children, or was given a "probable" cause. I want to know if this is happening before I make a personal judgement, and I'd like a statement to be made with very specific attention to whether or not this kind of bias is included in the outbreak reports and news releases. Or is there something that catches the lab's or the doctor's eye that tells them that the e-coli 0157:H7 is next on the "it's this, not that," pathway, and it is automatically tested for? You lab people who read this – how do you come to the conclusion that you need to test for this, and in what circumstances do you actually do it?
I do know that you don't just throw feces in agar and watch it grow; you have to do specific things to it to make certain things grow. And then, with e-coli, don't you have to do certain other things to it to find out which kind it is, because there are so many kinds of e-coli, and most of them are benign? This is where I need enlightenment. When does a lab decide to follow this path?
The articles I've printed out – and I'm not very good at this yet, mind you – say repeatedly that e-coli is not usually tested for, and even when it is, infections are very often not even reported as per standards. Most probable cases of HUS aren't even reported.
To believe O.P. is guilty this time, in 2011, and even last time, I need these questions answered, please. I'm not discounting that they may be, but this pervasive infection is getting worse and worse. I am a more informed part of the population, so convince me that what you're telling me is actually true. These questions need to be addressed.
Thank you for any level-headed insight.
In answer to your question, as to why "govt entities… tend to leave out the deaths from the recent pasteurized milk," I don't know. I suspect they would rather play down deaths from pasteurized milk, just as they'd rather play up illnesses from raw milk (no deaths in many years, fortunately). The fact that the government has an agenda to promote pasteurized milk and deprecate raw milk makes it difficult to take seriously their opinions and recommendations.
David
I've collected my share of fecal specimens from the adult population of varying ages. I have sat here trying to recall if I ever had an order for E-coli… Lots of O&P (In TX we checked often O&P for the GI MDs) C-Diff- yes, blood-yes, culture for Salmonella once (which was ordered specifically). I honestly don't recall getting an order for E-Coli.
http://usagiedu.com/articles/bloddiar/bloddiar.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/epicasestudies/downloads/ecolii.pdf
Page 3 "Most laboratories that culture stool do not routinely test for E. coli O157:H7, but require a special request from the health care provider."
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/502692_4
To screen or not to screen…appears to be a money issue.
Hope this helps some.
My general statement about of one of the ecoli patients moms making a suspiciously worded comment on our FaceBook page saying…that they drank "Mostly OPDC" set off a firestorm of controversy. For this I really and sincerely apologize.
This FB comment triggered my comment becuase of an incident in the spring of 2011, when the Fresno County Health Department was investigating an ecoli illness and the patient had stopped drinking OPDC some time earlier and had started drinking raw milk from a local unbranded and unknown operation. That operation provided very inexpensive raw milk to a local group of moms.
When the sherriff went to investigate the cow owner, they found some manure and nothing else. The cows had been moved and the owner was speechless. The neighbors told the Sherriff everything.
My comment came from this little Fresno history and also what appeared to be evidence of another raw milk being involved.
I should not have been so quick to make any comment about Cow Shares in general.
Please forgive my error…
Mark
The Spin:
Here's what Mark had to say during his press conference (
I transcribed it just in case they take the video down at some point.
Reporter: Five years ago there was also another recall, right, where there was a settlement.
McAfee: There was.
Reporter: Can you talk about that?
McAfee: That was based on causation not being proved whatsoever. It was based on epidemiological evidence. It never got to court. You have to remember, insurance companies settled this. They dont want to litigate this. It was settled by insurance companies.
There were 2 children that were sickened in 2006. They did not have matching pathogens. In other words, when they were hospitalized they checked the bacteria that made them sick. They did not match.
Whenever you accuse somebody of making someone sick, theyve got to have matching pathogens, and they did not. They never found any bad bugs in our milk or in our cows manure during that period of time. This was the peak of the spinach incident, that killed 3 people and sickened 200.
So, we were vindicated but we had a settlement release where they actually paid us for the recall and actually settled, saying, Hey, listen. We cant find the link. Dont sue us.
And from the Sacramento Bee a few days ago talking about the 2006 outbreak
But Kayleigh Lutz, a spokeswoman for the family-owned dairy, said, "This is not a factual recall. It's based on hearsay, on what patients have told doctors over an eight-week period."
Lutz said Organic Pastures was the subject of a similar recall in 2006. After pulling the firm's raw milk products off store shelves, however, state investigators concluded the cause of the reported illnesses was not unpasteurized milk, but spinach.
Fact:
Had it been spinach which it was not why would I have not sued the spinach manufacturer Dole again? I had multiple suites against it already!
See this from the CDC there was NO link to spinach outbreak:
Escherichia coli 0157:H7 Infections in Children Associated with Raw Milk and Raw Colostrum From Cows — California, 2006
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5723a2.htm
On September 18, 2006, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) was notified of two children hospitalized with hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). One of the patients had culture-confirmed Escherichia coliO157:H7 infection, and both patients had consumed raw (unpasteurized) cow milk in the week before illness onset. Four additional cases of E. coli O157:H7 infection in children who had consumed raw cow milk or raw cow colostrum produced by the same dairy were identified during the following 3 weeks. In California, intrastate sale of raw milk and raw colostrum is legal and regulated. This report summarizes the investigation of these cases by CDPH, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), and four local health departments and subsequent actions to prevent illnesses. As a result of this and other outbreaks, California enacted legislation (AB 1735), which took effect January 1, 2008, setting a limit of 10 coliforms/mL for raw milk sold to consumers. Raw milk in several forms, including colostrum, remains a vehicle of serious enteric infections, even if the sale of raw milk is regulated.
In mid-September 2006, the parent of one of the two children hospitalized with HUS notified CDFA that both children had consumed raw skim milk from dairy A in the days before illness onset. CDFA notified CDPH and the local health departments of the reports. Dairy A, a licensed raw milk dairy, sells raw milk, raw cream, raw butter, raw cheese, raw colostrum,* and kefir throughout California at retail stores and nationwide via Internet sales, all under a single brand (brand A).
