Northern California’s Humboldt County seems to have adjusted well to being the marijuana capital of America, but raw milk is an entirely different story. While the rest of California allows raw milk and other raw dairy products to be sold at retail, making it the biggest raw dairy market in the country, Humboldt has long outlawed the sale.
The report issued last week by the Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services in response to Mark McAfee’s push to legalize raw milk is quite revealing on several levels. It’s worth reading, just so long as you understand you’ll probably be irritated no end.
First and foremost, it illustrates just how strongly key federal public health officials are locked in place. Actually, I should amend that statement and say it illustrates how much the entire public health apparatus is locked in place.
The county’s Department of Health and Human Services obviously swayed the report’s results by seeking out the opinions of agencies that have long opposed raw milk consumption as a public health menace. So you have the U.S. Food and Drug Administration saying in a statement for the report that it “continues to state that raw milk is inherently dangerous and should not be consumed directly…The FDA strongly encourages Humboldt County to continue to protect public health by prohibiting the production and sale of unpasteurized milk.”
Similarly, a Centers for Disease Control official writes Humboldt officials that the Organic Pastures materials “do not change our position regarding the threat to public health posed by consuming raw milk because they do not comprehensively and objectively present the risks of infection with pathogens that may be present in raw milk. CDC supports regulations to restrict the sale of raw milk.”
McAfee expressed his outrage to county health officials in an email he re-printed as the first comment following my previous post. It’s hard not to share at least some of his frustration, especially regarding the way the Humboldt County report dismisses several developments favoring raw milk. Key among them is the glossing over by several of the government experts consulted by Humboldt County of a major European study of nearly 15,000 children published in 2007, which concluded that “consumption of farm milk may offer protection against asthma and allergy.”
The FDA in its report to Humboldt County takes issue with whether “farm milk” is the same as raw milk, since the study indicated that as many as half of the farm families boiled their milk. But the report’s authors indicated they didn’t believe the number, conjecturing that many farm families likely said they boiled the milk to seem healthfully correct. Here’s what the study (here in its entirety) says:
“At present, we can only speculate about the components of farm milk responsible for the observed protective effect. Farm milk possibly contains different levels or a different composition of pathogenic and nonpathogenic microbes compared with milk purchased in a shop….In conclusion, the results of the present study indicate that consumption of farm milk is associated with a lower risk of childhood asthma and rhinoconjunctivitis.”
The European study added: “The present study does not allow evaluating the effect of pasteurized vs. raw milk consumption because no objective confirmation of the raw milk status of the farm milk samples was available. Parental answers to a question on consumption of boiled vs. raw farm milk are likely to be biased due to the social desirability of responses because raw milk consumption is not recommended especially for young children.”
But more disturbing is that, while the European study’s authors advocated additional study to hone in the specific factors underlying the connection between raw milk and reduced disease, the FDA expresses no such interest. Its professionals know the answer, so why bother themselves with facts?
Similarly, the Humboldt County report dismisses favorable conclusions about raw milk from the Michigan Fresh Unprocessed Whole Milk Workgroup, which includes two officials from the Michigan Department of Agriculture. It stated a couple years back:
“Milk fresh from the cow is a complete, living, functional food. Although we have looked at the numerous nutritional components of milk in the previous two questions, the full benefits of milk are only realized when all of these components function as a complex interdependent and balanced process.”
Finally, as McAfee points out, the report pretty much ignores the fact that thousands of people drink raw milk in California without any problems. “Raw milk, as it is produced in California and sold into 400 stores and consumed by 50,000 people per week is not given any credit for being clean and safe,” he stated in his email response to Susan Buckley, director of the Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services. “The idea that raw milk (as produced in California) is somehow ‘so dangerous,’ that it cannot be purchased by your citizens….is an outrageous comment.”
It is certainly remarkable, given all the discussion on this and many other food-related sites about the risks and benefits of raw milk, that positions remain as hardened as they do. Even Bill Marler, the food safety lawyer who has participated in discussions on this blog that Steve Bemis quoted at some length following my previous post, reverts to form. In his own post on the Humboldt County report, Marler’s main commentary is to call up a video of a California woman who was paralyzed a couple years back, apparently as the result of consuming raw milk from a cowshare. The implied argument: we had a serious illness, so no raw milk allowed.
Part of the problem seems to be the way the parties go at this issue, and the attendant emotion. Trying to make the case for raw milk on the basis of its nutritional superiority to pasteurized milk, as Mark McAfee did, is a very difficult task, since there hasn’t been a lot of research, and what’s out there isn’t as clearcut as it might be.
Trying to make the case that raw milk isn’t the public health hazard the FDA and CDC say it is–well, that is a different matter. As noted, hundreds of thousands of people are drinking raw milk every day, without ill effect, in California and elsewhere. Yet the government position remains unyielding. Instead of examining ways consumers can be more effectively warned and educated about the possible dangers of raw milk, the so-called experts deny adults the right to make their own decision. So Humboldt County may continue to hold the distinction of being the one place in America where it’s easier to obtain marijuana than raw milk.
I have an article at Grist about the Humboldt County situation.
I think the legalization of marijuana is long overdue and am sad that our jails hold so many whose only offense was using or growing pot.
Hemp (although not marijuana) and raw milk have a similar history in this country. At first, everyone was doing it and then they were outlawed and the folks that want them back are "fringe elements."
