In Appeal, Dan Brown Says Judge’s Raw Milk Injunction Drove Him Out of Farming

by | Feb 17, 2014 | Legal, Regulation, Resistance | 42 comments

DanBrown-interview-348.jpg

Dan BrownLawyers for Maine farmer Dan Brown say a judge who issued an injunction last April barring him from selling raw milk “completely overlooked” that he would have had to spend $62,500 to comply with regulations to obtain a state permit for his one-cow dairy. 

As a result, “The injunction has put Mr. Brown’s farm out of business,” according to a brief filed on behalf of Brown by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund to appeal the decision by Superior Court Judge Ann Murray.  In addition, Brown was assessed $1,132 in fines and court costs.

That judicial error was one of a series of mistakes alleged by Brown’s lawyers in two briefs filed with an appeals court. Among the errors alleged: 

 * That Judge Murray refused to recognize the fact that Brown was selling his milk without a license based on advice he received from state dairy regulators. It was consistent with the fact that for 30 years prior to the judge’s decision, Maine’s Department of Agriculture had told small producers like Brown that they didn’t need to obtain a milk producer’s license so long as they didn’t advertise their raw milk and sold it only from the farm. 

 * As a result of the 30-year policy allowing small farms to sell milk without a license, the “health consequences” the state argued to justify Brown needing to obtain a license are without any basis. “It …defies credulity to think that the Department would have for over 30 years knowingly exposed the consuming public to what are now being described as ‘serious public health consequences’ by not requiring farmers like Mr. Brown to obtain a milk distributor’s license.”

 * The judge’s reference to “public health implications” as a major reason for ruling against Brown were in error because the issue was never argued by the two sides. According to Brown’s appeal, “the ‘public health implications’ of the case were not even developed, as they were considered ‘irrelevant’ by the State to begin with. Defendant did not engage in discovery on this issue, neither did the State, and thus there was an incomplete record before the trial court on the ‘public health implications’ of selling raw dairy products.”

“In essence, the trial court’s judgment in favor of the State was factually insufficient because it failed to present any factual findings that the consumption of raw milk and raw dairy products presents any risk of harm to the consuming public, let alone the unlicensed sale of milk presents a risk.”

 * The state’s argument that there are “public interests of the State” in requiring Brown to obtain a license hasn’t been “defined.” The appeal argues that “there was no evidence that any of the milk sold by Mr. Brown was improperly handled, collected, bottled or held in an unsafe or unsanitary manner. There was no evidence that any of the milk sold by Mr. Brown was contaminated by any bacteria, parasite or virus. There was no evidence that any of the milk sold by Mr. Brown made anybody sick or ill. If there were such evidence, the Department would have presented it, and its failure to do so is fatal to its argument. 

“To the contrary, the unrebutted evidence was that Mr. Brown and his family had consumed his milk for over 5 years and had never once become sick. The unrebutted evidence was also that for over 5 years, nobody who was a customer of Mr. Brown’s ever made any complaints that they became sick or ill from consuming Mr. Brown’s milk.

“Consequently, the Department’s whole….argument is akin to the parable of Chicken Little, a hypothetical fear of a hypothetical event that has yet to occur. That hypothetical fear is not enough to overcome the detriment to Mr. Brown, i.e., being put out business after relying on what the Department told him.”

 * The judge erred in suggesting that Brown could easily obtain a license by simply paying a nominal licensing fee. “Moreover, the trial court’s conclusion that ‘the injury to Brown is minimal because he [could] obtain a license ‘for a mere $25’ was not supported by the facts. To the contrary, Mr. Brown originally estimated it would cost him $62,500 to comply with all of the requirements…” 

The $62,500 was detailed this way: “Mr. Brown would have to spend approximately $10,000 to comply with the milking barn requirements; approximately $3,500 to comply with the cowyard requirements; approximately $25,000 to comply with the milk house requirements; approximately $5,000 to install an additional toilet room; and an additional $19,000 to install and construct separate rooms for processing, packaging and cooling the milk.”

 * The accusation that Brown failed to comply with the state’s raw milk labeling requirements shouldn’t have been allowed. “In this case, Mr. Brown sold raw milk from his farm stand and always had a sign that stated the following: ‘this milk is not pasteurized.’ The sign measured 8 1/2 by 11 and was hung at his farm stand. It was visible to all of his customers and clearly informed them that the milk they were purchasing was not pasteurized. As a result, each time anyone purchased raw milk from Mr. Brown they were put on notice of its contents, just as if their bottle or jug had a label on it. As a result, there was no need for Mr. Brown to place a label on each container of raw milk that he sold because he had substantially complied with the label requirement.”