On September 21, 2006, based on the reports from CDPH, CDFA issued a recall and quarantine order for all raw milk, raw cream, and raw colostrum produced by dairy A. The order was extended on September 22 to include all raw products from dairy A, except for cheeses aged at least 60 days according to California and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) standards. Dairy A also was placed under a separate restriction by CDFA during September 21–29 that prevented it from bottling fluid milk and cream because of persistent high standard plate counts.
For this investigation, a case was defined as illness with an onset date of August 1, 2006, or later in a California resident with 1) culture-confirmed E. coli O157:H7 infection with the outbreak strain or 2) HUS with or without culture confirmation, and exposure to raw milk. Case finding was conducted by notifying all California local health departments and infection-control practitioners and reviewing molecular subtyping results from the CDPH Microbial Diseases Laboratory. The 61 health jurisdictions in California were notified on September 20, 2006, to be alert for cases of E. coli O157:H7 and other Shiga toxin-producing E. coli associated with consumption of raw milk. They were asked to report immediately to CDPH any enteric illnesses associated with raw milk or colostrum consumption.
Six cases were identified; four persons had culture-confirmed infections, one had a culture-confirmed infection and HUS, and one had HUS only. The median age of patients was 8 years (range: 6–18 years), and four of the patients (67%) were boys. The six cases identified during this investigation were geographically dispersed throughout California. All six patients reported bloody diarrhea; three (50%) were hospitalized. Illness onset occurred during September 6–24, 2006. Isolates from the five patients with culture-confirmed infections had indistinguishable pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) patterns. The PFGE pattern was new to the PulseNet (the National Molecular Subtyping Network for Foodborne Disease) database and differed markedly from the pattern of the E. coli O157:H7 strain associated with a concurrent multistate outbreak linked to spinach consumption (1). Four of the five E. coli O157:H7 isolates were subtyped by multiple-locus variable-number tandem repeat analysis (MLVA) according to a protocol used by CDPH laboratory and were found to have closely related MLVA patterns (2).
Five of six patients reported they had consumed brand A raw dairy products in the week before their illness onset; the sixth patient denied drinking brand A raw milk, although his family routinely purchased it. Among the five patients who consumed brand A dairy products, two consumed raw whole milk, two consumed raw skim milk, and one consumed raw chocolate-flavored colostrum. Four of the five patients routinely drank raw milk from dairy A. One patient was exposed to brand A dairy product only once; he was served raw chocolate colostrum as a snack when visiting a friend. No other food item was commonly consumed by all six patients. No other illness was reported among household members who consumed brand A dairy products.
To assess the level of exposure to raw dairy products among patients with E. coli O157:H7 infection, CDPH epidemiologists reviewed exposure histories for the 50 most recent E. coli O157:H7 cases reported to CDPH during 2004–2006. Among patients who had been asked about exposure to raw milk on the case report, only one of 47 (2%) had consumed raw milk in the week before illness onset. Exposure to raw milk was similarly low (3%) among Californians who responded to a population survey (3).
Environmental Investigation
Using purchase information supplied by the patients' families, investigators determined that the patients consumed raw milk from lots produced at dairy A during September 3–13, 2006. Milk samples from these production dates were not available for testing. Fifty-six product samples from several lots with code dates of September 17, 2006, or later were retrieved from retails stores and dairy A and were tested for aerobic microflora, total coliform, fecal coliform, and E. coli O157:H7. The outbreak strain of E. coli O157:H7 was not found in any product samples. However, standard aerobic plate counts and coliform counts of collected samples with code dates of September 17 through October 9, 2006, were indicative of contamination (Table). Colostrum samples had high standard plate counts and total coliform counts, and fecal coliform counts of 210–46,000 MPN/g. California standards limit standard plate counts for raw and pasteurized milk to 15,000 CFU/mL and total coliform counts for pasteurized milk to 10 coliform bacteria/mL. At the time of this outbreak, California did not have a coliform standard for milk sold raw to consumers. California also classifies colostrum as a dietary supplement, for which it has no microbiologic standards, rather than a milk product.
CDFA and CDPH conducted an initial inspection and environmental investigation of the milk plant and dairy on September 26. E. coli O157:H7 was not isolated from any of four environmental samples. Samples from three heifers yielded E. coli O157:H7, but the PFGE and MLVA patterns of these E. coli O157:H7 isolates differed from the outbreak pattern.
Reported by: J Schneider, MPH, J Mohle-Boetani, MD, D Vugia, MD, California Dept of Public Health. M Menon, MD, EIS officer, CDC.
Editorial Note:
Raw cow milk and raw milk products have been implicated in the transmission of multiple bacterial pathogens, including Campylobacter spp., Brucella, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., and E. coli. In a recent review of E. coli O157 infections, raw milk products accounted for 4% of outbreaks during a 20-year period (4). E. coli O157:H7 is responsible for an estimated 73,000 cases of illness annually, and serious sequelae, including HUS and death (5). Children, older adults, and persons with low levels of gastric acid are particularly vulnerable (6).
Raw milk products tested from dairy A were not produced during the same time as the products consumed by the patients in this outbreak. Although the outbreak strain of E. coli O157 was not isolated from dairy A products, the tested products did have high standard plate counts, many exceeding California standards for raw milk, and total coliform counts that exceeded California standards for pasteurized milk. Nonoutbreak strains of E. coli O157 also were isolated from samples from dairy A cows, indicating shedding of this pathogen in the herd. Raw milk from dairy A was the likely vehicle of transmission, but the exact mode of milk contamination in this outbreak was not determined. Asymptomatic cows can harbor pathogens and cause human illness by shedding pathogens in untreated milk or milk products. These findings suggest that if raw milk had been subject to the same coliform standard as pasteurized milk in California, milk from dairy A might have been excluded from sale and this outbreak might have been averted.
