It’s a tad awkward writing an assessment of a debate in which I was a participant…so here are a few random reactions to the raw milk debate at Harvard Law School Thursday evening. (If you missed it, you can view the recording on YouTube; it should be up shortly.)
* The two opponents–Heidi Kassenborg of the Minnnesota Department of Agriculture’s dairy division, and Fred Pritzker, a personal injury lawyer–handled well the audience’s clear pro-raw-milk leaning. Kasselbon said upfront, “I am probably not going to be able to persuade you.” Pritzker asked for a show of hands of those who favored raw milk, and was good humored when most everyone raised their hands.
Fred Pritzker and Heidi Kassenborg at Harvard Law School debate last evening. * I thought Pritzker trivialized the argument of food rights. “There is no fundamental right in the Constitution that provides a right to do what you want.” I explained during the question period that the Constitution doesn’t mention food because no one at the time could imagine that the government would seek to prevent us from accessing particular foods, in effect leaving the matter in judicial and legislative hands.
* Though it wasn’t truly a debate as such, there was some good back-and-forth, such as about European studies that show raw milk reduces asthma and allergies in children. Kassenborg pointed out that the study authors have hedged their findings by warning of raw milk’s dangers. Sally Fallon responded that the authors likely have to include such language to get the studies published.
* Neither of our opponents was willing to go near the CDC data I provided showing raw milk illnesses to account for something on the order one-half of one percent of total foodborne illnesses–impressive when you consider that three per cent of the population is projected by the CDC to consume raw milk. Their idea of “data” was to quote all the health care associations that are against raw milk. Did they not want to deal with the quantitative data because it so clearly contradicts their argument?
* Kassenborg began her presentation by showing photos of herself as a child, growing up on a farm. “I drank raw milk, not a lot, but I wouldn’t drink it now.” The reason: “We have new diseases,” the primary one being E.coli O157:H7. I don’t know why, but that observation grates: Raw milk was okay for me, but it’s not okay for any of you.
* Fear mongering was very much in evidence from the other side, especially when Kassenborg asserted that farms that look clean can be deceptive. “What if I get milk at a farm that looks clean…There are all kinds of places along the process where contamination can occur. Have they cleaned every last inch of the udders? What about chickens running around with the cows?…You really are playing a game of Russian Roulette.” She also showed a slide to emphasize the old warning that the udder is close to the anus. She did have some good looking slides to make her points, though.
* Kassenborg made a useful point about the limits of on-farm or other testing. “Contamination is sporadic…and pathogens may be unequally distributed.”
* I thought it was interesting that Fred Pritzker, who has said on his blog that he wants to ban raw milk, during the debate provided conditions under which he would favor it–warning labels, courses for farmers, no sales allowed for children and people with depressed immune systems. My sense is that there would always be objections, but perhaps there was some movement, nonetheless.
* When Kassenborg raised the issue of “the economics of raw milk production,” I thought she was going to mention the economic benefits that accrue to farmers who sell raw milk directly to consumers. But she had something else in mind: “Is it really worth betting the farm” on raw milk? In other words, you could lose the farm in a lawsuit, so better to stay in the system.
* Author Ron Schmid (The Untold Story of Milk) was in the audience, and asked each panelist to provide his or her view of the Constitutional/human rights aspect of raw milk availability. That led a member of the audience to talk about her experience relieving her infant son’s excema by feeding him raw milk. Pritzker talked about how he has a son with disabilities due to genetic disorder, and stated, “But this isn’t about ultimately what you do with your son.” I said I thought the issue did have to do with what we do with our children, and ourselves, and I wondered how people in power could justify depriving people of nutritious healthful food.
* Not to pat ourselves on the back too hard, but I thought Sally Fallon of the Weston A. Price Foundation and I complemented each other real well–she presented on the nutritional benefits of raw milk and the history of pasteurization, and I presented on the illness data and emerging food rights issue.
* Pritzker may have had the best assessment of how this seemingly unresolvable issue will be resolved. “Ultimately, it is a political issue. If enough people want it, you will have it.” Good advice to take to heart in organizing for food rights.
* Some 2,400 people were plugged into the live streaming, which is pretty amazing. Plus more than 150 people in the audience (standing room only).
* The audience questions were excellent, and plentiful…so much so, the event was ended with many people unable to ask their questions.
***
I’ve been aware of a possible problem at Claravale Farm, a raw milk dairy in California, since early this week, when a reader sent me information that its deliveries for this week had been suspended. But I’ve hesitated to report it. Then, a few readers in comments following my previous post, provided clues as to what might be going on–indications of possible illnesses among customers.