 * Finally, there is the matter of the Food Sovereignty ordinance that Blue Hill had adopted, and which Brown was operating under at the time the state filed suit against him.  Passed in 2011, it expressly allows local farms and food producers to sell food directly to consumers, outside of any state and federal regulations. According to the appeal, “there is nothing in Maine’s regulatory system over dairy products or food establishments that expressly preempts local municipalities from regulating raw milk or other food. If there were such an express preemption, which there is not, the trial court and the State would have cited to it. The trial court’s and State’s inability to cite to an express provision that preempts local regulation of dairy products or food establishments means that the Blue Hill ordinance is not preempted by State law. Thus, it was an error for the trial court to conclude that Blue Hill’s ordinance was preempted. 

“Blue Hill’s local ordinance also does not frustrate the purposes of agriculture or food. To the contrary, the Blue Hill ordinance fosters the Legislature’s intent in regulating agriculture and supports its purposes. Specifically, the Blue Hill ordinance contributes to ‘the state’s overall economy,’ it strengthens ‘rural life and values,’ helps ensure the ‘survival of the family farm,’ and enables local producers ‘of the family farm to prosper, while producing an abundance of high quality food and fiber,’ all of which the Maine legislature has found to be specific purposes of agriculture in the State….Thus, the Blue Hill ordinance should have been upheld and not preempted. A court is prohibited from reading words into a statute when those words are not there.”

The state’s response to the appeal focuses heavily on “public health risks” allegedly posed by Brown operating without a dairy license. “Even if he relied on a government worker that may have erroneously advised him…nothing in the law or the record supports the notion that (Brown) should be allowed to continue to create public health risks.” 

The frequent references to “public health risks” clearly scared a judge the first time around, to the extent she interpreted the Blue Hill Food Sovereignty law to not apply to dairy products, even though it makes no mention of them. The state figures the appeals court judges will react similarly. 

42 Comments

  1. To show an avatar with your comment, go to Gravatar and attach your picture to your email!
  2. rawmilkmike
    rawmilkmike on February 17, 2014 at 5:04 pm
    This is a fabulous article David. Check possible typo “let alone the unlicensed sale of milk presents a risk.”
    …
    New CDC study suggests raw milk does not cause foodborne illness. Food safety professor Ben Chapman of North Carolina State University agrees raw milk has a negative risk factor. David Gumpert says the CDCs 1.7% per year negative risk-factor for Minnesota raw milk is way off and that he believes Minnesota’s raw milk has a negative risk-factor below 0.5%.
    http://foodsafetytalk.com/food-safety-talk/2014/2/8/food-safety-talk-55-damn-ignorant-phds
    David’s exact words on Don and Ben’s podcast #55(01:03:47 to 01:04:05) – Minnesota’s raw milk foodborne illness risk factor is “way south of” 17% per 10 years like the CDC Minnesota study purports because he’s met “a couple hundred” Minnesota raw milk consumers who have said they’ve never been sickened by raw milk. Ben seemed to disagree by saying(01:04:03) “I assume you don’t know everyone that drinks raw milk.” By making this statement he was in fact agreeing, you’d need to meet all 163,000 raw milk consumers in Minnesota if you wanted to find the one that got sick. These are negative risk-factors because the average non-raw milk drinking public has a 15% per year chance of acquiring a foodborne illness and raw milk’s numbers are “way south of that”. A negative risk-factor means raw milk is preventing foodborne illness not causing it. So why “shouldn’t we feed it to your kids” Don? Doesn’t this put an end to the raw milk debate once and for all?
    ………………………………………………
    Health officials in Minnesota warned Wednesday that based on a 10-year study. They estimated that more than 17% of the state’s residents who drank raw milk got sick during the 10-year study. http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sn-minnesota-raw-milk-20131211,0,1666103.story#axzz2tOoRRo3j
    About 48 million people (That’s 15% or1 in 6 Americans) get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die each year from foodborne diseases, according new estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2010/r101215.html
    Food Safety Talk 53: Raw Milk Hamsterdam – The gist of the show. We want to stop people from consuming healthy food but we can’t just tell them to stop because we don’t have the authority so we must convince authorities to put a stop to health-food consumption and they can’t do that if it is illegal so it must be legalized and them eliminated through regulation. http://foodsafetytalk.com/food-safety-talk/2014/1/food-safety-talk-53-raw-milk-hamsterdam
    When food safety professors, Don Schaffner of Rutgers says “that isn’t what I said” he’s not really denying that that is in fact what he meant.
    …………………………………………………..
    Mary, adults get stomach flu twice as often as children and raw milk loses it association with childhood illness when children go to daycare or school.
    …
    Mary, what makes you think Twinkies and Coca Cola are better than fresh milk?
    ….
    http://www.gardenstaterawmilk.org/documents/S279andA518RawMilkBill-KeyIssues.doc
    Reply
  3. Shawna Barr
    Shawna Barr on February 17, 2014 at 5:12 pm
    Its important to note that for Mr. Brown, this is not a “raw milk” issue. It is an issue of regulations unscaleable to the size of his operation. If he were selling pasteurized milk from his one-cow without a license he would similarly be out of compliance. You can apply this situation to just about every food produced at the micro-sale, community level.