FDA mandates that all milk and milk products for direct human consumption be pasteurized in final package form if they are to be shipped for interstate sale (7). States regulate milk shipped within their state. Currently, 21 states require pasteurization of all milk products for sale. However, 25 states, including California, allow raw milk to be sold in some form to the public. Those states that permit the sale and consumption of raw milk report more outbreaks of foodborne disease attributed to raw milk than those states that have stricter regulations. During 1973–1992, raw milk was implicated in 46 reported outbreaks. Nearly 90% of these outbreaks (40 out of 46) occurred in states that allow the sale of raw milk, suggesting that even the regulated sale of raw milk might not be adequate to prevent associated illnesses (8).
This is the first outbreak reported to CDC in which colostrum has been an implicated food vehicle. This outbreak represents the first time colostrum has been reported to CDC as a form of raw milk consumed by any patients in raw milk–associated outbreak, although information on the type of raw milk is reported inconsistently in outbreak surveillance. Colostrum is purported to have increased concentrations of nutrients and protective antibodies and is marketed as a dietary supplement in California; consequently, it is regulated by the CDPH Food and Drug Branch. The colostrum products tested in this investigation were nearly as contaminated as other forms of raw milk tested; therefore, in this outbreak, the risk for human illness from consuming either product was probably similar. Exemption of colostrum from state dairy regulations is not supported by the findings in this outbreak investigation.
From 1998 to May 2005, raw milk or raw milk products have been implicated in 45 foodborne illness outbreaks in the United States, accounting for more than 1,000 cases of illness (CDC, unpublished data, 2007). Because illnesses associated with raw milk continue to occur, additional efforts are needed to educate consumers and dairy farmers about illnesses associated with raw milk and raw colostrum. To reduce the risk for E. coli O157 and other infections, consumers should not drink raw milk or raw milk products.
Acknowledgments
This report is based, in part, on data contributed by D Buglino, MPH, K Smith-Sayer, Nevada County Public Health Dept; S Fortino, Riverside County Dept of Public Health; J Van Meter, MPH, County of San Diego Health and Human Svcs Administration; E Frykman, MD, San Bernardino County Dept of Public Health; L Crawford-Miksza, PhD, C Myers, S Himathongkham, DVM, M Palumbo, PhD, J Atwell, T Chang, D Csuti, S Fontanoz, Y Gerbremichael, J Glover, DVM, J O'Connell, B Sun, DVM, C Wheeler, MD, Y Zhao, California Dept of Public Health; California Dept of Food and Agriculture; and M Lynch, MD, Div of Foodborne, Bacterial, and Mycotic Diseases, CDC.
References
1. CDC. Ongoing multistate outbreak of Escherichia coli serotype O157:H7 infections associated with consumption of fresh spinach—United States, September 2006. MMWR 2006;55:1045–6.
2. Hyyti-Trees E, Smole SC, Fields PA, Swaminathan B, Ribot EM. Second generation subtyping: a proposed PulseNet protocol for multiple-locus variable-number tandem repeat analysis of Shiga toxin-producingEscherichia coli O157 (STEC O157). Foodborne Pathog Dis 2006;3:118–31.
3. CDC. Foodborne diseases active surveillance network (FoodNet): population survey atlas of exposures, 2002. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2004:205. Available athttp://www.cdc.gov/foodnet/surveys/pop/2002/2002atlas.pdf.
4. Rangel JM, Sparling PH, Crowe C, Griffin PM, Swerdlow DL. Epidemiology of Escherichia coli O157:H7 outbreaks, United States, 1982–2002. Emerg Infect Dis 2005;11:603–9.
5. Mead PS, Slutsker L, Dietz V, et al. Food-related illness and death in the United States. Emerg Infect Dis 1999;5:607–25.
6. Dundas S, Todd WT, Stewart AI, et al. The central Scotland Escherichia coli O157:H7 outbreak: risk factors for the hemolytic uremic syndrome and death among hospitalized patients. Clin Infect Dis 2001;33:923–31.
7. Food and Drug Administration. Grade "A" pasteurized milk ordinance: 2003 revision. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2004. Available at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~ear/pmo03toc.html.
8. Headrick ML, Korangy S, Bean NH, et al. The epidemiology of raw milk-associated foodborne disease outbreaks reported in the United States, 1973 through 1992. Am J Public Health 1998;88:1219–21.
* Raw colostrum is secreted during the first few days after giving birth. It contains higher amounts of protein and antibodies than regular raw milk, but is processed in the same way as raw milk.
The 60-day curing process has historically been considered sufficient to eliminate or reduce pathogens that were in the milk; however, its efficacy has been questioned, and FDA is reviewing the safety of raw milk cheeses.
I've raised 4 children, and we have personally been through many bouts of diarrhea over the years. Admittedly, there were only a few times they were taken to the doctor, and only when they were very small and it was severe enough to worry me. Even then, no stools were taken. So I'm assuming that stool samples are taken only in the most severe cases, and only under very specific circumstances. Granted, they can't test stools on everyone, and it is unpleasant collecting them.
It just seems that quite a lot of resources are being expended to attempt to implicate one farm and one person, when it is quite possible the real culprit may be getting passed up at the first entry site of the investigation – the stool sample. They're going out to the farm and testing, and they can't find what they're looking for. They want to confirm it, like they've never wanted anything else, because that will tie up their case in prosecution to close the place down. That is clear to me as a bystander. But what if it really isn't O.P., and they are completely missing the boat? Wouldn't the money be better spent testing more children and building a larger base of evidence?
"The 61 health jurisdictions in California were notified on September 20, 2006, to be alert for cases of E. coli O157:H7 and other Shiga toxin-producing E. coli associated with consumption of raw milk. They were asked to report immediately to CDPH any enteric illnesses associated with raw milk or colostrum consumption."