Still, I hesitated. The challenge as a journalist is that you want to be first with the news, but you don’t want to be wrong when you are dealing with information that could potentially tarnish an individual’s or business’ reputation. I don’t care whether it’s raw milk or potatoes or pistachio nuts, news about a possible outbreak among customers is potentially very damaging. Especially when there is no compelling reason to be out front with the news–the company has already suspended deliveries, so no new potentially dangerous product is being put out there.
I know the public health authorities are intensively investigating this matter. At least one dairy outside California received an email from a California public health official inquiring as to whether his dairy’s milk might have made it into California. I sensed in the email that the California authorities are trying to take care as well in not putting out news on this matter prematurely, and potentially damaging the company’s reputation. As Sylvia points out in a comment, Claravale has an 85-year record of not ever having had an outbreak, so there is quite a reputation at stake.
It certainly would help the situation if Claravale said something publicly. I haven’t been able to reach Ron Garthwaite, the owner, yet.
All this is prelude to a blog post by food-safety lawyer Bill Marler that this blog “outs Claravale Farm as Source of Outbreak…”
He credits the individuals here with “doing… a public service.” Like I said, it’s a tricky business, and maybe I’m too old fashioned. I just get nervous when I see statements, like from Cali Farmer, “I also heard that a half a dozen kids have been sick with bloody diarrhea and all of them were drinking Claravale.” It’s the “I also heard…” that keeps me on edge. Yes, the social media and blogs are great at providing information the authorities and mainstream media are lax in providing, or just unwilling to provide. But it isn’t always verified information.
I’m always impressed when the community here wants to share important safety and health information as it happens, and I don’t want to discourage that process. At the same time, a small company’s reputation is at stake, and it could be there hasn’t been an “outbreak” attributable to Claravale. So, I always suggest trying to keep the balance in mind.
Certainly the indications aren’t great for Claravale. Still, I’m inclined to wait for more information before calling this an “outbreak.” Back and forth I go.
"I thought Pritzker trivialized the argument of food rights."
This seems to be a theme for tptb..
"Neither of our opponents was willing to go near the CDC data I provided showing raw milk illnesses to account for something on the order one-half of one percent of total foodborne illnesses–impressive when you consider that three per cent of the population is projected by the CDC to consume raw milk."
Putting it perspective may have intimidated them? or perhaps exposed their lies.
"no sales allowed for children and people with depressed immune systems. "
Does this mean kids cannot buy raw milk? Or does he mean that if a parent gives raw dairy to a kid they go to jail? Who is going to ask if someone has a depressed immune system? That is invasion of privacy and against HIPAA laws.
"I wondered how people in power could justify depriving people of nutritious healthful food."
Money
As a cow share owner I believe in total transparency. The same milk my family drinks daily is the same milk I share with friends and neighbors. Our farm was the first in California to test their milk for radiation during the Fukushima meltdown, when most producers sat on their hands. The information was devastating as radiation was showing up with the rains. My grass and milk was showing high levels of Iodine 131. People were in tears as a announced the the bad news. We shifted gears at our farm and created a dry pasture and started feeding pre-Fukishima alfalfa. Because of the short half life of Iodine 131 we provided owners with week old milk My tests changed drastically within a week. We are still testing our milk and grass for radiation. Because of our transparency I have the most committed cowshares in California. When I shared the radiation tests with local large commercial producers they were not interested. They said, "We will just watch the EPA website or we have no way of testing here at our creamery." I am milking four cows and I found a way.
As leaders of a new food paradigm we need to have a close connection with the land, the animals on our farms and the people who trust us to provide them with clean honest wholesome food.
My sources concerning Claravale are not what I would consider as rumors. One came from another cowshare farmer via a pediatric doctor and the other came directly from a cowshare owner. It was with hesitancy that I wrote to your blog comment page. At that time I knew that Claravale had suspended shipping milk in house without the CDFA's involvement. That seemed like enough to break the news.
I am not a journalist but I spent many years as a photojournalist and the direction you point the camera and what you choose to include in your image can change a story. In this case I believe when food safety is involved I would rather error on the side of being too safe than not saying anything at all.
As a farmer I hold Claravale Dairy in high esteem. I have been on conference calls with the owner Ron concerning raw milk and he is a valuable resource. He is someone I look up to as a dairyman.
His milk is amazing Jersey milk and bottled in glass but where is the conversation between Ron and the people who support him?
The CDFA also tested and results will be on Sunday.
