If you’re Jewish, Christmas tends to be a very quiet time. Without a Christmas tree, stockings over the fireplace, and presents to open, you tend to feel more apart from American culture than any other time of the year. On top of that, nearly everything you might do that day for entertainment, like shop, or go to a museum, or go out for brunch, is impossible, because nearly everything is shut tight. If you live in a big city, there are usually two options: go to a movie and out to eat at a Chinese restaurant, since Chinese restaurants, for some reason, stay open. If you live in a small city or town, and you’re not near a ski area, you just stay home.
I had a special opportunity this year to have a different kind of Christmas by attending a food conference. Yes, a conference, beginning on Christmas Eve and continuing until Dec. 27. It was, not surprisingly, a Jewish conference, a Jewish foodie conference, to be precise, run by Hazon, a Jewish environmental organization. I was invited to participate on a panel with other writers and bloggers assessing how the media’s treatment of food issues is changing. I wasn’t sure I wanted to attend, since I’ve been traveling a fair amount, but when I learned it was being held at a resort overlooking the Pacific in Monterey, CA, well, that sealed the deal.
So, anyway, I arrived last Thursday, and sure enough, it was as beautiful as advertised. Nor was I alone—there were more than 600 attendees. Asilomar is both a conference center and state park. It was built mostly in the early 1900s, and so has lots of interesting dark wood meeting places, as well as guest rooms with fireplaces and without televisions and telephones. It’s set amid sand dunes, and is a short walk down to the Pacific, with its huge roaring waves and rocky coast.
One of the first things I did after registering was read the conference schedule, and was surprised to find a two-page spread entitled, “Food At the 2009 Food Conference”. I was surprised because it was amazingly candid reading, capturing in microcosm the underlying issues of the food safety debate that’s been going on in Congress over the last few months, and will most likely conclude sometime in the next few weeks with new legislation that increasing numbers of people associated with local and sustainable food feel will be draconian. I decided the best way to present it here is simply to excerpt from it, since it is so well constructed; it makes for a longer-than-usual blog posting, but bear with me. It starts as follows:
“We would like the food we serve to reflect the highest values to which we aspire. So we would like to provide food that is delicious, consciously prepared, local, organic, healthy, ethical and kosher. We want to demonstrate—ideally—that these values can all be attained. If or when they can’t be, we want to explain why.
“Those of you who were at the first or second Hazon Food Conferences, in 2006 and 2007 (at an East Coast retreat center), got to experience the extraordinary food we were able to serve…In 2007 on Friday night we ate kosher meat from goats that were raised (at the retreat center) and that we schechted (slaughtered) that morning. It was an appropriately intense experience for those who were there, and entirely consonant with our desire to provide transparency and education in the food that we eat.
“Moving the Food Conference to Asilomar has been a blessing in many ways. We have traded the East Coast winter for the beautiful Pacific Ocean…Happily, we have been able to meet most of our standards, including the following:” It then lists and describes them—kosher, seasonal, organic, not processed. Now we get to the “but” phrase.
“But this year brought some specific challenges that we feel it is important to share. Asilomar is located within a California State Park, and the conference center is managed for the state by a private contractor. Between last year’s Food Conference and this year’s, the management contract changed hands, and in September a company called ARAMARK took over the management of Asilomar. In 2008 ARAMARK had sales of $13.5 billion and profits in excess of $1 billion. That a lot of food. And a company that size naturally has systems and procedures about how it sources the food that it serves.”
The piece then quotes from the Aramark web site about how, “We strive to offer clients and customers fresh whole foods that are raised, grown, harvested, and produced locally and in a sustainable manner whenever possible…” (I couldn’t find this actual segment online.)
The program guide continues: “That’s a pretty good policy. But in practice, we have had a series of problems in the period leading up to the Food Conference. The main ones are in relation to two other key values for us:
Conscious. We intended to source and serve local pasture-raised chickens from Green Oaks CreekFarm in Pescadero, about 80 miles north of Asilomar. Some of us had already visited the chickens that we would have served this Friday night, and were thus able to attest at first hand that they were well-tended chickens. They were to be schechted by…a young kosher slaughterer, under the supervision of (a rabbi) and plucked and kashered by conference participants…as we did last year. This year, ARAMARK’s regulations prevented us from doing that. Understanding that meat is an important part of many participants’ traditional Shabbat celebration, we decided instead to serve Empire kosher organic chickens on Friday night. Empire’s chickens are raised on small family farms and are fed vegetarian and organic diets. But they are killed in Mifflintown, PA, and obviously we know less about that than would have been the case at Green Oaks. The fish that we are serving is wild salmon from a sustainable fishery.
Local. ARAMARK requires that food suppliers meet particular documented safety standards—standards that smaller farms often don’t have the infrastructure to provide. As a result, although we are delighted to be able to serve foods from at least ten local organic farms, we were not able to accept produce from some of the farms that had offered to donate produce. The following donations that were offered to us were not acceptable according to ARAMARK’s food safety standards…” The program then lists nine suppliers that were prepared to donate 500 pounds of apples, 500 pounds of cabbage, 25 dozen eggs, 230 pounds of squash, and 325 pounds of trout, among other items.
“Last year our volunteers picked up donated food and delivered it directly to Asilomar. That way they were a living connection in the journey from farm to table. This year…that food will have to go via distributors…
“You could argue that these are small issues, and in some ways they are. And if these policies were not in place, and someone at our food conference got salmonella—for instance—ARAMARK as the operator would potentially expose themselves to liability by not having appropriate procedures in place…
“But Blue Greenberg, one of the leading orthodox Jewish feminists, once said, ‘where there’s a rabbinic will, there’s a halachic way.’ What she meant is that Jewish tradition is rooted in halacha, Jewish law, and people often think of it as unchangeable; but if and when the rabbis wanted to change the law, they very often found a way to do so.
“We think that’s a good analogy for the food sourcing procedures at Asilomar—and, by implication, in thousands of other ARAMARK facilities around the country…”
Ah, but it was not to be. As it turned out, ARAMARK did not bend. How was the food? Let’s just say that a good Jewish mother or grandmother would not have been happy about the unevenness of the meals. For example, ARAMARK ran out of main courses at the first dinner (an uninspired mix of tofu and green beans)—latecomers (I among them) wound up with an even less inspired plate of barley and canned mushrooms. Similarly, a breakfast of lox and bagels was missing the bagels—many attendees were clearly unhappy with the rice crackers that substituted…and the lox ran out after about 20 per cent of the guests had been served—the rest had to settle for smoked trout.
The chicken at the Friday evening Sabbath dinner was okay, but certainly not nearly as good as the local pastured chickens would have been. Interestingly, many of the chicken thighs and legs were undercooked, which is a great way to spread salmonella. And let’s just say the chocolate pudding dessert would have embarrassed moms of all religions—it was grainy and had attendees making some serious sour faces. Granted, making pudding without milk or cream is a challenge (no dairy products are allowed to be served with meat at kosher meals), but one can ask in response whether pudding was the best choice.
There were a few excellent meals. One lunch salad of wild salmon and greens was very well done, as was a breakfast of French toast stuffed with apples and blueberries.
But by and large, attendees were disappointed that a foodie conference’s food would be so ordinary and institutional. The last day’s lunch plate of a scoop of mashed potatoes next to a scoop of rice with lentils seemed to put an exclamation mark on the frustrations of trying to serve local produce when half your vendors are disqualified under arbitrary safety regs. As a rabbinical student put it to me: “It all had a very corporate feel to it.”
To Hazon’s credit, not only was it upfront in its program guide about the food mess, but it scheduled a special panel discussion that included organizers of the food component of the program to explain further what happened, and to answer questions. To ARAMARK’s credit, its manager at Asilomar showed up and took questions.