How, then, would they find the source of E. coli 0157:H7 if it were caused by something else, since all of the cases tested would have consumed raw milk? This is driven epidemiology, not accurate epidemiology.
I live in California and have had a child that developed HUS. I also know another family that also lives in California and had a positive culture for E.coli 0157:H7 and HUS, I can tell you the process our families both went through.
Our family belongs to Californias largest HMO. On Thursday September 7th, Chris diarrhea started strong (every 20 to 30 minutes) all day long but he was not in any pain. When I arrived home from work at 6:30 p.m., I was alarmed by the frequency of his diarrhea. He was watching T.V. and running back and forth to the toilet. At about 7:30, a BM had blood in it which triggered us to take Chris to the emergency room. Our community hospital is about 40 miles from our home. We arrived around 9:00 p.m. The 1 hours after blood appeared, his symptoms significantly became worse. The pain became severe causing him to vomit with each round of diarrhea. He became very weak and needed assistance to the bedside commode. The diarrhea was more blood than fecal matter. He was oozing mucus out of his rectum. At 5:00 a.m. Friday morning, Chris was admitted into the hospital. They cultured for all different bacteria, including E.coli 0157:H7. Monday, everything came back negative, however, that same day he was diagnosed with HUS
They asked us all sorts of questions about what Chris ate and where he had been. They did not ask us if he drank raw milk or unpasteurized juice. My husband offered up the information about raw milk. They knew he drank raw milk when they cultured his fecal samples
The other family has a similar story. Lauren went to the emergency room at her local community hospital on Friday morning September 8th. Her diarrhea started Thursday September 7th and by late evening she had blood in her B.M. Melissa, Laurens mom called a friend who was an emergency room nurse and she said to take her to urgent care in the morning. Lauren suffered intense stomach pains and diarrhea all night long. She did not sleep.
Friday morning Melissa took Lauren to urgent care and they told her to take Lauren to the emergency room. They checked her out, thought she had some sort of travelers diarrhea, took some fecal samples and sent her home. They told Melissa to bring her back if she got worse. If they did ask Melissa if Lauren drank raw milk, she would have replied no because Melissa had no knowledge of Lauren drinking raw milk. Her ex-husbands girlfriend gave it to her over Labor Day Weekend. They cultured for bacteria, including E.coli 0157:H7 without knowledge that she drank raw milk.
Sunday morning Melissa was extremely alarmed by Laurens symptoms and took her back to the emergency room. It was so crowed Lauren had to lay on a gurney in the hallway for 12 hours until they could get to her. Lauren was finally examined out in the hall, they ran some tests and she was entered into the hospital. Monday morning the fecal samples taken from Friday came back. She tested positive for E.coli 0157:H7 and later that day she was diagnosed with HUS.
Both children were sent to the same childrens hospital. Lauren arrived on Tuesday September 12th and Chris Thursday September 14th. Melissa and I found each other in the PICU visiting room on September 17th. I overheard her talking on her cell phone about Lauren and it sounded like she had HUS. I went up and asked her and this is when we discovered both children had consumed the same brand of raw milk (by this time Laurens dad shared that she had a smoothie on Labor Day weekend that was made with raw milk). The next day, September 18th, Melissa called CDFA and reported the two ill kids with HUS. At this time, one other child in California also tested positive with the same matching blueprint to Lauren. The recall and quarantine of this dairys products began on September 21st. In the end, 6 children became ill, 5 testing positive for the same finger print of E.coli 0157:H7 and two develop HUS, with one of these children never testing positive for any bacteria.
Id like to point out the obvious similar timeline:
Labor Day Weekend–Both kids consumed the same brand of raw milk
Thursday–relentless, painful diarrhea, along with blood began on the same day
Fridayfecal matter samples taken to be cultured. Takes three days for the results
Sundayboth children had CT tests done showing that they did not have appendicitis, but some sort of inflamed bowel issue. Possible Crohns, or colitis
MondayLaurens culture was positive for E.coli 0157:H7, all Chris cultures came back negative. Both diagnosed with HUS
Gwen, maybe the severity of these two childrens symptoms, especially blood being in their B.M., is what triggered an immediate culture for E.coli 0157:H7.
That is what it appears to be. No different than accusing the cucumbers of Spain during the latest outbreak in Europe. A lynching. You're more than welcome, glad I could help.
I am also waiting for an answer to your question.
This much I do know, there is definitely a CDC recommended screening process for community acquired diarrheal infections that need be conducted before initiating stool samples analysis with antisera for Shiga toxins.
Epidemiology is indeed driven and far from accurate.
Perhaps you and Silvia could answer this question for me.
How often are antimotility agents used on people who enter the hospital with diarrheal illnesses and what are the chances that the children from this recent so called OP caused epidemic received this type of drug?
Ken Conrad
Even though both of you are nurses, most people who become ill from a foodborne illness are not part of an outbreak investigation. And even if you had cared for someone who had a foodborne illness, if it was severe and the patient had been a part of an outbreak, they wouldnt be under your care for long. They would be sent to an ICU or PICU. Unless you work with this population, you would not witness the next step of the public health investigation. Thats assuming the investigation took place while the patient was in the hospital. If the patient was not hospitalized for a long period of time, the investigation could take place once the patient has returned home.
Shortly after Melissa notified CDFA, a group of public health officials came to the hospital asking us all sorts of questions about what Chris ate, places he had visited, etc. This was the official questionnaire used in the investigation. They did not interview Melissa because Lauren was fed food in other persons home. I can only assume they spoke to this person and asked her the same questions on the questionnaire, as well as the other child that lived in San Diego. Once the other 3 children were identified, Im assuming they were all questioned in the same way. I highly doubt that public health officials only interviewed our family.
