It would be nice to think that Michelle Obama’s interest in nutritious food possibly portends good things for the future of sustainable agriculture.
I worry, though, because of the swelling hysteria over food safety.
From what I can see, there are two political food buckets. One is the feel-good so-called “slow food” movement (as opposed to “fast food”) Lots of people can get behind that—it’s family farming, sustainable agriculture, locally grown food—almost the new mom and apple pie.
Unfortunately, the second bucket is food protection, and that’s the bucket where all the political activity is going on right now, and it borders on hysteria.
If you read blogs like Obama Foodorama, you can easily conclude that America’s food protection situation is totally out of control, that people are falling like flies. They use the data about 76 million people getting food poisoning, when we know that that data full of extrapolations and reporting holes, among other weaknesses.
Unfortunately, the stories about peanut butter and melamine have only agitated the situation, with so-called progressives looking for the government to make it right. When government becomes involved to resolve hysteria, we nearly always get into trouble, and wind up with excessive controls and intrusions into our lives. We saw it in the 9-11 aftermath.
The hysteria over food safety inevitably focuses on the drama of serious illnesses to whip up popular sentiment for quick and simplistic solutions.
After my previous posting about how the problems over raw milk are essentially political in nature, one reader wrote me, requesting I “show a bit of sympathy for the victims.An acknowledgment that there are illnesses and that many raw dairies work diligently to promote food safety.” And cp posted a link to a sad story about a young girl with kidney problems from food-borne illness.
I don’t deny that people can become seriously ill from food-borne illness. The big problem with the desire for a simplistic solution—a single government agency with far-reaching powers to demand lots of forms and mete out major penalties (National Animal Identification System in disguise?)—is that it overlooks the complexity associated with food-borne illness. Food-borne illness can result from careless and unsanitary conditions, like in the recent peanut butter contamination, as well as over-use of antibiotics that are breeding E.coli 0157:H7 in cattle, and now MRSA in pigs. And sometimes, when regulators can’t determine the cause, they blame raw milk producers.
I fear that one of the leading poster boys for this “get rid of the germs” campaign will be raw milk. We’ve seen it happen repeatedly over the last three years of the government’s campaign against raw milk.
There is already legislation to satisfy the food-borne-illness hysteria—one such effort is HR 875 (“The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009”). Tough legislation won’t just place misguided pressure and cost burdens on small sustainable producers, but will be used to justify expansion of agribusiness (the only ones capable of conforming to “standards”) and push wider use of pasteurization and irradiation of our food.
Can supporters of raw milk stand up to the coming onslaught? It’s always difficult to stand up to hysteri
Here is a video link of wise young mother fighting for her right to feed her young son raw milk, she and her son are the picture of health. Perhaps the fearmongering official in the video could follow her example and lose some weight by enjoying some raw cream, raw butter, raw kefir but alas he is afraid.
Maryland Lawmakers Consider Lifting Raw Milk Ban
http://www.news8.net/news/stories/0309/603500.html
Concerning children, who (understandably) seem to be cp’s mantra, it is undeniable that occasionally bad things happen. Balanced against the occasional well-publicized case, however, is the largely silent epidemic of bad things which happen to kids as a result of feeding them the carb-laden American diet which induces obesity and diabetes and many other chronic diseases as well as, behavioral and learning disruptions the costs of which are borne by the society as a whole in huge numbers. Regulation and control of the parent’s freedom to choose either of these two extremes, namely choice of raw milk and other nourishing foods with the occasional risk or choice of the SAD with its huge risks, is unacceptable. The conclusion for me is clear: parents will choose, and must be free to choose, to feed their kids what they wish. Any abridgment of this freedom is unacceptable. A corollary of this freedom, however, is information concerning risk, and I would support labeling concerning risk for both raw milk as well as for the risks of the countless phood products out there which in my view, do incalculably more harm to children. Then there would be at least a level playing field for information, education, and informed choice, all consistent with the parent’s freedom which I think must be basic in this discussion.
Obama Sets Steps to Toughen Food Safety Regulation WSJ.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123699806012828351.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
More Big Brother via more regs,new food safety agency, bigger gov. = NO CHANGE
Agribusiness and the System is broken and can not be fixed no matter what they do. IMHO
This has been known for years, yet what has been done to correct it? More drugs forced upon the animals? Have the environmental conditions changed? No, they have not.