I inquired what the problems were with the disqualified donors, and it turns out the biggest issues were that they didn’t have HACCP plans and traceback procedures. These are among the big requirements of the new food safety laws pending in Congress (HR 2749, SB 510).
What happened at Asilomar is exactly what critics of the pending legislation have argued is going to happen nationally. Small food producers will have a very difficult time complying with the new law’s requirements. While those who were barred by ARAMARK have other options, once the U.S. Food and Drug Administration essentially takes over ARAMARK’s role, there will be no other options. You either comply, or go out of business.
What hasn’t been anticipated so widely yet is what happens after smaller producers are run out of business. I fear that what will happen is that our food options will diminish, and we’ll be forced into ever more of the institutional quality food that the ARAMARKs of the world would prefer we eat.
Wrong.
These rules will just further push some producers, the ones with passion, guts, and a true morality, further underground, and will actually create a increased market for alternative food production. Business will be trickier….but farmers are a resourceful group.
The right for people to procure their own food supply is unalienable, and the government will have a tough time giving justification for controlling, in total, what one can or can’t eat. Once they start putting farmers in jail for making high quality food, they won’t be able to hold back the tide they’ve created.
Again, the key he is for many groups and organizations to be pushing for the right of a citizen to contract directly with a farmer for their food, and give the people the option of ‘opting’ out of the special interest influenced governmental regulatory agencies. Farmshares is the way…just let those politicians try and tell people why they can’t own and interest in a farm.
PS Thanks David for your correction.
I’d suggest that folks look up the origin, and history, of Christmas…and how the pagan feast was co-opted and bastardized, throughout the ages, by those who profess to be ‘christian’…..
It will force many to produce their own foods and find ways to trade/barter/buy underground what they cannot produce themselves. Keep saving my seeds….
Christmas for the majority is a commercial tradition. Do children even know what it is supposed to be about? (other than Santa and gifts)
There are many variations of Christmas origins.
http://www.essortment.com/all/christmaspagan_rece.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas
Right on. Toast to Charon, beloved and feared ferryman who takes the toll, and brings us across. More toasts to our nature.
Back on topic – 2 milks, Mark? You have admitted many times here and elsewhere to mixing milk from your cows with milk destined for pasteurization with the caveat it was just colostrum/butter/kefir – you said you did this for many years and put it under your label (and ran it all through the same equipment – fluid milk or not), including during the time of the 2006 outbreak. Explain that, please, since you bring up 2 milks. Thanks.
UGH Human and chicken waste fed to Chinese raised fish sold in US markets!
Sylvia and Milk Farmer one could also say that Xmas is nothing more than a retail marketing gimmick that this year it seems began in July. History has been pasturized ! where are the preachers and teachers that are telling us about where we have been where we are and where we are being TAKEN? America needs to look behind the many curtains that hides the unpasturuized truth about everything!
I wouldn’t want to go to jail for anyone. I am willing and able to find ways to obtain what I feel is needed for a healthy lifestyle.
Lykke has posted this on the last thread. I am wondering what s/he means by "all your fans". Is that all who agree with all of what Mark says? Or those who agree with some of what Mark says? Or those who just want to consume raw dairy? Would cp be considered a "fan/hero" of lykke?
Wonder how Lykke defines "hero". From Merrium Webstea-1 a : a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability (Sorry Mark- I don’t see you in this roll) b : an illustrious warrior (Guess anyone could fit this under the right circumstances) c : a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities (Could Lykkee mean this one?) d : one that shows great courage ( Perhaps this one? It does take courage to stand up for what one believes in)
2 a : the principal male character in a literary or dramatic work (Guess this depends on the writer) b : the central figure in an event, period, or movement
(This could be Mark) 4 : an object of extreme admiration and devotion (Devotion to Mark? I don’t see that. Devotion to their own beliefs yes, not to Mark as a person)
Many thought Hitler, Stalin,Bush, Mugabe and many more were/are heros. lykke appears to follow the govt as "an enthusiastic devotee"," an ardent admirer or enthusiast". Blindly following, slinging barbs/petty name calling at any who disagree. There have been many questions directed at lykke that s/he never answered. Mark has answered the outsourcing questions, numerous times. Yet it is continually dug up, some do like to beat the long dead horse.
Mark, if lykke isn’t able to understand your answers, I would suggest not playing the silly game on that subject and ignore him. Why feed his childish fire?
David G. Sorry your food wasn’t as it should have been in CA. Thanks for the wealth of information here, it is appreciated more than you’ll ever know. I can see why many fade away and no longer participate. Some repetitions become tiresome.
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2009/12/getting-past-religion-in-the-raw-milk-war/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=human-microbiome-change
Thanks for the report, David. I am sorry to hear that the organizers of your food conference were unable to prepare proper food due to excessively burdensome regulations. If it is any comfort, just think about the industrial food our children must face in school cafeterias day after day. How about the food our elderly eat in nursing homes? No, perhaps that’s not much comfort.
Your "two raw milks" question deserves a techinical scientifically correct answer.
The PMO and the State of CA all agree that milk that is intended for pastuerization if made into raw cheese ( a class 4 product ) and if aged 60 days is equivalent to being pastuerized. When raw cheese is aged 60 days it undergoes substantial physical, biologic and chemical changes that reduces pathogens by at least 5 logs.
As for raw butter ( also a class 4 product ) it has completely different water and moisture levels and different chemistry and this changes its pathogen supporting and carrying qualities. That is why the State of CA does not test raw butter for pathogens. Pathogens do not like a low mositure fat rich, low ph, near zero sugar content enviroment with high levels of VFA’s ( volitile fatty acids ).
These class 4 manufacturing products are not raw milk!! Legally or chemically or by any other measure.
This is critical to undertstanding raw milk safety. Class 4 manufacturing products are butter and cheeses and they are not raw milk!!. Raw milk is whole and not missing any component and is a class 1 product. It is different chemically, in its ph, in its moisture and biologically.
Butter and cheese ( class 4 ) products are missing their whey proteins and their mosture and have undergone a major chemistry change. Butter is missing lactose sugars, whye proteins and is high in VFA’s.
Lets all agree that the PMO ( the PMO is the FDA doctrine on pastuerized milk rules etc ) and chemistry is correct on this issue and lets all agree that "raw milk for pastuerization" should be compared to "raw mlk for people" for the sake of discussions and food safety comparisons. It is not good science to compare other raw products that are not comparable or chemically similiar to each other. The laws are very clear about this and the chemistry and food safety data backs this up.
This question is about…."are there two raw milks in America???" if so….can they be different when safety is considered. According to the FDA there is only one raw milk in America. It is extemely unsafe and it must be pastuerized.
This question is critical. If standards can create two raw milks in America and the data is separated between the two raw milks then we can all have a discussion about raw milk.
The FDA has intentionally commingled data and confused the line between these two raw milks so that the discussion can not be held. Confusion is a great art of war. It is very closely associated with deception.
My goal here is to identify confusion and deception and clarify the conversation so we can all create some concensus and make some progress intellectually.
In CA it is clear that their are two raw milks in America. One for people and one for the pastuerizer.
How many people agree with that statement.
How many people agree that it is not helpful and highly confusing that the FDA ignors the other raw milk in America and instead confuses the data and includes failures of pastuerizers into data that is then used to beat up raw milk that is intended for people.
It is clearly biased, scientifically in error and wrong. It does not permit a conversation with good data. It is a deceptive ploy.
Mark
I don’t know how many farmers will risk going underground to provide people with healthy food. I only know that good food will become a lot more scarce and expensive. Maybe this means more people will have to become small farmers – that wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing.
I finally got arround to adjusting our FAQ based on your advice.
http://www.organicpastures.com/faq.html
I basically discuss the fact that a strong immune system is "earned" and suggest that first time raw milk drinkers take "baby steps" or drink raw milk Kefir first prior to going "hog wild" and drinking full glasses of delicious raw milk.