As for the public health alert, after Melissa called CDFA, it was discovered that another child in San Diego California had been hospitalized shortly for E.coli 0157:H7 infection, had consumed raw milk and had the matching blueprint of E.coli 0157:H7 to Lauren. Two kids had HUS and two kids had matching blueprints. This defines an outbreak. These three children were identified before the September 20th alert to the 61 health jurisdictions went out. Identifying these three kids is why the alert when out. This is standard protocol for all outbreaks, regardless of the food consumed.
Here is an example of a model program called Team Diarrhea.
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/06/team-d-minnesota-model-for-foodborne-illness-investigations/
Thank you for your response. I appreciate you taking the time to inform me of the facts of the 2006 outbreak versus now, and how OPDC and McAfee handled it versus now. We do not yet know all of the facts for this 2011 outbreak, and as a concerned customer of OPDC I will hold judgement of this outbreak until we know more details.
For those who do not appreciate Mary Martin's or Bill Marler's posts here, well, I hope your child never gets sick from food and you do not require their support in the future. The fact is, yes, there are other people doing it way worse than Mark McAfee and OPDC. It seems that daily there are food recalls and cases for Marler.
However, ecoli 0157:H7 is a reality in our food system.
What do I as a mother do about that fact? I lessen my contact with it by buying locally and organic. The fact is, my children and I do not have the strongest immunity right now. I am exploring GAPS for my family. My children are both under 5 years old. Do you suggest that I feed them raw milk from OPDC knowing that? I had thought OPDC was safe because it meets both of my requirements: it's local and organic. Before I started reading this blog regularly just a few short months ago, I was under the impression that it was a small family owned operation. Much of what I have read here is basically shocking.
Can we still support raw milk and question the integrity of it's leadership? Is there not a place for dissension and disagreement in this discussion?
Sincerely,
Kristen Papac
2006: 3 strains of E. coli O157:H7 cultured from OPDC heifer feces
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5723a2.htm
2007: 50 strains of Campylobacter jejuni plus Campylobacter coli, Campylobacter fetus, Campylobacter hyointetinalis, and Campylobacter lari cultured from OPDC dairy cow feces.
http://www.marlerclark.com/pdfs/ClusterofCampylobacterinfectionsrawmilkEpi22007.pdf
2007: Listeria monocytogenes cultured from Organic Pastures Grade A raw cream
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ArchiveRecalls/2005/ucm112271.htm
2008: Campylobacter cultured from Organic Pastures Grade A raw cream
http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/egov/Press_Releases/Press_Release.asp?PRnum=08-061
MW
David..I will still read every article you write and look to you for information regarding these food war issues. Thank you for all that you do.
You are being pretty easily intimidated if you'll let a few apologists for the public health and legal communities silence you. These are the easy people. If we're going to get anywhere, we'll need to be able to stand up to the real bullies who aren't commenting here.
David
I also know what it is like to feel that the cause for that near loss is one thing on one day, and another thing on another day. I have thought it was the antibiotics I was given during childbirth; the herbicide spray truck I got stuck behind on the road the day prior to my going into early labor, and finally what I have settled upon is the bath she was given within a few hours after a healthy birth, reversing the vascular transition from amniotic fluid to air and keeping a patent foramen ovale that could only be forced closed and pulmonary resistance reversed by a ventilator; which just happened to blow two holes in her lungs in the process.
I have indeed been around when evaluations have been done on food poisoning. I have worked in subcritical care now for more of my career than any other field, and have floated in 2 different critical care units. I've given numerous blood transfusions to people whilst cleaning up their bloody stools from the other end, and have cared for people on ventilators. And I have provided follow-up care as a home care nurse.
All of that being said, my interest in E. coli 0157:H7 is multifaceted. It is partially driven by something intangible in the controversy that has been burning in the back of my head for a few years now. There is a curiosity formed around some missing piece of a puzzle. I'm not likely to let that go.
Given that it is likely that the infection was caused by raw milk in your case, or colostrum, or whatever it was, the fact remains that only the worst cases were most likely tested. Therefore, because of the raw milk link, even though I mostly believe you, it is still quite possible that the small number of children tested hid other possible causes. Most people who contract this bacteria are not made sick by it. My husband and I both grew up in large dairy families who drank and still drink raw milk, and no person in either of our experiences was knowingly made sick by that. I've done a lot of reading about why that may be. I am a non-believer in the epidemiological process. I'll state that again. I am a non-believer in it. I've been donning isolation gowns for 14 years now, only to see MRSA and C. diff spread worse than I ever imagined it would. That is evidence-based practice for you. The disease model is NOT working.
I also grew up on a farm, am married to a farmer; am negligibly active in farming organizations, and I understand that food production now and in the future is crucial to our health; and I do not want most people's food to come from factory farms if at all possible. The population isn't decreasing though.
Please don't mistake my obsessive-compulsive wanting to know the answer to a question as disregard for your experience or your position. If I have a patient who has disseminated intravascular coagulation, I want to know what condition caused it, and how, so I look it up, and read about it, sometimes on and off for months, or years.
I've been following E. coli 0157:H7 for years now. It has been a question in my mind for quite some time, how the BEGINNING of the epidemiology studies drive the results, and more importantly, how that drives policy development from an evidence base. I live the putting-into-practice of the results of these things on a daily basis. The process is not, and will never be fool-proof. I'm not interested in the emotional part of it right now. I'm not interested in what happened after the diagnosis was made.
I am interested in why infectious E. coli is in not just raw milk, but pasteurized milk, deli meats, peanuts, and daycare centers and in nursing homes. I am interested in the fact the government is expending their resources chasing evidence that hasn't yet been discovered in ONE place (in hopes to CATCH it) instead of focusing on the larger picture, and I am not interested in the opinion of a lawyer making money off of harassing O.P. on a blog like this, and his picking up possible customers. What happened to the birds? Is anyone still looking at birds? Rodents? Why isn't anyone talking about those things? No. They think they've got it narrowed down, and they're going to get that big dairy shut down and save a load of children – about 6 per year, maybe. THAT is not going to fix things. Not at ALL.