I assumed a fair amount of consideration had gone into your comment post. There is no right answer in a difficult situation like that facing Claravale.
Appreciate your points about transparency; you (and your shareholders) have been well served with the radiation episode. You have all benefited.
Claravale should definitely have been more out front on this situation. Rumors and reports build up in a vacuum. If only for reputation, you want to shape the story as much as you can yourself. You definitely don't want the personal injury lawyers shaping it for you.
I know Ron Garthwaite is a very private person, and it could be that, because he's never experienced illnesses associated with his milk, he wasn't sure how best to handle this situation. And as I said, it wasn't as if he was still putting product on the market. He voluntarily halted production as soon as he knew about possible illnesses, which is very much to his credit.
David
I disagree. I would contend that your sources are very much rumours. Did you check with Claravale before erroneously posting about a campylobacter recall?
One came from another cowshare farmer via a pediatric doctor and the other came directly from a cowshare owner
Did you ask the cowshare farmer and cowshare owner why they thought Claravale might be having a recall?
A pediatrician could confirm that he/she had a patient that tested positive for campylobacter but that pediatrician would not be able to tell you where the infection came from unless he/she had also tested all the possible food & water sources or received copies of those tests from parties that did the testing. Its doubtful that the pediatrician in question did that, so the pediatrician would have been speculating about the source of the infection.
Claravale should definitely have been more out front on this situation.
Claravale notified the buying clubs/CSA members of the situation when they stopped shipping.
We received a notice from our clubs manager early in the week explaining that Claravale was:
not releasing any milk for sale this week. They have NOT been shut down and NONE of their products have been recalled All tests done by the (CDFA) in the nearly 100 year history of Claravale (both past and present) have not found any increased levels of bacteria in their milk. However, they had calls from three customers who got sick a couple of weeks ago. This could have been from the milk or something else entirely. In order to be proactive, Claravale had additional tests done this weekend to determine if their milk has been infected with something. They are confident that it has not and so have taken the reports seriously and proactively stopped selling their milk. They will have the results back from the lab at the end of this week. Assuming everything is clear, they will start selling milk again at that time.
If a buying club manager failed to notify their members, that would be a failing on the part of the club manager, not the dairy.
For retail establishments, I think a problem at the plant is good explanation for a halt in shipments while they are checking on things. There was no real reason for Claravale to think that the Claravale products caused any harm and the tests have indeed proved negative. The fact that Claravale chose to take their customer concerns seriously, voluntarily halt shipments (and lose money) to proactively do extra testing and quality control checks speaks volumes about the high level of integrity at Claravale.
Rumors and reports build up in a vacuum.
Would their have been so many rumours if people like Cali Farmer hadnt spread them by posting false assumptions to the internet?
Cali Farmer, why did you choose to post Campylobacter Recall at Claravale? rather than something like Claravale halts shipments? Do you know the difference between a recall versus halting deliveries?
Was the friend of your client on a mono-diet of only Claravale milk or did this friend consume other foods as well? I dont think you know the answer to that. Yet, you quickly seem to assume that anyone who tested positive for campylobacter who also happened to drink Claravale must have gotten the infection from the Claravale milk? Why is that?
If the shoe were on your foot, would you want people quickly posting false accusations and speculations (someone I know heard from someone they know that.) about your farm? Would you have wanted to get your test results back before making further announcements ?
Being at the Harvard Raw Milk Debate I thought it went pretty well for being the first of its kind, however it did glaringly detail the fact that the two sides are not talking to one another yet, still talking at each other and it may take some time to get to actual real conversation.
I feel both sides had good points however both sides are still looking at Data, from very different viewpoints. And to that point, I myself would love to begin studies to really look at the issues both sides raise but when one approaches a lab or university system to do studies or long time frame proper trials after everyone agrees on the trial parameters you need a cool couple of million to compete with the powers that be to get a place in line to hold your studies. So in effect the data that opponents of raw milk site are in fact protected, and in my opinion biased with this problem of labs being held hostage to the money that exists in the big food system. Opponents of raw milk justify their assumptions on the fact that no study has come out to counter their argument, and in fact cant see all the proponents have is what raw milk consumers experience and its leaders beg for space to prove it but is never given the opportunity to do so.
As for the udder anus singularity be proposed as the ills of all the pathogen problems, I feel it is a gross over simplification given that that arrangement of the orifices has always been here as long as we have drank milk from ruminants, and severely ignores the fact that a sea change in the internal flora of a majority of the dairy animals has taken place given the sea change in properly balanced and mineralized diets of our ruminants over the past 60 years.