Thanks for your feedback….and suggestions….keep them coming, it just makes the raw milk movement that much better and stronger.
Happy new year!!
Mark and the OPDC gang
Gives new meaning to "gut feel."
Corporations excel at dealing with paperwork and bureaucracy, its in their blood. Its really a great way to raise the barrier to entry for potential competitors and drive out the little guys. And requiring pointless bureaucratic paperwork of your suppliers is a great way to keep all the business in the greater corporate ‘family’ so to speak.
Which is a problem, because we have abundant evidence that regulations arn’t a silver bullet for our food safety problems, if they even work at all. But what the regulations do do is drive out the healthy producers and entrench the corporate players that care more about money than safety and caused the problems in the first place.
Mark, Yes, I agree that there are two different milks (one for pastuerization and one for people) and sadly I think the co-mingling of data is intentional so as to muddy the issue that much further. We wouldn’t want people realizing, on their own, that there might be a healthier option for milk consumption. Oh, I also got around to listening to your bit on the radio show talking about "#2." I liked what was said. My family is going to start making our own yogurt now. I have known about how healthy making your own yogurt is, but just needed a little kick to get started I guess. 🙂
Karen, thanks for the link to the article in Scientific American! Even though most of us here realize the good bacteria concept, I think it is nice to see it in a mainstream source for more of the common sheeple to read about. Hopefully they will start to question where to get these good bacteria from more than just yogurt or a suplement. I was sort of taken aback by the idea of yet another immunization for reintroducing good bacteria, but oh wait that could be patented and hence would fit into the commercial food regime. No, don’t look towards regular foods that already have these bacteria in them, we need another drug/shot.
Happy new years to everyone! I am thankful for everyone that posts on here and very much enjoy the conversations that go on and the information that is shared…
Brandon
By David Gumpert
Great opening quote David I think another wise Rabbi also said " To take a life destroys a universe."
I however do take issue with your last statement concerning the raw dairy debate. "Religion is never a good subject for debate" Dont LOL yet but consuming raw dairy is now a core tenet of my religious belief and the following is what I base that statement on.
Abraham Isaac Jacob and their children where all greatly blessed with many sheep many goats and much cattle they did consumed raw dairy all of their lives. In the Tanakh aka OT it is stated by Isaiah [Yeshayahu] NKJV ch. 7: 14-15 and 21-22 For CURDS [raw dairy?] and honey [raw?] will everyone eat who is left in the land. To keep from boring most readers I won’t cite anymore.
So is religion an outlaw subject that should not be mentioned and must we in this PC age toss out what Isaiah seems to imply? In "that day" will there be a USDA approved label on the CURDS?
Shall those of us that place some value on REAL UNPASTURIZED religion [what ever that may be] find ourselves marginalized and our free speech censored since "our subject is never good"? An ancient people were told to "choose life" our freedom to make that choise has been greatly erode away little by little and there is not much left.
For those of you that have LOL I take no offense and am glad I provided some humor for your day.
I got bloody diarrhea just from reading this article.
Read this from the NY times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us/31meat.html?_r=1&hp
Microbiologists have for years been pointing out the necessity of maintaining healthy commensal microflora. Recently they have been more and more outspoken about the dangers of altering microbial colonies, and ramping up their warnings about hypersanitization, vaccination, and antibiotic use, which is great (though overdue). But microbiologists are not on the front lines of medical carethats where medical doctors areand they have, in my opinion, far too little influence on the daily practice of medicine. We can see clear evidence of that disconnect in the writings of Martin Blaser (referenced in the Scientific American article) who is both an MD and microbiologist. Blaser acknowledges that we dont fully understand how microflora work to keep us healthy, that there are significant, specific dangers inherent in modifying normal human microflora, that the long-term consequences of microflora changes are unknown and could be disasterous, and that current medical/health practice is effecting significant microflora changes that could very well be permanent. With all that said, he then suggests that there is no reason to back off our current protocols, except for maybe considering the negative potentials more carefully. Well, thats some serious cognitive dissonance!
This is one of those areas where the natural-health folks so-called primitive understand of health is actually far more useful than the sophisticated understanding held by our medical community.
If I were to make self satisfying, conclusionary and self profiting raw milk claims or statements on any blog or website that I control the FDA would jail me…remember that Commericial Speech is illegal.
Marler promotes his business by posting his intent, comments, editorials, his agenda and testimonials of his clients on a publication he controls as a method to sell his services.
I can not do the same. That sucks!!
What an interesting place America has become.
Mark
We have lost the rain forests of our inner ecospheres and must replant them….
Raw milk are the human seeds of these lost forests.
Mark
We are not separate from our mother earth and were born of the bacteria deep in her oceans.
For some reason in the last 100 years we have gone dumb ass stupid and now we will pay dearly. Better start planting and feeding your inner rain forests….in a hurry.
Mark
One of my clients, Barbara Kowalczyk, who lost her son to E. coli, was one of the main people in the Movie.
Mark, I have to admit, with the amount of time you spend protesting and blogging, how do you have time to milk a cow? I know when I am busy I contact out too.
Mark, regarding Food Safety News, I make it very clear that I support it. I do not hide a thing. I also take a very hands-off approach to what is reported by the offices in Seattle, Denver and Washington D.C. I encourage people with views far different than mine to contribute articles and I have open comments. Heck, you have commented there. And, although I disagree with what you said, I let you post them and did not edit them. Mark, you can post whatever comments you like – free speech is a good thing.
I do agree…..you have been fair, open and let others speak their minds.
My hat is off to you on that point.
I have a great team of people and I milk cows only once in a while. My most important role is education and that means teaching teaching teaching….blogging blogging and more blogging. As you know the internet has become one of the greatest tools of education and democracy.
The FDA refuses to converse with me ( or any of us ) directly….so I blog with them. They hear and read every word I ( we ) say and that is a very good thing. We can teach them. I honestly believe that they are extremely intellegent….they just need to hear the information repeatedly and let it ferment for a while. They get it from us on the outside and they get it from their scientists at NIH on the inside.
They are getting pinched like a zit….they will pop.
Just a matter of time.
Happy new years to you!
Mark
"I finally got arround to adjusting our FAQ based on your advice….I basically discuss the fact that a strong immune system is "earned" and suggest that first time raw milk drinkers take "baby steps" or drink raw milk Kefir first prior to going "hog wild" and drinking full glasses of delicious raw milk."
I can’t go "hog wild" over that recommendation given that there is no fact-based evidence that "baby steps" as described reduce the risk of serious illness if a particular batch of raw milk is contaminated. However, the fact that you make any recommendation about risk on your website represents a baby step toward letting consumers know, especially new raw milk drinkers, that there is a risk with raw milk products. The nature of that risk should be better defined. Perhaps add a link like this relatively unbiased review? http://www.foodpoisonjournal.com/uploads/file/Comparing%20Food%20Safety%20Record_Revised(1)(1).pdf
Regarding studying the "immune profile" and food habits of those who have experienced severe illness from pathogens in raw milk (or any other food)…sounds great, but the obvious patterns have already been described: young children, the elderly and immunocompromised persons (e.g., HIV/AIDS, chemotherapy patients). We know these populations are more susceptible, yet raw milk advocates promote raw milk for them. Hmm. There is a lot of knowledge here on this blog – does anyone see a pattern in the videos from Bill Marler’s link (http://www.foodpoisonjournal.com/2009/12/articles/food-poisoning-information/before-you-consider-drinking-raw-milk-please-read-this-and-watch-these-videos/) that would have predicted they were at more risk for such a severe illness? The answer is not simply "no antibiotics" in treatment, especially concerning the woman who became paralyzed from campylobacter since antibitoics are not linked to that complication. Most of these infections were among children, but it is interesting to me that according to the "testimonials," they all were eating healthy, organic foods and sought raw milk to further improve their (or their children’s health). Yet, they had a bad outcome.