THAT is going to waste a whole lot of money. Except, if they can somehow keep O.P. open, they can keep making money off of them, eh? Keep having a reason to pay people to investigate, raid and sue? Sure looks like it to me.
I know where Mark McAfee is, over near Fresno. Excuse me if I sound brash, but after 7 or so years reading here, thanks for the info. Yes, false information needs to be corrected, and people need to be kept informed, but the focus of that;…the focus of that redirection; it needs to change.
Ken, I avoided pediatrics so I am not sure what their protocol is, prefer adults, adult size teenagers were ok. It was @15 or so years ago, when I last gave any antimotility agents- I think it was a patient with ulcerative colitis (i'm not sure). Stools were counted and measured on med-surg and telemetry floors, labs were watched closely and IVF and/or blood and TPN administered as ordered.
I don't know what parents do in the home or what the MDs tell the parents to give kids. When my kids were young, 30 yrs ago, on the rare occasion when they got diarrhea, I was told to just watch and give fluids, told NOT to give anti dirrheals, etc and call or go to ED if the child worsened.My kids never had any stool samples taken. Their MD explained that if there was a bacteria causing the diarrhea, I didn't want to give something that would allow it to build up in the gut. That made sense to me.
And, dont be fooled by the fact that California paid Mark for a portion of his milk losses in 2006 – http://www.marlerblog.com/uploads/file/stipulation_release.pdf. They will do it again in 2011 as they would do to any milk producer under similar circumstances. The payment was not because the state was wrong about the link between Marks product and the illnesses.
Mark, it is time to fess up and move on. You have enough in your bucket. It would be good for you, for Weston A. Price and for Mary Martin.
govt. authorities unload a ton of bricks on innocent farmer, via the media. Not long after, the govt. sort of apologizes. "but the damage was done"
when you're weighing the triple hearsay from anonymous sources about OPD … answer me this ; has the government ever lied to you before?
in BC, I've got the Chief Medical Health Officer admitting on official stationery that the tale he told in 2009 = about some "poor little waif lying in hospital after drinking raw milk" = was utterly unfounded. But did we see a line of print retracting that lie, blazed nation-wide? Not bloody likely
————————————–
Heber dairy not source of illness
Artisan cheese factory wrongly accused by downtown media
Gina Barker, The Park Record
Posted: 11/11/2011 04:12:38 PM MST
Third-generation dairy farmer Grant Kohler opened Heber Valley Artisan Cheese last spring as a way to keep money coming into the family farm.
He was struggling to keep the business afloat, so he decided selling raw milk and cheeses to carve a new niche in the market was better than moving the farm.
Budgets were tight, but he felt good about the fresh and local message he was sending.
So when a Salt Lake City news outlet wrongly reported that a man was selling cheese made from raw milk out of his trunk in Midway and that people were getting sick, Kohler was stunned. He was the only raw milk producer in the area.
"Ever since Friday night we've had people calling and asking, 'Are we going to get sick from your cheese should we drink your milk,'" Kohler said.
The Salt Lake City Health Department incorrectly told reporters that a West Valley man was using raw milk he got in Heber Valley, suggesting it was Kohler's milk that was behind the salmonella outbreak. 10 p.m. the same day, the health department was issuing an apology to Heber Valley Artisan Cheeses.
"We're so tight trying to get this business started," Kohler said. "The farm had its worst two years since the Great Depression. If this rumor continues we could lose the farm, a four-generation farm."
Though news outlets were quick to report the mistake, the damage was done. On Monday, Kohler had only 15 customers, a massive drop from the average 100 customers he sees in a day.
"It shows what happens when we don't have all the facts," Kohler said. "It wasn't our problem; the source had nothing to do with Heber or Midway. And this is devastating to us. We're innocent bystanders to this story."
Not only were no inquiries made to Heber Valley Artisan Cheese about the outbreak, the raw milk producer has never been under any investigation for any type of food- borne illness. As a raw milk producer, Kohler is required to meet more rigorous standards for his business. He is required to get his milk tested every month and must have all the dairy cows inspected twice a year.
"Things have been very good till we hit this," Kohler said. "I'm nervous about what the future will bring."
Kohler swears by the freshness of his product. He said that pasteurized milk can take up to a week to reach grocery stores where as his raw milk is on the shelves the same day it came from the cows. He added that he won't keep it on the shelves for more than two days.
"Offering raw milk gives people a choice," Kohler said. "If they like raw milk they can get it. We're giving people options."
For now, the farm is trying to recover. Heber Valley Artisan Cheese produces roughly 400 gallons of milk in a day and the farm sells around 100 pounds of cheese in a day, ranging from fresh mozzarella to cheddar to more gourmet varieties.
As Christmas approaches, the creamery is selling gift baskets for the holidays stuffed with the creamery's cheeses and locally-made jams
"CLERMONT, Fla. (CBS Tampa) A Florida inmate is suing the states prison system for pulling the pork from his meals.
"Eric Harris, a 32-year-old convicted pedophile who is serving a life sentence, suggests Lake Correctional Institutions policy of serving a vegan diet is seriously affecting the quality of his life sentence.
"The Weston A. Price Foundation, a special interest group against soy products, will pick up the cases legal expenses, and announced it has class-action ambitions including other prisoners, prison guards and taxpayers."
http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2011/11/08/florida-prisoner-suing-over-cruel-and-unusual-soy-based-meals/
Is this a responsible way for WAPF to use their members' donations?
"Joellen Rackleff, a Department of Corrections spokeswoman, said meals are half soy and half poultry. Serving all meat means the $47 million food budget would double."