    The obvious question to me is, if Mr. Brown’s unlicensed operation is presenting a public health risk, why isn’t the State of Maine hard at work figuring out how to get this guy a dairy license? Why aren’t they talking about how to make the dairy-regs scaleable for a one-cow farm? Because anyone with an ounce of common sense knows it does not take a $25,000 facility to pour 4-7gallons of milk out of a bucket and into jars each day.

    In any case, I will tell you first hand you do not need a $62,500 worth of improvements to safely handle milk from a “herd” this size. Assuming Mr. Brown already has a place to milk his cow, a plan for chilling his milk, means to clean jars, and a place to feed his cow, one-cow infrastruction can be creative and still very quality and safe. One cow can be milked in a garage or a shed. The manure from one cow can be gathered by hand each day. One cow can be staked to a pole to graze, or managed with about $100 worth of portable electric fence.

    The State of Main needs to make sure Mr. Brown has received training on how to produce low-risk raw milk and then set testable benchmarks for him. For example, bacteria thresholds and regular surveillance testing. Cooling times and temperatures. Evidence that his cow is disease free. I would also recommend a written Grass-to-Glass operations plan to address all the aspects of his quality milk production, which hopefully Mr. Brown already has. And then they need to give him a license.

    I would encourage his community and his customers to demand this of their State. The dairy regulators and food safety experts work for the people, and together we need to figure this out. We need innovation and common sense. Stop checking boxes and instead get out to the barn, engage brains, talk to the farmer, and look around at what is really going on at the one-cow farm.

    RAWMI representatives could visit that farm and in a couple of hours give extremely constructive feedback on what, if any, safety improvements are needed. And I guarantee you, they would not cost $62,500. Raw milk safety is much more about mindset and information than facilities.

    This one is close to my heart. This represents our situation in California as well.

    Reply
  4. null.set
    null.set on February 17, 2014 at 6:42 pm
    there’s a good thread going on, about prove-able risks of harm from drinking raw milk
    … on Mister Marler’s website
    … < http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2014/02/publishers-platform-raw-milk-a-risky-elixir/#.UwJWFm39wrU >

    all the knee-jerk objections are coming off pretty thin – laughable that the best they can do is cite conditions in big cities, from over a century ago! One interesting mention is : Louis Pasteur said ‘the process ought not to be used for food’. That one’s worth tracking-down

    Reply
  5. Deborah - Pacifica
    Deborah - Pacifica on February 17, 2014 at 7:51 pm
    Good point, Gordon, about Pasteur’s comment…goes to show how many people do not know the correct information regarding the history & need for pasteurization. I have brought this point up a few times on this forum in the past. Pasteur’s pasteurization was meant for preserving wine during long months of transport, thereby saving the profits of winemakers…it was never meant for milk or any other food products. But, it is very obvious that this history has been deliberately corrupted to suit the needs of those who wish to exploit it. I would like to hear what Marler has to say when he is finally confronted with documented facts & evidence of successfully treated allergies, ADT, autism, digestive disorders & so on within children & adults.
    Reply
  6. D. Smith
    D. Smith on February 17, 2014 at 11:39 pm
    According to that article at marler’s blog thingy, Mary stated that her son was diagnosed with colitis. Was that before or after the diagnosis of raw milk poisoning? Just curious.
    Reply
  7. Deborah - Pacifica
    Deborah - Pacifica on February 18, 2014 at 12:03 am
    D. if I remember correctly, the colitis occurred during the hospitalizations.
    Reply
  8. Mary McGonigle-Martin
    Mary McGonigle-Martin on February 18, 2014 at 12:23 am
    The energy you and Deborah spend on this is ridiculous. Anyone who has an E.coli infection will have colitis. In the beginning it presents as colitis because if you shit your brains out non-stop for 5 days your colon will be inflamed.
    Reply
  9. mark mcafee
    mark mcafee on February 18, 2014 at 1:50 am
    My advice….do not piss off Mary….kind of like getting between a hungry Kodiac bear and her cubs.
    Suggest civil dialogue and just keep on producing extremely high quality raw milk. Our raw milk food safety track record speaks so much louder than anything that can be verbally spoken.
    Reply
  10. null.set
    null.set on February 18, 2014 at 1:59 am
    oh, here we go … for the last 6 years (?) this woman rode her one-trick pony, repeating ad nauseum the micro-details of her main claim to fame. But when the spotlight of scrutiny is turned on her … she doesn’t want to discuss it!
    ….As the media hoax of the purported “Sandy Hook shooting” comes apart, it would not surprise me to find out that this professional opponent of the Campaign for REAL MILK, is a “crisis actress”. “The lie is halfway ’round the world, before the Truth gets its boots on”. her tale of woe now unraveling, : “the cover-up becomes the story”… I’d sure like to see the money-trail = who paid her, and to do what, precisely?