Before simply dismissing these raw milk-related illnesses, what exactly is your (or others’) recommendation beyond taking "baby steps?" My recommendation is to keep the pathogens out of the raw milk to begin with, or seriously consider not consuming these products if in a higher risk category based on current experience (infants, children, etc.). What is the alternative? A DNA screening to find genes that make people more susceptible to a bad outcome if they come across a pathogen (tongue in cheek)?
Bottom line: immunity is not as simple as you make it sound(byte).
Truly Concerned said:
"Where are the health departments? Where is lykke?" [re: NYT article on beef safety]
What makes you think we’re not working on many health issues including those that have nothing to do with food safety, let alone raw milk? I find the combined social and policy issues with raw milk interesting, but have never held a job where it (raw milk) was a very important priority in the big picture. Outside this blog world, raw milk is another preventable problem in the food safety system that isn’t prevented due to politics, social issues, and maybe even a lack of effort on both sides to make the product safer (due to politics, social issues…). Ever feel like we’re on a merry-go-round?
Bill Marler said:
"Mark, regarding Food Safety News, I make it very clear that I support it. I do not hide a thing….you can post whatever comments you like – free speech is a good thing.
I applaud that openness. And, the link on Food Safety News to David Gumpert’s piece (Don Neeper’s comment above) was very interesting – I learned a couple new things from it. That is valuable, whatever the forum.
Brandon said:
"Sylvia, I just thought that Lykke was being nice (in regards the comment about Mark). It’s kinda refreshing."
That comment was an observation…Not sure if this is "nice," but seriously, I’ve never "known" anyone more tenacious or optimistic than Mark McAfee. I have concerns about his business practices and ethics, which have been expressed. But, no one can deny the charisma. Sometimes I think Mark probably has a screw loose, first only to my loose screw for continuing to post here and care about this issue 🙂
Happy New Year!
http://scienceblogs.com/whitecoatunderground/2009/12/ive_never_understood_food_fads.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink
Raw milk—another spectacularly bad idea
Category: Absurd medical claims Medicine
Posted on: December 28, 2009 2:31 PM, by PalMD
I’ve never understood food fads. Michael Pollan’s maxim, "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants," has always seemed like reasonable, practical advice. Maybe it’s a disease of plenty—we have so much food, we have to find new ways to conceptualize it. Unless you live in an inner city, you can go to any market and find large quantities of foodstuffs, both healthy and unhealthy. Food in this country is cheap and plentiful and, for the most part, safe. Self-"regulated" industrialized production has contributed to problems with bacterial contamination of meats and produce, but food- and water-borne illness is still relatively rare in the US compared to the developing world.
The industrial food production that has led to monsters such as "thousand-cow burgers" needs a lot of work. Mass production and distribution can introduce many different opportunities for contamination. Once a contaminated beef patty reaches the kitchen, opportunities for illness multiply. Even if you cook the burger thoroughly, you can still be sickened by contaminated counters and utensils.
One of the areas of success in food safety is milk. Milk has historically been one of the worst offenders when it comes to food-borne illness. Milk can harbor many disease-causing bacteria, and the same industrial processes that are problematic for meat can affect milk. When pooling milk from hundreds of cows, it only takes one sick cow to contaminate the batch. But even with careful dairy farming processes, milk is often contaminated. Thankfully, pasteurization has largely eliminated milk-related illness, and most milk-related illness seen today is the result of foolish consumption. When milk is pasteurized, it is briefly heated to a temperature that kills harmful bacteria. The nutritional value is preserved as nothing else is done to the milk. As a food, milk has calories in the form of sugars, fats, and proteins, and has vitamins and minerals. These are not adversely affected by pasteurization.
Still, there is a movement out there promoting "raw" (that is, unpasteurized) milk. It’s promoted by many of the usual suspects, and the list of claims made for raw milk are scientifically absurd. Some examples include the following:
Raw milk is healthier: Pasteurized milk is accused of causing everything from allergies to heart disease to cancer, but back in the day, these diseases were rare. In fact, clean raw milk from grass-fed cows is chock full of healthy amino acids and beneficial enzymes, and was used as a cure.
The statement doesn’t support its title, of course, but even if it did, the problems with raw milk aren’t carcinogens and allergies but bacterial diseases.
Raw milk does not make you sick: That is, if it is properly collected from cows fed good, clean grass. Grass-fed milk has natural antibiotic properties that help protect it from pathogenic bacteria. But it’s worth noting, if you’ve been using pasteurized dairy products, you might want to eat small amounts of yogurt or kefir for a week or so, for a dose of probiotics, just to be safe. I did, and it helped.
It would be lovely if any of that were true, but it’s not. Of course, it’s not the milk per se that makes you sick but the bacteria in it. "Grass-fed milk" does not have any magical antibiotic properties, and consuming "pro-biotics" will not protect you from Campylobacter, E. coli, or other common milk-borne pathogens.
It is also commonly claimed that raw milk contains beneficial enzymes that are destroyed by pasteurization. Humans make their own enzymes. We have no use for exogenous ones, and they are rapidly destroyed in the stomach before they can do anything.
Outbreaks from raw milk consumption are a common feature in the Morbidity and Mortality weekly. These are completely preventable diseases. The idea that raw milk provides some significant benefit not provided by pasteurized milk is simple superstition.
Correct me if I read the implications of that statement wrong . It would appear that most of us blogging here are just misguided by silly superstition and are therefore just fools. Did I wasted my time driving hundreds of miles to purchase the white live snake oil medicine in the raw milk bottles these last 5 years instead of making trips to the doctors office?. If we made a list of all there other fools beside me I guess Dr Mercola and many other MDs would be on the list along with Sally Fallon and all the members of the WAFP and maybe even Pottengers superstitous cats could be included. And pity the poor misguided raw milk farm families that suffered needless police raids these last 4 years for their simple superstition.
The statement simple superstition is in my view akin to the adult fairy tales we hear now from the talking heads reporting that the economy is on the road to recovery. FAKE FOOD AND FAKE MONEY are the REAL simple superstitions?
Obviously you are not doing much in the health issue department if you are allowing this toxic processed product in the food supply.
You are responsible for the sickness, and injury and yes even death of innocent children by not stopping this horrific practice.
Go do something positive instead of your incessant negative comments on this blog.
When you have done something beneficial for those poor injured sick children please post back and let us know.
I doubt you will. Prove me wrong.
I’ve never understood food fads… Food in this country is cheap and plentiful and, for the most part, safe. Self-"regulated" industrialized production has contributed to problems with bacterial contamination of meats and produce, but food- and water-borne illness is still relatively rare in the US compared to the developing world.
The real food fad is today’s cheap, processed, industrial food system. Raw milk, raw foods generally, fresh foods, and diversified farm geography has been human kind’s way for all time, with the notable exception of the very narrow, two-generation-long band of history we call home. Surely that should not be taken lightly. What is food?
Marler’s "cheap," [rarely contaminated] pseudo-food now filling our grocery stores is neither cheap nor safe. Cheap-food-system lovers really must acknowledge the very expensive externalities of growing and eating all that crap–diabetes, heart disease, cancer, asthma, obesity, faltering immunity, developmental problems, and the terrible suffering always attendant to them. Is the medical care and welfare and private philanthropy that is currently propping up cheap-food’s victims, cheap?
It requires an almost pathological compartmentalization to divide off all these things. We are dying from poisons and inadequate nutrition, and then decide that we ought to apply ammonia to meat so we don’t get an infection! Talk about superstition!
I see the terrible effects of our industrial food system every day in the hospital. It is a horrendous picture. There is no compassion in ignoring it, no righteousness in smugly defending the cheap food system that is causing it.