Who's picking up the tab if WAPF wins this lawsuit? WAPF? Or the taxpayers of Florida? And for what…to buy more CAFO meat?
I thought the film was well done and am glad that the general public will get a chance to learn about some of the issues that are generally discussed here. I wish it had some positive message for the future.
It might appear as if Bill has jumped in out of the blue because of the current outbreak. Mark didnt like that a reporter interviewed me and sent a threatening email, so now Bill is here. Ive never understood what Mark hopes to accomplish by threatening me or Bill Marler.
Many people share your stereotypical perception of Bill Marler. If you took time to investigate what the man does for a living besides running a law firm, you may form a different view of him.
As for why some people get more ill than others when E.coli 0157:H7 is ingested, could it simply be that the pathogenic bacteria are not evenly distributed in food? The larger number of bacteria a person consumes the more ill a person will become. Also, some strains are more virulent than others.
Also, thank you for being a nurse. I have nothing but the greatest respect for all that work in hospitals, especially anyone who deals with the critically ill. It is a hell of a job to do day in and day out and nurses dont get enough credit for the amazing job they do. Nurses hold the place together. The doctors just pop in and out.
For the record, I feel heartbroken for Mark and his family. The timing of this outbreak couldnt be worse. He has worked very hard to establish RAWMI and I supported his efforts to establish raw milk safety standards. Im not sure where all this will lead now that he is reliving 2006.
"Ready Pac lettuce recalled after E. coli test"
It doesn't appear that they were shut down and quarantined. Imagine that! This difference in treatment only re-enforces a lynching & singling raw milk
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/default.htm
Were any of these companies shut down and quarantined? Doesn't appear so.
http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=06000&progcode=dairy&yr=mtotal
"Dairy Program Subsidies in California totaled $434 million from 1995-2010."
follow the money….from so many avenues
Did it go to court? With a jury? Or just before a judge and insurance companies?
"There were 2 children that were sickened in 2006. They did not have matching pathogens. In other words, when they were hospitalized they checked the bacteria that made them sick. They did not match."
Are you saying that the e-coli the kids had–at least the ones who tested positive–are you saying it matched any e-coli from OP milk or farm or cows?
"Whenever you accuse somebody of making someone sick, theyve got to have matching pathogens, and they did not. "
If they had the matching e-coli, then it would have been an open and shut case. Since they went by speculation….it will always be an unknown for many.
Mark, only a select few are allowed to talk about this case and you are not one of them. tsktsk.
Mary, the reading I've done about E. coli and HUS suggests that in severe cases, it is an issue of cellular gates, particularly in children. It is simply not known if some children have an adverse reaction to E. coli infections due to a less developed immunity, or if it is a genetic anomaly that causes them to become ill when others don't. Exposure to a pathogen does increase the likelihood of acquiring it, but in the case of E. coli, I don't think the inoculation of a few children could have been greater than the majority unless the circumstances were very unusual (e.g., one bottle getting the majority in the batch). I got an "A" in anatomy and physiology and in microbiology in nursing school 15 years ago. I'm taking pathophysiology now, and my textbook, published in 2010 has tons more in it about the actions of cytokines and antibodies in cellular and vascular compartments than my books from 15 years ago. The human genome has been mapped since then, and studies on the immune system and reactions to viruses and bacteria have taken off, partially thanks to AIDS and research on cancer and autoimmune diseases. The book for my current class expects us to memorize the genes that many anomalies exist on and how those genes affect cellular function! I can only imagine that the research work is painstaking and boring, but so much is being discovered now, on a frequent basis, that I don't think we are far from understanding quite a few cellular problems that we don't currently understand. Immunity in particular is amazing. I'm not a doctor, and this isn't biochemistry, but it is a topic I've been following and picking doctors brains about for a while now.
I believe that our perception of how disease and bacterial illnesses are acquired and spread is going to be rocked in a major way in the next 5-10 years, and that the entire evidence base is going to require a change of the national system in addressing how disease happens, and how we treat it. The legal actions based around the old framework will likely be shattered. The CDC, FDA and USDA can currently be influenced by lobbyists and PACs, but they won't stand up to evidence in the long haul in a truly democratic system; unless that system is indeed becoming some more modern version of being fascist. The foodies are fighting the old system, but evidence from the inside is what is going to really change it. Right now I'm working on a bachelors in nursing… been an ADN since '97. ADNs and BSNs take the same board exam – many people don't know that. The BSN is simply a step towards a masters for me. Possibly an MSN, but I have enjoyed patho so much that I might change my mind and do something with cellular biology. Who knows? I doubt a masters in anything would affect the evidence/research from inside, no matter what the background, but I wouldn't mind being a part of that happening. Consequently, "evidence" is a nursing theory word, and "research," is a medical one.
I just don't see how lifelong exposure to raw milk would have exposed just about everyone in my family to any less pathogens than a child who only drank raw milk for a short time. I don't perceive that as being possible. I pulled my cow's manure-covered hoof out of the milk bucket numerous times, strained the milk and drank it as a teenager and an adult. I made yogurt from it. There is another explanation. I believe it lies in genetics and the building of immune systems; and lies in that disease is associated with the mass production of food impinging on many ecosystems that interconnect. The "cure" has more to do with figuring out the interconnections than in nailing one dude.
It is not sacreligious to disbelieve anyone posting here. It is prudent. I don't believe the claims of WPF, O.P., Bill Marler, or the FDA, and I don't believe the old framework that current law is based upon. People have their heads stuck in "stomp out disease," and "stomp out evil." That really isn't going to figure anything out.