Several years ago I had a long conversation about NAIS and related issues w/a woman who lived in Humboldt County. She related, quite distressed, how the pot growers around there have such power. She said that the local authorities take out ads in the local paper saying that they won't prosecute for pot growing, etc…
If you want to get raw milk in Humboldt, find the top ten or twenty pot producers, particularly those who have families that would benefit the most from fresh (aka raw) milk and provide them, gratis, w/a regular supply of your milk and milk products for a few months. Once they get hooked, so to speak, and they will, you won't have any trouble w/the local authorities.
I don't think you'd have too much trouble finding the right families, just go to some local restaurants, wherever,, talk to people, give away some yogurt, kefir, milk….
I'm not kidding, BTW.
And no, for the record, I do not smoke pot nor advocate same. Au contraire. Who knows, if you introduce these folks to something that brings good health to their families, no telling what kind of changes might happen in their lives.
Debbie
Humboldt Countys positions are distinctly trailing edge in these matters.
What about the eight Indian reservations in Humboldt County? Do they care for real milk?
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
You are brilliant…I love your insight.
We will see what happens tommorrow and I will go see the RAW HEMP People if the first round flops.
Very interesting bed fellows. I sure do not want the ATF or DEA or some other alphabet soup gun toting badge flashers to see me with anything illegal arround me. But you have a very interesting approach for the locals.
I am not flying up there this time.. the weather is supposed to suck!! It rains 120 inches a year. You need a boat in Eureka.
Mark
I am suprised that Ken Conrad found the link about Jamie Montgomery's Jersey herd.
Montgomerys are the oldest producer of cheddar in the world (over 150 years old), the second oldest being neighbor Keen's. Both are in Somerset, England, the home of the valley of cheddar and town of cheddar. Their cheddar is a raw milk cloth bandaged cheddar made in a wheel that weighs approximately 55 lbs.
There is a good reason that Jamie Montgomery keeps the milk from his Jersey herd seperate from his main herd — he knows that it has different properties.
The use of the Jersey milk to make a cheddar must be a recent development. Montgomery's Jersey milk was (probably still is) going into a raclette-style cheese called Oglesheild. I've had Oglesheild. It is a pretty good cheese, but it doesn't hold up for a long time like a cheddar does.
I am willing to bet that if you ask him, he will tell you that the Jersey cheddar does not age as well as his regular cheddar. And let me tell you, the best two-year old Montgomery's cheddar (from his Holstein-Fresian herd) is an incredible cheese to experience. I would rank it among the best in the world.
As I said… there is a reason that he keeps the Jersey milk seperate.
A friend told me awhile ago that pot is essentially legal in the state via medical marijuana. It's legalization is just a formality.
I also believe that the raw milk movement can learn a lot from the grass roots (pun intended) work of groups supporting its legalization.
Lykke said:
"I'd welcome labels that distinguish between raw milk producers who have a food safety plan vs. those who "welcome the opportunity of exposure." (quoted from Ken Conrad)
Such labels would give the consumer an informed choice. Those who want regulated, legal and tested raw milk could go that route, while those who want exposure to pathogens in their raw milk could make that choice. Over time, we'd see which approach results in the best outcome for farmers and consumers. "
I believe s/he meant:
" 'I'd welcome labels that distinguish between raw milk producers who have a food safety plan vs. those who do not have a plan that fits in with my belief of what a plan should be.
Such labels would give the consumer an informed choice. Those who want regulated, inspected and tested raw milk could go that route, while those who want to drink milk that they have researched on their own, that may or may not meet the qualifications of the plan I like, could make that choice. Over time, we'd see which approach results in the best outcome for farmers and consumers. ' "
There you go. Fixed!
OK. That was a bit of a joke…well, sort of.
But seriously, this lurker would like to know something: A plan is a good thing – agreed. But there are small producers whos entire 'food safety plan' involves just doing the best they can. Perhaps it's hand milking. Perhaps it's using a different sanitizer for whateer they want to sanitize. Perhaps it's a fifteen hundred step plan like Mark has. Personally, I would probably be far more inclined to drink milk from Violet than Mark – but Mark has the all the plans and Violet just does the stuff she does to keep it as safe as possible.
Now, knowing this, I have to ask the same question I've asked before: Can't there be both? Without over regulating and driving the farmers out of their minds/businesses? If there is a set of standards, then should it not be VOLUNTARY to live up to those standards? That way (to use Violet as a good example), if Lykke and I both got milk from her, and we both saw that she did not have the "Raw Association Seal of Approval", then Lykke could boil the milk to make sure that anything in there was killled, and I could drink it raw because I believe that Violet makes a good product. And when NEITHER of us got sick, we could both go "See, told you" about it.
Meanwhile, Mark, by virtue of being of the size that he can meet or exceed all the needs to get the "Raw Association Seal of Approval" could proudly carry it on his label. And again, if Lykke and I both had opportunity to purchase, then we could each make our own decision of whether or not we would, and how we would treat it.
Thing is, that VOLUNTARY seal would do what UL has done – it shows that the item in question has met or exceeded certain tests. Does it mean that the stuff is superior? That's subjective. But it means that certain tests have been met, and, for someone who may be learning about raw stuff, who wants to try it, but also may not be 100% sure about milk, it gives some specifics that can be / are met.
My question, therefore, is 'why can't there be the best of both worlds, with a voluntary ideal and 'Seal' that covers certain basics, but still leaves the field open to the people that want to do a good job without needing to follow specific regulations?