"There is just so much we don’t know,"
There are basic, basic questions that we don’t know the answers to,
It’s going to be a wild ride [with] lots of surprises," she adds. "We will be getting in that black box pretty quickly, but we may not like what we find."
Will they react in the same way Pandora did after realizing what theyve uncovered and close the box (jar) up quickly?
There is no doubt in my mind, when that black box is open and that which is inside is exposed we will all experience healthy dose of humility.
Lykke and Bill Marler
In considering the fundamental nature of the above statements if one feels compelled to search then by all means do so. Do not however presume youre acquired fragmented knowledge the be all and end all of truth.
Ken Conrad
Bill Marler cut and pasted an article written by someone else. Those aren’t his words you quoted. Bill was making the point that he never makes statements about raw milk that are this harsh.
cp
Id like to compliment you for the additional information you have posted on your website about the immune system. It is a step in the right direction. Dr. Natasha Campbell McBrides book is a great resource.
This is my bias, but additional information about using a high quality, high dose, pharmaceutical grade probiotic supplement prior to drinking raw milk would assist in repopulating the gut of an immune depressed person with good bacteria. Or for those opposed to supplements, there is coconut water kefir. http://www.bodyecology.com/archive/coconut-water-in-stores.php.
Can you think of a reason why a person shouldnt prepare their bodys immune system prior to consuming raw milk, especially anyone that falls into the at risk category (weak or underdeveloped immune system) for raw milk consumption? I dont mean to come off as sarcastic, but you marketing strategies target this very population.
Also, I think it is time to remove the BSK study information from fact # 9 and #16. These are false and misleading statements.
#9 Tests privately performed at OPDC (BSK labs) showed that even when these pathogens were added to OPDC raw milk at extremely high levels (7 logs) they would not grow and die off
#16 OPDC has demonstrated that even when high levels of pathogens were introduced into raw milk, they die off and do not grow (BSK tests). In fact, pathogen killing safety systems are hard at work, keeping raw milk safe even if it has been contaminated. OPDC products are highly pathogen resistant.
cp
http://www.sphere.com/health/article/solution-to-killer-superbug-found-in-norway/19299601?icid=main|main|dl1|link5|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sphere.com%2Fhealth%2Farticle%2Fsolution-to-killer-superbug-found-in-norway%2F19299601
The USA sadly….is in near last place and killing 20,000 people or more per year and the rates are climbing rapidly.
It is the Terrain and Ecosystem stupid….the Germ theory died with Pastuer.
Drink raw milk and reterrain yourself.
God I hope the FDA reads this article and wakes up!! According to the good doctor over at FDA….the EU studies do not count. What #$%&^*&^%$#@!!! idiots!!
Mark
Thank you for noting that.
Now, more importantly, does Marler substantially believe the content? Is his point really that he is a softy? I think you are falling for a law-school debating trick.
But that aside cp, what do you make of the substance of my statements that we are missing the forest for the trees? Every time this comes up, you or someone else replies merely that people really DO get sick from raw milk. But that sort of response is also a cheap debating tricksubstituting an offense for a weak or absent defense.
The plain, stark, undeniable reality, is that we have a very sick, faltering, weak society on our hands, and it is coincident with a very narrow-minded industrial food system (of which significant elements are regulations and lawsuits). We know (know!) that this need not be so.
A friend here, about 50 years old, recently began renal dialysis. She has type II diabetes, needs a new pancreas, and suffers from polypharmacy. She is not alone by any means. She is a mere emblem of today’s blooming epidemics of nutrition-related disease. These epidemics are not slowing down. They continue to touch thousands upon thousands of unfortunates. Why? Could it be in part because there is no money to be made by suing the likes of General Mills or ADM or Cargill for her suffering as long as opinions like that of PatMD (the author of Marler’s quoted article) hold the floor?
The sniffing self-satisfaction of PatMD, looking down his nose at all things old-fashioned and alternative, while his patient base suffers so dramatically and he gets paid handsomely to manage their suffering, is neither good, nor right, nor tolerable.
Thanks,
Mark
Tell your consumers what and how often you outsource. Those products really ought to be labeled differently as well. Your FAQ implies that you no longer outsource.
Amanda
It appears to me that Bill Marlers goal is accurate information about raw milk safety.
You will not get an argument from me about our processed, chemical laden food supply and allopathic medicines ability to help fix a broken body. However, in the same breath, most people arent interested in changing their diets and once sick, people want a pill to fix it. The SAD/pharma symptom cover-up cycle is difficult to break. I think all involved are victims of a system that is broken.
As for raw milk, would you agree that we can live without milk and still maintain a healthy diet that can support a healthy body?
cp
What more can be done? I’m open to suggestions. Every day the popular media has stories about obesity, diabetes, etc., and public health messages to "eat less junk" and exercise more. They fall on deaf ears, overall. People love fast food, ready-to-eat processed meals, and massive portions at restaurants. Should we ban these foods and/or places that sell them? Should we enter people’s homes and tell them what to put on their tables and how much of it to eat?
The SAD diet doesn’t kill or injure in a single serving. The bad outcomes are the results of a cumulative effect over time. In contrast, a food contaminated with a pathogen or toxin (deli meats, milk, produce, beef, peanut butter, sushi, etc.) can strike a major blow after only one serving. Its like comparing apples to oranges.
In response to your comment: "As for raw milk, would you agree that we can live without milk and still maintain a healthy diet that can support a healthy body?"
Emphatically NO. That may be the case for you. It may be the case for me. I very strongly believe that this should not be made as a blanket statement because then we (as a society) start to travel down the slippery path of laws and regulations where we could then simply say, well, if it is not needed, then we should just not allow it to be sold. I believe that is where the industry would have us travel, of course at huge financial gain for them.
Personally, I respect your decision to not consume this or that food. For myself, I think that raw milk is an important part of my diet – one that I would definately not want to give up. That is my personal choice though and I understand the need for acurate information to be put out for people to make informed choices on.
As a casual comment, yes I think people can live without any one food as a matter of personal choice. I could choose to do without gluten too if I wanted (even though I think that would be very hard). Many people have done it.
If the choice to not consume milk at all was due to a safety issue, then I think using that same logic there would be entirely very little that I could eat as almost all foods carry much more risk than raw milk (I think the risks are very much overstated).
These are my opinions and I respect you and others to have their opinions (happily too – not in a begruding sense). 🙂
Brandon Peak
You and Bill Marler and others want to define safety out of context. That cannot be done. It is impossible. Looking for such a definition is a doomed strategy, and you are doing everything you can to take others with you. It is extremely frustrating.
You should try to be a more holistic thinker. Holism, properly employed, provides the necessary context for correct decisions about safety (and everything else). It minimizes the externalities your paradigm attempts to ignore.
Please realize that grass is (or at least could be) earth’s most universal macro-biological flora. When grass is healthy and widespread, our air and water are cleaner, our soils are vigorous, biological diversity optimizes, and water cycles effectively. Healthy grass is dependent on ruminants in large herds, cycling across it, clipping it, and fertilizing it. This is part of the great biological machine that is earth. You cannot change that, and our health depends upon us fitting into that great biological machine, not fighting against it. Fitting into it means recognizing our interdependencies within the world, and managing our lives to fit into them. It means, among many other things, managing cattle for meat and milk wisely, according to natural laws.
Removing ourselves from earth’s natural interdependencies, thinking that we can rise above them with our inventions and our schemes, is a deadly vanity. Running from microbes, sanitizing foods, putting antibiotics into our foods and our bodies, are actions symptomatic of that deadly strategy. Whatever you think of Mark, he is absolutely right that strengthphysical, emotional, mental, and immunologicalis built, and can as easily be torn down. Put together the pieces. You would have us sterilize a near-perfect natural food, an action which tears down our strength. That in turn makes us more susceptible to disease, and in turn necessitates more sanitizing, more antibiotics, which further weakens us, and so on. (Is that not what you see going on right now in the great big world?) What is the logical end point?