"when regulators cant determine the cause, they blame raw milk producers."
Is this because if they did state the cause, the public would be in an uproar and force changes in the production/ handling of food? Some examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_Farming
There are numerous studies showing ill health towards the animals and the workers, yet the effects on the consumers is kept quiet. Why is that?
"Can supporters of raw milk stand up to the coming onslaught? Its always difficult to stand up to hysteri"
Yes, they will stand up for which they believe in. Those who remain calm in the face of hysteria will persevere.
Steve Bemis has a really realistic view of how things work. I respect his viewpoint and have to say that by giving people information, we may open up a whole new way to communicate risk, and at the same time preserve individual rights to make decisions about your own family. I think that a moderate viewpoint has the best chance of realistic change in federal and state policy.
Katie
According to the article, Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack supports having a single agency. OFBF opposes having a single agency, with the senior director of legislative and regulatory policy stating that consolidation "would result in less organization and more time and energy would be spent on the transition…" He also stated that trade relations could be threatened and that the bills are not based on science or risk. He suggests increasing funding and education for food safety inspectors.
He states that when there’s an outbreak, that lawmakers feel pressured to make changes to the food protection system, "which in the end could actually disrupt the food chain."
After reading what I have the past few years, I’m not sure I’d be disappointed if a regulatory agency had less funding, and got caught up in a transition, and had less time to "do its job." On the other hand, basing law on science sounds like a good idea to me, provided it is current, not 19th century science.
http://www.marlerblog.com/2009/03/articles/lawyer-oped/obama-on-food-safety-this-is-why-what-you-do-is-so-important/
cp
Dave, I certainly hope we can overwhelm the political forces at work here. It is important that we do. I have told people for quite some time that it is critical that we build Weston A. Price’s membership to 100,000. We need to increase our political clout by growing tenfold in membership.
If you have not joined, do. If you have not renewed, do. If you have not recruited other members, do. Please consider starting a chapter. If you are a chapter leader, consider recruiting other chapter leaders.
Last night I began reading Eat Fat, Lose Fat. When it was written 3-4 years ago, we had only 200 chapters. Now we have 400. If we double again, we will have 800.
The only way to overwhelm the politicians is to represent a lot of voters.
I estimate for every one member, we influence on the average the buying habits of 10 others. So, if my math is correct, 100,000 members will influence 1 million people.
In the 1970’s when the National Organization for Women was on TV every night, influencing public policy, raising consciousness, they only had 100,000 members.
I believe when we get there, we will hold sway over our culture–because our message is compelling.
Please fan our new WAPF Official Facebook page: http://tinyurl.com/wapf-fb
We need to get 10,000 FANS asap. The rest will take care of itself.
A good reason to join Facebook, if you haven’t already. There are 175 million people there on that site. We can reach many millions through that vehicle alone.
Another way folks can help is to help us build an audience for blogs like this. Check out realfoodmedia.com a blogging network where you can follow many blogs from one portal. Forward blog posts from the Complete Patient that you like to others, realfoodmedia.com posts, too. As more and more folks start getting tuned into these issues, things will begin to change–from the grassroots, which is our only effective strategy.
OT: Tuesday I am launching a Natural Cures blog carnival on my blog, please drop by!
Kimberly
Hartkeisonline.com
a realfoodmedia.com blogger
An article of understanding for those of us that do not have a PHD in decoding deception, decoding doubletalk or the real legal meaning and hidden intent of words.
A Solemn Walk Through HR 875 by Linn Cohen-Cole
http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/bellringers_corner/hello_central/news.php?q=1237061257
See my blog article today on Hartkeisonline.com
http://hartkeisonline.com/2009/03/15/10-billion-is-a-big-market-what-piece-of-that-do-small-farms-want/
A few more good films like this, and small farmers will be overwhelmed with business!
Kimberly
Hartkeisonline.com
a realfoodmedia.com blogger
Amanda
I don’t have HBO either. I hope to hear more about the film. I wonder if it will hold peoples attention longer than the CA slaughterhouse exposure. That one came roaring in and seemed extinguished quickly.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123698646833925567.html
"The world’s informal economy has been condemned in the past for creating stagnant growth and lower standards of living. Now it’s become a critical safety net, helping millions of people weather the global downturn."