So it has changed, its is what we need to feed people, so we pasteurize as best we can end of story. Not a wise balance of a holistic approach for understanding a system we depend on very heavily for the human species existence.
I look forward to the day when we do come around the national table and have the discussions outlined and needed above of the opposing forces. Till then I will work towards proper raw milk production and continuing education, work to improve the soils of the interested and return our smaller herds to that natural balance. Move closer every day to that tipping point when the will of the people win over science (or dogma whichever the case) and the political will is delivered, and the sweet taste of success is measured on many levels.
Tim Wightman
I listened to the debate and I would like to congratulate both Sally and you for your thought provoking presentations. Your opponents I felt were up against the wall trying to defend a corrupt, biased and inconsistently enforced system of rules and regulations.
Pritzkers statement, "no sales allowed for children and people with depressed immune systems " is merely a statement to placate the attending audience. If he is indeed serious about officially excluding children what does he expect parents to do, keep their milk under lock and key?
If he knew my story would he no doubt classify me as an abusive and careless parent for feeding raw milk to the twins who were born one month premature including their seven siblings, as well as my grandchildren, nieces, nephews and other family members children etc?
Ken
I'm rooting for the farmers!
http://www(DOT)huffingtonpost(DOT)com/2012/02/16/obama-budget-food-safety-microbiological-data_n_1281469.html?ref=food&ir=Food
"proposed budget would eliminate the nation's only program that regularly tests fruits and vegetables for deadly pathogens, leaving public health officials without a crucial tool used to investigate deadly foodborne illness outbreaks."
Regularly tests? Who told the writer that lie?
FYI Childrens tylenol is recalled.
Good point that the debate "did glaringly detail the fact that the two sides are not talking to one another yet, still talking at each other and it may take some time to get to actual real conversation."
Not sure if you remember, but at the end of my presentation, I asked the other side several questions, including, "Why can't there be more cooperation rather than confrontation?"
They didn't answer that question, and for good reason. There has been no commitment on their part to any kind of ongoing "conversation".
I was impressed that a mid-level regulator agreed to appear in a public forum with Sally and me to begin with, and I publicly acknowledged how positive her willingness to take that step was (both during the debate and privately, before the debate began). Once again, I didn't get any acknowledgment, or similar expression that "it would be nice if this could be the start of some kind of dialog" or anything of that sort.
Assuming this were the start of a dialog, it would be expected for the two sides to talk past each other to some extent during the first meeting or two, to stake out positions. Then, as time went on, there would hopefully be constructive dialog around key issues.
I wish I could say there was something in the offing, say collaborative research into raw milk nutrition or the impact of soil depletion. Then it would be possible to establish dialog around the research parameters, for example.
Unfortunately, I expect the political climate needs to change. The regulators and their bosses need to be convinced that enough people are sufficiently pissed off about the interference in food rights, that dialog then becomes attractive. Until that happens, the status quo, featuring tough enforcement, is the likely short-term scenario.
David
This is a classic case of attacking the messenger. I was merely forwarding information I received from reliable sources. Sources I know and trust. The title for my post was Campylobacter Recall at Claravale? Did you notice the question mark?
question mark
noun
a punctuation mark (?) indicating a question.
figurative used to express doubt or uncertainty about something
Maybe I could have used another title?
You and I obviously have a difference of opinion on how a transparent farm operation runs.
Facts
No postings on Claravale's website (they have a News Link on their website)
Something could be written as simple as:
We have recently stopped production of our dairy products in the interest of food safety.
Please be patient as we investigate the possibility of a problem within our production.
At Claravale we have a 85 year history to uphold of suppling dairy products to our customers without a single food safety issue
Nothing has been posted at their facebook page.
The owners are not responding to emails or phone calls.
"The dairy, which is owned by husband and wife Ron Garthwaite and Collette Cassidy, did not respond to an e-mail and a phone call request for comment from Food Safety News."
"OPDC delivery drivers are reporting to me that CA store dairy case managers are saying the official word is…. "Claravale has a plant problem". There has been no Claravale products in the stores for several days. Their website has no information. They are not answering their phone. CDFA has been silent. Their has been no media coverage at all." Mark McAfee
"It certainly would help the situation if Claravale said something publicly. I haven't been able to reach Ron Garthwaite, the owner, yet. " David Gumpert
"If the shoe were on your foot, would you want people quickly posting false accusations and speculations (someone I know heard from someone they know that.) about your farm?"
The shoe has been on my foot and I was transparent and kept people informed as new information was forthcoming.