You want to discover some numerical definition of safety, but you cannot have it. Safety itself is affected by myriad interdependent forces. You must think holistically in order to understand them. You must recognize the vast and intricate interdependencies that affect healthhuman health, environmental health, economic health. When you begin to see those interdependencies, then you will be loath to interrupt them. You will be less likely to seek a lowest common denominator of safety or health. And you will be far less likely to attempt to apply narrow ideas. Was it you, cp, that suggested probiotic pills as a substitute for raw milk? How does that square with your statement that most people arent interested in changing their diets and once sick, people want a pill to fix it.? (Weak immunity is surely a sickness, a dire sickness really, its invisibility to allopathic medical practitioners notwithstanding.)
Raw milk is safe, and even necessary. Does that mean nobody will get sick? Of course not. It means that the greatest good over the longest term will be achieved by growing cattle properly on grass, drinking raw milk and eating meat from those cattle, and, not incidentally, by eating fresh, local crops from geographically diverse and ubiquitous small farms and gardens, by relying on inter-community support, by relying on loving families, and by having strong faith in a loving God. In other words, raw milk is safe, and even necessary, IN ITS PROPER CONTEXT, and THERE IS NO OTHER CONTEXT. Ignore that reality, or attempt to change it, and we will become weaker, as anyone can see is happening in America today. We may feel safe doing that for awhile, but it is a lie, and in the long run it will become an undeniable lie.
Stay in context, and become stronger, happier, and more stable.
Youre an idealist. I admire that. I dont disagree with anything you said. In a perfect world, what you describe is the way it should work.and it was once like that prior to industrialization. For you and others who have land, grow their own food, have a cow or goat, life can still be ideal. You can trust the world around you because you in essence are in control (I know God is in control, but you know what I mean).
Im being practical in my stance on raw milk. You have people becoming aware that it is an option to choose. Only the benefits of raw milk are promoted by leaders in the movement. This is dangerous because the people coming to raw milk are not living in that ideal world of yours. Many are probably ill and looking for something to heal them. This is the danger. Their bodies are not ready for raw milk in the event there is a pathogen. People who are changing their diet in the hopes of healing their bodies need other options besides raw milk for beneficial bacteria. Im being pragmatic when I talk about probiotics being an option. Just because you are a purist, dont demean another option that scientific research has shown to be beneficial. For some, learning about probiotics may be a first step towards a healthier lifestyle.
Bill Marlers raw milk videos are reality. People are becoming extremely ill from consuming raw milk. Raw milk is being promoted as a healing food and people are buying into this without all the information needed to make an informed choice. The only reason none of theadults/children in the video died is because modern medicine has advanced to a place where they can keep a person alive on machines until the body can mend. Fifty years ago they would have all been dead.
Im curious, what advice do you have for an ill person who is considering raw milk as an option to heal the body?
cp
[Insert all the standard disclaimers about not being a doctor, blah, blah, blah]
I think that some method of introducing good bacteria first, for someone considering raw milk, a great idea.
Supplements are one way to do this, kefir might be another.
One issue that I have with supplements though (and why I don’t think they can supply all of my bacterial needs) is that they at most have ~10 or so strains of bacteria. I think it is very presumptuous of us to think that because we know bacteria x or y is good for us that that is the only bacteria we need. We may know that those 10 strains of bacteria are good for us, but what about the 100’s of other strains that we don’t know about? What about all of the enzymes? What about the prebiotics? That I think is the biggest problem with things synthetic. We try to capture the one or two things that we found make a difference and then isolate them (take them out of their context) and hope that they perform the same. I think that most of us realize that while they may still do some good, it is no where near the potential that they could have had in their original environment.
For a long time, my family has tried taking supplements and I think that they have helped. I would not discard these as worthless in any sense (at least the good ones). I think another problem is that there is a glut of, what I might consider, worthless probiotic supplements on the market. How is a person supposed to get a good quality probiotic when there is so much compromised crap in the market.
I have a good friend who is waking up to the whole bacteria topic and when his wife had a need for an antibiotic recently, they went out and bought a probiotic to take along with it and for some time after. The only product he found at the main brand store that he shops at was one that wasn’t refrigerated and only had one strain in it. I question how much good that one strain could do? I can see someone like that trying that one strain and then when they still have a problem with the milk afterwards blaming it on the raw milk and not the supplement they chose.
On a side note, often when typing I will use an online dictionary to verify the spelling of a word. While using the Merriam-Webster dictionary and putting in the word kefir, the ad from Google at the top sends me to this website:
http://douglassreport.com/reports/raw-milk/?gclid=CKvp9MqLhZ8CFRsFagod13IEGw
I am not sure who this doctor is or what exactly he is proporting, but I found it interesting, at least the intro page. Anyone want to sacrifice their email address to see what this person has to say?
Brandon Peak
The "good bacteria" from fresh raw milk are derived from the same place as the "bad bacteria." This seems different from starter cultures in kefirs, as an example. If there are good bacteria in fresh raw milk (right out of the cow), and these have health benefits – are you measuring it, or is the idea faith-based? How many "good" bacteria are reqired to confer a health benefit in raw milk when they enter the milk from skin, poop, and fly contamination? That is a natural reality consumers should be aware of.
Let’s bring the discussion back to the post I made about the toxic e. coli infested ammonia treated meat. Don’t deflect by talking about the the sad diet or fast foods.
How about this for a solution. BAN IT! Use all your powers to stop this slop being fed to innocent children. Perhaps you spend too much time trying to stop raw milk.
When you have done that please let us know.
http://www.vsl3.ca/information.html
Now for another subject.
http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Unpasteurized+milk+producer+fights+Fraser+Health+shut+down+order/2396471/story.html
Is the cow in this picture sticking out its tongue at the all knowing folks harassing its owner?
On the lighter side the cows disgusting germ laden tongue reminded of a sandwich that was nearly worth dying for. 50 years ago in down town Baltimore Md there was a block of Jewish Delis that serve 3 inch thick corned beef tongue sandwiches. YEA the cow tongue is ugly and dangerous but trust me eating those sandwiches was worth the RISK. It was the real el supremeo of sandwiches.
ps I tried the manfactured probiotics in a bottle and it pill form when I was sick over 5 yeras ago and found no positive result only a much lighter wallet
Thanks for the link on the probiotic! It looks nice. I wonder if insurance would pay for something like that? I have never tried. Most probiotics I get come from local health food stores (I like Udos Probiotics). I have some associates at work however that might use probiotics if their insurance would pay for it and heaven knows they need it as they are getting sick all of the time, but buying probiotics on their own is just "too expensive." I agree with them that it is expensive, but so is their sickness that they keep having. I guess my priorities are in a different mindset.
Thanks again,
Brandon Peak
This is not luddite thinking. The power of diversified agriculture in complex natural systems is the reality to which we must (re) awake. Dagget’s book describes real-world healing of lands scarred from human interventions (abandoned mine sites polluted with cyanide) and more tellingly, the healing of lands abandoned FROM human interventions ("set aside" from agriculture or other uses, so as to remain "natural" and, as often happens, barren as a result). As well, archeological evidence increasingly tells us that ancient peoples had it figured out in ways which we are only now re-discovering.
The punch-line for this blog is that the complex nutrients found in raw milk and other nutrient-dense foods are the nutritional capstone on the complex natural systems that begin in healthy soil. CP, I agree that whatever baby steps one might choose to "prepare" oneself to consume raw milk may well be appropriate – yet, the numerous posts here which compare the relative in/effectiveness of commercial probiotics, many with high expense and uni-dimensional single-bug approaches, simply underscore the need for individual choice. Nutrient-dense foods, including fermented raw dairy products, are arguably much more useful. We each have to figure this out for ourselves and our children. I have advocated explicitly (see "11 Great Thoughts" at http://www.ftcldf.org) for over a year that realistic warnings and balanced information about raw milk – indeed, about ALL foods – is basic. If you read the splash page of rawmilk.com you will see cautions about the risk in contaminated raw milk. It’s real, and I don’t think anyone denies it. Our conversations on this blog over the last several years have elucidated much wisdom and balance on the topic, and it’s spreading.
