familycow-rawmilksign.JPG

Government scientists have examined an outbreak of 148 illnesses from campylobacter last year at The Family Cow dairy in Pennsylvania, and concluded it’s impossible to produce raw milk safely. 

 

This supposedly scientific report, by scientists of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and various state public health departments, concludes that because the illnesses occurred at a dairy that was paying attention to safety, and was being inspected by Pennsylvania regulators, there is no way to safely produce raw milk on a consistent basis.

 

The study, in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, states that “while it might be possible to reduce the risks associated with unpasteurized milk consumption with further testing, consumers can never be assured that certified unpasteurized milk is pathogen-free, even when from a seemingly well-functioning dairy. The only way to prevent unpasteurized milk-associated disease outbreaks is for consumers to refrain from consuming unpasteurized milk. This outbreak demonstrates the importance of pasteurization and the ongoing need for consumer education to specifically highlight the risk of serious illness from unpasteurized dairy products and the need to avoid these products. This is especially important for consumers at high risk for complications from infections (eg, pregnant women, immunocompromised persons, and young children).”

 

(I obtained the above quote, and its amazing deductive reasoning, from various online publications that quoted from it–I chose not to access the actual paper, from the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, because it charges $40 for one-day access by ordinary peons, and I’m not about to add insult to injury by rewarding this outfit financially for its politically biased science.) 

 

So here’s another assessment, from your truly, of its primary conclusion, that “consumers can never be assured that certified unpasteurized milk is pathogen-free, even when from a seemingly well-functioning dairy.” 

 

The study seems not to address the reality that “consumers can never be assured” that other food staples, like ground beef and chicken in particular, are pathogen-free, since these foods are the cause of repeated outbreaks of illness, often from the same producers. They seem not to get singled out for special “scientific” attention, despite the fact that repeated surveys, especially of chicken, show the majority of what is sold publicly is tainted by pathogens. 

 

There’s another thing about this latest raw milk study that is curious–an important factor that is by the study’s own admission glossed over. 

 

In a retrospective immediately after the illnesses occurred, the dairy’s owner, Ed Shank, determined that the water his dairy was using to clean equipment wasn’t as hot as it should have been. Yet the study’s authors conclude this deficiency was “minimal” and thus not a major reason his dairy’s milk might have been susceptible to contamination. 

 

Of course, to have concluded that the water temperature was a major problem would have messed with the pre-determined conclusion the authors began the study with: that there is nothing raw dairies can reasonably do to significantly reduce risk from illnesses. 

 

The big problem here is that the government representatives (regulators, “scientists”, etc.) are locked into a rigid ideology, which preaches that because raw milk led to terrible outbreaks 100 years ago and more, it will always lead to terrible outbreaks. The fact that it no longer leads to terrible outbreaks–in fact, only on a very occasional basis leads to mostly mild outbreaks of the type that occurred at The Family Cow, is of no consequence. When you are locked into a rigid ideology, every example that even slightly reaffirms your hypothesis is taken as further proof that the ideology still holds. 

 

As a result, the ideologues are unable to bend even slightly in the face of important new realities.  As just one example, they are unable to acknowledge that Ed Shank, like many of today’s raw milk producers, hasn’t been at raw milk production all that long. He spent many years as a producer of conventional milk, until he decided less than a decade ago to shift toward organic pasture-based production. He and other dairy owners are gradually gaining the knowledge necessary to produce consistently safe raw milk…even while government types sit in the background rooting for illnesses so they can condemn raw milk. 

 

There is a final irony to the study. The authors say at one point that their findings demonstrate “the ongoing need for consumer education to specifically highlight the risk of serious illness from unpasteurized dairy products and the need to avoid these products.” If I’m not mistaken, the government’s scientists and regulators have been hammering this point home ad nauseum for many years. 

 

The result? Well, the study does make one important real-life observation on this matter: It points out that the number of dairies in Pennsylvania with permits to sell unpasteurized milk has exploded by a factor of six since 2002, from 26 to 153, thanks to growing consumer demand. 

 

The “education” the study authors encourage is already happening. Lots of consumers have educated themselves, and made the decision that the slight risk of illness from raw milk is worth taking to gain access to the healing effects of raw dairy–the reduced incidence of asthma, allergies, and other illnesses in their children and themselves. Yes, lots of consumers are being educated, and they are voting with their feet. 

**

The reverberations over the Maine court’s rejection of Dan Brown’s unregulated farm stand and his town’s Food Sovereignty ordinance, reported in my previous post, continue. 

 

Supporters of Food Sovereignty are pushing for state legislation that would do much of what the ordinances passed by nine towns in the state have accomplished–legitimize private sales from farmers and other food producers directly to consumers.  

 

Hearings are being held Tuesday in Augusta on two other bills that would expand private food sales. One would exempt from regulation dairies selling small quantities of raw milk and another would exempt face-to-face food transactions from regulation. 

 

Dan Brown has told the Bangor Daily News that he plans to appeal the state’s judge’s ruling in late April that his tiny dairy is subject to regulation. Moreover, he said the ruling will likely put him out of business, and in the ranks of the unemployed in search of a job.