"If a buying club manager failed to notify their members, that would be a failing on the part of the club manager, not the dairy."
Claravale also sells milk to the public at Markets, not just buying clubs. You may have been informed but what about the general public?
In this new local food paradigm we have a responsibility to keep our customers informed. To connect people to the food they eat, to be totally transparent, to educate and provide our communities with food that is clean, honest, and wholesome, and care for our animals humanely.
"True genius resides in the capacity for evaluation of uncertain, hazardous, and conflicting information."
Winston Churchill
There was no recall, nor a need for one.
When my buying club notified us of the halt in deliveries, I visited the five retail stores in my area that normally carry Claravale on the slim chance that they might have a bottle or two left on the shelves. It usually sells out the same day but I thought Id give it a try. All of the stores had received a phone call that there were production problems and they wouldnt be receiving deliveries that week. The retail establishments I visited were informed. They relayed the information when I inquired. My friends that buy retail learned the same. I asked them if they felt they had been adequately informed about their milk and they felt they had been.
Im sure the Claravale owners were busy dealing with the extra testing and communicating with those directly impacted. I would expect calls from blogs, reporters and ambulance chasers to wait until there was something definitive to report. If the CDFA has been silent that would be a very big clue that there was nothing of concern to report.
Campylobacter can come from many sources. Many who comment on this blog have complained about how the various government entities and health departments automatically assume the raw milk is the culprit and fail to check for other sources of infection. When you post that someone you know tested positive for campylobater and they drink Claravale, or that half a dozen kids are sick with diarrhea and they drink Claravale, it seems that you and your sources have just done the same.
You are correct that you and I have a difference of opinion on how a transparent farm operation runs. I dont consider announcements without cause to be responsible transparency.
My confidence in Claravale has always been strong. It is now even greater due to the responsible way that they have handled this situation. Im looking forward to having Claravale products back in my refrigerator.
Who does Monsanto own…..
I did not get to hear the whole debate due to livestream interruptions. I missed a lot. Can't wait to see the whole debate. But my impressions jive with Tim's. There was no real debate, it was "he said, she said". Frustrating regurgitation of what we've heard for 10 years from FDA. But I was able to hear David's pitch, which made me applaud!
New fear angle from Kassenberg about losing your farm. They just don't get that we are part of the agriculture landscape, and they refuse to recognize or step up and help out.
They still believe they have credibility and deserve authority. . We pay their salary. One would think they should listen to us,. After all, their time "protecting" us should involve more scientific study. (Not like there isn't enough already – gut health is real health….)
But wouldn't it be great to see some honest independent research?
-Blair
Thanks for your confidence. On the "debate" and the need for more research, one of the things I found astounding was Heidi Kassenborg's disparaging of the European research indicating raw milk reduces the incidence of asthma and allergies. (This wasn't the first time I'd heard the criticism, but each time I hear it, I am astounded.) Because I know that if Big Pharma came up with an experimental drug indicating it would reduce the incidence of asthma and allergies by 25-50%, with no side effects, and a tiny risk of gastrointestinal illness (less than deli meats), there would be lots of excitement, on Wall Street and in the medical community. There would also be calls for expanding the research to learn more about "the science" behind the benefits. I agree, it is discouraging to find the lack of curiosity, the absence of openness, from those we pay to exhibit such qualities.
David
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
I agree with Blair's comment "they still believe they have credibility and deserve authority". They forget that when they make the average citizen a criminal by imposing stupid laws like banning raw milk they lose that credibility and we no longer respect their authority.
Wayne Craig
No, the debate hasn't been taken down…it just hasn't gone up yet. I was told it would go up after the debate, so I assumed a day or two. But things apparently work a little slower in academia, so seems it will go up when the Harvard Law School's A/V staff gets to it. I'll provide an alert as soon as I find out it's up there, or feel feel to check periodically on the link I provided at the start of this post. Sorry about that.
David
Actually I was not surprised at all at Kassenborg's comments. Disappointed, but not surprised. All I know is my kids' diagnosed asthma disappeared after we started drinking raw milk. It is astounding that health officials ignore our testimony (and the growing market increase); refuse to even take a look.
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard – loved your post about previously unidentified outbreaks in the government realm. So true!
Wayne – you said it! David gave the statistics and they still think they have justification for persecuting farmers. We need to push back – talk to our legislators, and our depts of Ag and Health – it is possible. I like the idea of legislation but that takes loads of consumer activism – and I get a lot of emails from people saying they will show up at hearings but they are still afraid to call their district legislator and boldly promote radical reform.
-Blair