What we don’t need is oppressive regulation, or transparently limiting suggestions effectively banning raw milk (such as, the only permissable access to raw milk is if you actually have a cow in your backyard). Such suggestions in the end deny choice, and what we need more desperately than ever, is more choice, more information, and more healthful diversity in the foods we can eat. Especially when the steam-roller choices offered up by the true idealists, those in industrial agriculture, ever more come from other-worldly factories in which disease-laden phood slurries are injected with chemicals like ammonia, frozen into bricks and shipped around the world to be assembled and served with other nutrient-dead components.
I am no expert, but I am not sure that I would agree that the good and bad bacteria come from the same place????? I have never heard of the good bacteria coming from the skin, poop, or fly contamination. The good bacteria in a healthy cow, eating the correct foods (grass – mostly), come from the cow’s digestive track. Whereas the bad bacteria typically come from outside sources. If the cow is eating the wrong foods then the internal flora can change to contain bad bacteria. That is why following the rules of mother nature is important (what was a cow meant to eat most of?).
I am a strong believer though that even if a person does get sick after drinking raw milk (for the sake of the discussion let’s assume that that was the only thing the person consumed), it does not necessarily mean that the milk was contaminated. I think it has been miguel that has repeatedly talked about how bacteria change to their current environment as a survival mechanism. There is a good deal of scientific research to back that up too. Good bacteria in the wrong environment can change into pathogenic bacteria that can harm. So in my opinion it is highly likely that the source of the bad bug would be the person’s internal ecosystem and not the milk, hence the suggestion to try and kick start a healthy gut flora before drinking raw milk for the first time through the use of a good source of probiotics.
Yes the possibility that contamination from outside the cow can get into the milk is possible. That is why it is important to know your farmer and what his/her practices are. Oh and by the way, the poop, fly contamination, and all the chemicals they use in traditional dairy herds are all in the pasteurized milk as well – probably to a greater extent since everyone’s milk is co-mingled and there is less accountability required as to cleanliness. I don’t think it is possible to insulate ourselves from everything in the world that might seem gross (that is not a statement saying that it is OK to have gross things just that there are certain things we deal with just by living).
Brandon Peak
I am not an idealist at all, but a pragmatist.
You are quite right that things were not long ago much closer to the ideal, and that our industrialization (or more accurately, creeping systemization) has created most of this terrible health mess. So we are now faced with a question: Do we continue down the same path, or do we improve? A pragmatist will say improve, but a fatalist will say there’s no way out. A pragmatist will recognize, as I believe you do at some level, that there is truly just one way to be healthy, fair, and stable, and it is by behaving ourselvesby following the rules that the earth follows.
To my mind it is very impractical to place yet another industrial roadblock between ill people and the means to full, natural health. I do not agree that because they are sick, they must be protected from raw milk. I believe the opposite, and must point out that the numbers are very much with me on that idea. Many, many people drink raw milk today, and extremely few of them live in an ideal world. Most are, in fact, weak and ill. They are, like everybody else, exposed continuously where they live and work to the now ubiquitous toxins, poisons, emotional stresses, and low-nutrient foods of modern and post-modern society. These raw milk drinkers are not getting horrendously sick. Quite the opposite, they are getting well. And undoubtedly most did not begin their raw milk consumption with an invented, scientifically proven prodrome of probiotic pill baby steps. But their wellness is of the quiet sort, defined by what they are NOT suffering from. Boring. Not nearly so exciting or newsworthy as a child with HUS (an illness which, by the way, will manage to get some of us no matter how carefully we avoid raw foods or how assiduously we sterilize our food and our environment).
I am up to my ears with the utopian nonsense of politicians, regulators, lawyers, and doctors who sanctimoniously proclaim that one sick child is too many, as if they have the power to prevent that one illness, or for that matter, many illnesses. That sort of pandering ought to be laughed away, but instead it is imbibed as information necessary for us to make appropriate choices. The real effect of that sort of talk is only to reinforce the status quo. You say, For you and others who have land, grow their own food, have a cow or goat, life can still be ideal. But the reach of your paradigm is deep, and it pushes me around on my own ideal land, in my own ideal home. Vaccination rules, mandated health insurance, restrictions on fair commerce, mandated education, and so on, are the fruits of that sort of modern reductionist thinking and policy-making, and they stand between me and my supposed right to pursue happiness. Before long my fields will probably be infected with Monsanto GMO seed.
Now in case I have not made it perfectly clear, I consider raw milk important, but still merely a part of a whole. I support the whole, not just the part. Thus I do keep a small farm, a couple of cows, and a good garden. I also have family, friends, neighbors, and a church family whom I rely on continuously, just as I rely on soil microbes and oxygen and sunlight. I see us all as dependent and interconnected. Politicians and doctors and regulators think they can skip over that dependence and interconnectedness with protections and treatments. Baloney.
Now if I may run on even more, I’d like to tell you a human story that I find compelling, and very relevant to our discussion here.
A friend of mine, when her mother was alive but aged and disabled with illness and dementia, used to take her for wheelchair walks around town. (Town for us is a small, old place with storefront-shops on Main Street.) Her mother used to love going to the local department store, but it was built long before the age of politically-correct fairness laws and the Americans with Disabilities Act, so is not wheelchair accessible. When my friend would get to the front door, a clerk or two would hop out to hold the door and help lift the wheelchair in up the steps. Often a passer-by would help as well. These acts were always accompanied by smiles and thank-yous and nods of purpose and appreciation. These were, in essence, the emblem of community. The obvious need for help at the moment did not create them, rather it created the opportunity for them. Now if the department store ever decides to change its storefront, the law will require it to install ramps and electric doors and improved lighting, to become accessible. the mandated changes will be, of course, for our own good. They will be, at the department store door, the end of strangers helping strangers, neighbors helping neighbors, and the teaching, learning, and social development that offering human-to-human help always creates. It will be another nail in the coffin of brotherly love, trust, and community cohesiveness, and because all things are interconnected, it will be a blow to our physical and emotional health and stability, in exactly the same way that a protective rule about raw milk is.
With respect to critical care in conventional modern medicine the medical profession has had to become exceptionally skilled at keeping people alive as a means to offset the effects of their drugs and in order to save face. Many people would have been much better off if they (the medical profession) had simply left well enough alone.
Their uses of drugs apart from being unnecessary in many instances amounts to nothing more then a craps shoot with hundreds of thousands men, women and children suffering untold consequences.
Ken Conrad
I think it is safe to say that all the food safety people who post here are very concerned about beef safety.
Brandon,
"The good bacteria in a healthy cow, eating the correct foods (grass – mostly), come from the cow’s digestive track."
Exactly. The bacteria do not travel from the gut through the blood and into the mammary gland. The milk exits the gland essentially sterile (unless the animal has mastitis). The good and bad bacteria are picked up from the skin and the environment. Including the feces.
Are there any studies that look at the concentration of probiotic type bacteria in fresh raw milk compared with fermented milk products like kefir? It seems likely that there would be a lot of variation from farm to farm (and from day to day on any given farm) for the fresh milk. It also seems likely that "clean" fresh raw milk would have much lower levels of probiotic bacteria compared with fermented products or cp’s pill formulations.
Again you evade. You asked for suggestions. I said to ban the poisonous garbage.
Are you unable to do anything about this or even acknowledge my question?
You can’t even say the words.
This problem falls on you as you have not stopped this poisoning of innocent children.