"Economists have long thought the vast, unregulated market encompassing everything from street vendors to unlicensed cab drivers – was bad news for the world economy. Now it’s taking on a new role as one of the last safe havens in a darkening financial climate, forcing analysts to rethink their views…"
1) lack of knowledge by physicians/health care providers about early diagnosis and appropriate treatment of foodborne illnesses (for example, not using anitbiotics when E. coli O157:H7 is supsected, ordering the right diagnostic tests, and promptly reporting diseases to public health authorities),
2) lack of education on the part of consumers including parents about the potential risks with different food products,
3) mistakes by industry in production and processing, and often denial and/or resistance to making improvements (and more mistakes over the years – repeat "offenders")
4) slow and often disorganized responses to outbreaks by the government with confusing messages to the public and industry, and
5) a legal system (in terms of strict liability) that appears to treat them all the same for good or for bad.
Yet another statement of purported fact without any factual basis, David? Let’s see the support. Have any?
USDA Approves shot aimed at E coli
http://apnnews.excite.com/article/20090312/D965SOKQ00.html
What will be the resulting affects on cattle and the final end product consumed by the public? They mentioned "positive" percentage improvement in less E coli numbers but percentages do not always paint a clear picture without the data its based on.
UGH the above link did not work I double check the link but was unable to find the error sorry.
Wake up folks. This is already happening. Parents don’t have the right to choose whether or not to vaccinate their child 60 times by the age of 12. Informed consent is just a myth. Parents don’t have the "right" to choose something that government has deemed SAFE for everyone.
This has happened with our children’s health and it will happen with our food.
Not only does raw milk take the fall when regulators aren’t sure about the cause of illness, but with sometimes disastrous consequences. Take a look at this post:
http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2006/10/26/michigan-whodunit-guess-what-caused-illness-that-sparked-massive-investigation-you-wont-believe-the-real-cause.html
There are more where this came from.
David
You make an excellent point. This blog has had long debates about whether certain outbreaks were correctly linked to raw milk consumption by government investigators. In all cases, those criticizing and questioning the government’s conclusions were analyzing the investigations without all the facts: basing their conclusions on media reports, one-sided reports from the farmer(s) involved, and brief summaries from the state reports. The incomplete information combined with a lack of understanding about how to interpret epidemiological data and DNA fingerprinting has led to some hysteria here that the government is falsely "blaming" raw milk. There have also been attempts by some on this blog to degrade the patients and their families that have spoken out about illnesses caused by raw milk as Amanda alluded. These approaches by some in the raw milk movement may greatly reduce the likelihood that the government or lawmakers will feel "safe" allowing more raw milk distribution across the US or Canada.
Is that the factual support for your claim? David, I think we can all agree that is not the basis upon which to be making statements of fact of the sort you did. Where is your sense of responsibility to at least have support for the things you are saying on this blog. Aren’t you a sometime legitimate journalist? Does no one understand the concept of "things that are true" and "things that are not true" anymore? Perhaps we have all lost that over the last eight years listening to Bush-Cheney spin. I guess truth has become whatever one can get away with saying and not get called on.
Please, tell us the "more where that came from."
It’s interesting that you both are so quickly dismissive of the Corey story I linked to. Ann Arbor public health officials took this family’s food history, and, with no laboratory or other investigation, attributed the illness of several family members to raw milk. Public health officials alerted the Michigan Department of Agriculture, which used that information to launch an undercover investigation of Richard Hebron and the Family Farms Cooperative, paving the way to a sting operation that resulted in confiscation of thousands of dollars of dairy products, a six-month prosecutor investigation, more thousands in lost business for Hebron, thousands more in lost business for several retailers, and eventually a fine of Hebron. Not only was there no confirmation of raw milk as the culprit, but the actual cause of illness appears to have been pasteurized milk.
For more, consider the case of Carol Schmitmeyer:
http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2006/11/15/you-may-want-to-think-twice-before-confiding-in-public-health-and-agriculture-officials.html
And Regulator, next time you launch a personal attack against me, consider being a man (or woman) and come out from behind the shadows to use your real name.
David