I don't believe Bill Marler is doing anything other than making money here because he didn't listen to certain trains of thoughts several years ago, and disregards the same trains now. For instance, he has ignored the idea that the epidemiology is based on faulty studies, and continues to post similar faulty studies, which I am not even going to bother reading. I have been disappointed each and every time I've followed one of his links. I never had to sue a hospital or a person for a family member's health. I also refused to permit them to use our daughter's NICU experience in research because I didn't want to deal with anything other than enjoying our daughter's life, at least for a few years, without continual evaluation. Selfish, but true. But if I had to sue someone, I might be grateful to the lawyer who helped me do so. It still does not make them correct in their assessments, and the use of studies to support their suits doesn't do anything for what I'm really interested in here.
And folks, you can post all the studies on raw milk that you like. The fact remains that they were only testing raw milk consumers in most cases, and that in and of itself invalidates most of those studies, so far as I'm concerned. You have to test a larger community and have controls for studies to have any real epidemiological validity.
I've not had time to look at California's standards for testing, so it could be I'm speaking too soon. But I kind of doubt it. I think I'm going to be disappointed.
I know you may think I appear to be easily intimidated, but you have to see it from my perspective. I have acquired 'off the grid' nutrient dense food since the days of Adelle Davis. Those who would cause trouble I can spot a whole state away coming around 'snooping' and trying to make what is not their business their business! When one operates the way I have had to to acquire authentic food for any length of time one learns quickly when to 'fly under the radar.' Now, it has been nice to feel like a 'normal' consumer buying raw milk off the grocery store shelf, but I don't take it for granted and I have that natural instinct to protect my sources/farmers. It also felt nice to be able to talk openly on a forum such as this about these issues, but a kind of putrid odor has wafted across this forum, sometimes not so bad, but lately it's been thick. So, forgive me if I step back behind the curtain and watch what I say.
Really thought provoking post. Thank You.
"revealed that these finished products MAY contain the bacteria." (emphasis mine)
Either it does or it doesn't. No Salmonella illness reported possibly because most don't run to the MD and it resolves itself.
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm280227.htm
"because they MAY be contaminated with E. coli "(emphasis mine)
Again, it is or isn't contaminated. Is the govt not smart enough to state that? Ditto the majority of E-coli cases; asymptomatic or self limiting.
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/Recall_090_2011_Release/index.asp
The chicken liver factory doesn't appear to be shut down and illness is LINKED to them.
Gwen, I agree with your last post.
Peanut buttersalmonella.
Notice it said VOLUNTARY recall. No illnesses. The language using may be contaminated with salmonella is because every jar may not be contaminated. There is no way to know which jars are contaminated and that is why all jars are being recalled.
LettuceE.coli.
Notice it said VOLUNTARY recall. No illnesses. The language using may be contaminated with E.coli 0157:H7 is because every bag may not be contaminated. There is no way to know which bags are contaminated and that is why all bags are being recalled.
Chicken Liversalmonella.
This was a class 1 recall: This is a health hazard situation where there is a reasonable probability that the use of the product will cause serious, adverse health consequences or death.
The chicken livers were not cooked thoroughly. It does state FSIS is continuing to work with states, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) during this ongoing investigation. What is not clear is if a portion of production has been shut down that involves chicken liver production.
Meal Mart is the company which is part of Alle Processing. http://www.alleprocessing.com/alle/
The Company is a vertically integrated firm, engaged in the slaughtering, processing, selling and distributing of Glatt Kosher fresh and frozen beef, veal, lamb and poultry. The company manufactures a full line of Food Service and Consumer products.
This is a huge company producing many products, not just chicken livers. My guess is that investigation means the production of chicken livers has stopped until they can discover why they werent cooked appropriately. All other foods are still allowed to be produced.
Since the govt didn't state that it was shut down and quarantined as it did for raw milk, it just re-enforces what Gwen stated. It's BS, raw milk is singled out,sloppy investigations are done, there are no signs of epidemiological validity. It is guess work on their part. Until the govt corrects and improves their "investigations" they have no validity.
http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/ahfss/milk_and_dairy_food_safety/index.html
Ready-Pac is California-based, 5,379 cases of bagged salad products containing Romaine lettuce with positive E. coli contamination as reported by the fda…
Did they test the strains against what the lettuce has, the kids have and any not yet found on the farm or what was not in the milk they tested that the kids drank?
Comments can be posted.
It is two entirely different types of outbreaks. With the liver, they have found the source of contamination. There is no question that it is the liver. They have shut down production of liver within that company to figure out why it was not cooked correctly.
As for the 5 ill kids in California who all have a matching blueprint of E.coli 0157:H7 and drank the same brand of raw milk, a quarantine has occurred because they are trying to find if the raw milk was the source of the outbreak. Milk tested from the shelves and an unknown number of milk bottles tested that the kids consumed, tested negative for E.coli 0157:H7. Now they are testing everything at the dairy to see if they can find the matching blueprint. Like it or not, epidemiological evidence links the illnesses to the dairy. In the event the dairy is the cause of the outbreak, it was shut down to prevent more illnesses. There has been a steady stream of illnesses since last August. What if another illness happened while the dairy remained open and production of milk was allowed to occur even though they were investigating the farm? These are complicated issues.
If they dont find the matching blueprint, the dairy will reopen. If they do find it, they will try to figure out where the breakdown occurred from milking the cows to getting it into the bottles. In other words, where in the process did the contamination occur? The dairy will be required to fix a list of items and then the dairy will reopen for business.
There is nothing here that is any different for any business where epidemiological evidence points towards a particular source. For example, in the recent cantaloupe outbreak, epidemiological evidence pointed to cantaloupe, so initially all brands of cantaloupe in Colorado were recalled because it took time to figure out it was linked only to Jensen Farms. Del Monte was quite upset about this and wanted to sue the FDA. This was no different that the spinach outbreak. Initially, all packaged spinach was recalled. It took a while to figure out it was only Dole packaged baby spinach.
As for your question about the blueprint of e.coli found in the lettuce, the answer is here. http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/could-this-be-the-real-cause-of-e-coli-infections-in-organic-pastures-raw-milk-customers/ Read the comment section.