I originally became acquainted with Dr. William Campbell Douglass about twenty five years ago with the purchase of his book The Milk of Human Kindness currently known as The Milk Book. The book is available at Amazon and is well worth taking the time to read.
In her introduction Maureen Kennedy Salaman, President of the National Health Federation refers to the above book as, Factual and funny, witty and blisteringly honest It is all here in this uncommonly readable book. the destructive effects of pasteurization of milk and the utter ruthlessness and dishonesty of state government protecting a favored industry.
She refers to milk as, A vital food resource destroyed through greed, ignorance, vindictiveness and fanatical prejudice.
Ken Conrad
You can do your own study,If you can find any fresh,still warm milk straight from the cow.Put a pint of it(still warm)on the shelf in your kitchen.Check it often to see when it thickens so that it separates cleanly from the glass.I have done this many times.The fresh warm milk will thicken as fast as heated(enough to kill any lactic acid bacteria),cultured milk will thicken when you have added a starter culture to it.I believe the cow’s teat always contains some of the bacteria that is in the cow’s environment.The lactic acid bacteria are simply the bacteria that are most competitive in healthy cow’s milk so they tend to inhibit the growth of other bacteria.Fresh raw milk is inoculated as it passes through the cow’s teat.
Yes,these bacteria are from the cow’s environment.If the cow does not have an infection in it’s udder,then it is successfully producing antibodies to that bacteria.If the milk tastes very sweet this is good evidence that the bacteria count in the teat is very low.A lot of bacteria would consume the lactose and excrete a waste product that is not sweet tasting.
http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/why-the-u-s-food-safety-bills-should-worry-even-rich-bankers-of-wall-street/#more-13009
The above experiments have been done and have yielded consistent, repeatable results whereby the raw milk sours and the pasteurized milk rots. Just as organism are responsible for the souring (culturing) process likewise organism are responsible for the rotting process as well. Personally I would prefer and would go as far as to welcome the former to the later.
I am not that well versed on the pathology of the rotting process for pasteurized milk however it would appear that in order to initiate the rotting process pasteurization is a required step.
Lykke and cp,
Are you aware of the pathology of the rotting process of pasteurized milk?
Do you agree that pasteurized milk does not have the self preserving qualities of raw milk?
Ken Conrad
To answer Miguel and Ken, raw milk is a food that is alive and pasteurized milk is dead (it has been heated). No different than raw carrots are alive and boiled carrots are dead. Raw milk WITHOUT A DEADLY PATHOGEN I believe has many healthy nutrients that contribute to a healthy immune system. I also believe people should have the right to choose raw milk. The deadly pathogen part is the problematic aspect of raw milk.
All that being said, can we move the conversation away from the right to choose and raw milks health benefits to the topic of safety and balanced information (pros and cons of raw milk) that future consumers of raw milk should have access to at point of sale?
Dave, you never did answer my question about what you would tell the first time consumer of raw milk. Would you give them any warnings?
In states where raw milk is legal to sell, I think the real bone of contention is whether people have the right to sell raw milk without government regulation, i.e. cow share programs or small family farms. And if it is not regulated, how are people protected from a farmer that may not know what they are doing? There cant just be a free for all for selling raw milk.
The client videos Bill Marler has made are not flukes. Hes going to be collecting more raw milk clients year after year, just like hamburger clients. People are becoming ill from raw milk and this fact has to be addressed by the raw milk community and anyone selling raw milk. Watch and listen to the videos. These people believed all the health claims about raw milk and tried it..this could have been any of you. http://www.foodpoisonjournal.com/2009/12/articles/food-poisoning-information/before-you-consider-drinking-raw-milk-please-read-this-and-watch-these-videos/
Steve Bemis has addressed this topic. http://www.ftcldf.org/news/news-11-Great-Thoughts.html I commend him for that.
Amanda Rose has also addressed this topic. http://www.ethicurean.com/2009/07/20/raw-milk-2/
Id like to see Sally Fallon address this topic. WAPF is the powerhouse for promoting the sale and advocating the use of raw milk. What about the people that almost died from drinking raw milk.not pretty is it Sally?
If people decreased SAD and increased their consumption of raw organic fruits and vegetables, meats and poultry, healthy fats, free range eggs, whole grains, legumes, raw butter and raw cheese aged for 60 days (these two products are the lowest risk for pathogens), fermented vegetables, pasteurized yogurt and kefir from grass fed cows/goats and add a high potency probiotic and fish oil supplement all would be well with the immune system. This is the diet I would like see promoted. Health is not all about raw milk.
cp
"If you read the splash page of rawmilk.com you will see cautions about the risk in contaminated raw milk."
I looked at the "splash page" for realmilk.com and do not see credible information about risks. There are a series of rebuttals to food safety concerns and denial of outbreaks . The FTCLDF page on raw milk is about the same: http://www.ftcldf.org/raw-milk.html. It is surprising that the raw milk production and consumer safety educational materials found at your group’s online store are not advertised/linked on the splash pages: https://www.farmtoconsumer.net/EducationalItems.asp
It is a travesty that this king of all foods is vilified chased after with guns badges and the courts by the estabilishment while at the same time they are "ramming down the throats" of the American people the very toxic fake phoods and toxic nostrums that destroy the human immune systems and "eats up" $2.5 trillion dollars annually via the desease management "system"
"If people decreased SAD" Why not eliminate the SAD a little toxin is still toxic to our bodies.
The Standard American Diet is big business its all about the bottom line the bottom line only and America’s health be damned.
Can we move away from the right to choose raw milk? SURE
"Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither libery or safety" Benjamin Franklin
Raw carrots or any raw foods for that matter do not have the self preserving qualities that raw milk has. Their decomposition is a given raw or cooked. Milk in its raw state is the only food that I am aware of that has the ability to produce without outside intervention the acids necessary for self preservation.
Ken Conrad
I agree, the microbe and enzyme composition of raw and pasteurized milk are different, which explains your observation. Ironically, natural enzymes that survive heat treatment are partially responsible for the spoilage:
http://tinyurl.com/ykvwcwq
As clarification, the experiment I wanted to conduct involved comparison of levels and types of probiotic bacteria in fresh raw milk vs. fermented raw milk products.
That would be a great experiment. Do you know anyone with money to back it?
cp
Please note that this website recommends Real Milk–that is, milk that is full-fat, unprocessed, and from pasture-fed cows. We do NOT recommend consumption of raw milk from conventional confinement dairies or dairies which produce milk intended for pasteurization. Nor do we recommend the consumption of lowfat or skim raw milk–there are important protective factors in the butterfat. Real Milk, that is, raw whole milk from grass-fed cows (fed pasture, hay and silage), produced under clean conditions and promptly refrigerated, contains many anti-microbial and immune-supporting components; but this protective system in raw milk can be overwhelmed, and the milk contaminated, in situations conducive to filth and disease. Know your farmer!
You said: "There cant just be a free for all for selling raw milk. "
Sure there can. Its called FREEDOM!
Or am I a slave with no right to decide what goes in my body?
Really, am I?
Pete
"Inasmuch as it highlights the risk of contaminating raw milk, explicitly acknowledging that raw milk’s protective system can be overwhelmed, what would you think should be a "credible" suggested alternative?"
That is a tiny statement buried in a forest of misinformation, which I admit must have taken a lot of work for WAPF to bury it there. Per 11 great thoughts, why not put the safe production and consumer handling recommendations front and center on these websites?
8) Educational materials (directed to both producers and consumers) for the safe production, handling and processing of raw milk and raw milk products should be developed and widely distributed generally and in the producer’s advertising and sales media.
https://www.farmtoconsumer.net/Handbooks.asp
I see that you have not responded to my posts about the poisonous meat.
I can only conclude that you agree with the regulators that this product is safe and it is ok to injure and kill innocent children.