    … no, I’m not saying the boy never really suffered all that trauma. I’m saying that it is less logical than ever, that his distress arose from him having consumed raw milk. Bear in mind that that was never proven. His case just happened to be perfect for hammering Organic Pastures Dairy, at a critical moment in the contest for public opinion. If we know one thing fer sure, it’s that Big.GaG is not the least bit concerned with veracity, let alone anyone’s health

    Reply
  11. D. Smith
    D. Smith on February 18, 2014 at 4:12 am
    The way I use my energy is my own business, Mary, as is the way you choose to use yours. It was a simple enough question. If you don’t want to answer it don’t.

    :>

    Reply
  12. Mary McGonigle-Martin
    Mary McGonigle-Martin on February 18, 2014 at 4:26 am
    There was never a diagnosis of raw milk poisoning. The hospital does not determine what made a child ill, they just treat the illness. On Sept. 10th he was diagnosed with colitis. On Sept 14th we arrived at Loma Linda University children’s hospital. There was mention of another child there with HUS. On Sept. 17th I met Melissa Herzog, the mother of the other little girl who also became sick after drinking the same brand of raw milk. By this time there were also two more children in San Diego who also became ill after drinking the same brand of raw milk. The recall occurred on Sept 22nd. The heath department determined there was an outbreak. Later 2 more children were added to the list.
    Reply
  13. Deborah - Pacifica
    Deborah - Pacifica on February 18, 2014 at 5:11 am
    Mary – don’t have a cow….I was only answering D’s question & I answered based off of what I remembered what you yourself had written in your diary that you yourself posted on this forum. And as for your statement of ‘Anyone who has an E.coli infection will have colitis’ is medically incorrect. There have been many patients who did NOT develop colitis after an e coli infection. Now on the other hand, the Shiga Toxin from HUS may (& I emphasize ‘MAY’, it is still not proven) cause colitis. There are also different forms of colitis, many of which are reversible (remember, I’ve been in medicine over 30 yrs). But, these explanations are a moot point since D only asked at which time did the colitis show up…didn’t know you were going to go ballistic at her question & my answer!!!!
    Reply
  14. D. Smith
    D. Smith on February 18, 2014 at 3:06 pm
    @ Deborah: I’m going to send you an email a little later on today. I have a couple of ideas floating around in my brain that I need to discuss with you. Please check it later today – and thanks.
    Reply
  15. Deborah - Pacifica
    Deborah - Pacifica on February 18, 2014 at 3:28 pm
    Sure, no problem, it will have to be later on today as I’m leaving for the hospital right now, we have an 8am case, I’m expecting to be back to my hotel around 6ish.
    Reply
  16. D. Smith
    D. Smith on February 18, 2014 at 4:45 pm
    @ Deborah: I sent off part of it now, but I have to attend my grandson’s funeral this afternoon, so won’t be back at my computer until later this evening to finish my query to you.
    Reply
  17. D. Smith
    D. Smith on February 18, 2014 at 4:45 pm
    @ Deborah: I sent off part of it now, but I have to attend my grandson’s funeral this afternoon, so won’t be back at my computer until later this evening to finish my query to you.
    Reply
  18. null.set
    null.set on February 18, 2014 at 5:38 pm
    those concerned with the politics of the Campaign for REAL MILK, ought to view Mister Marler’s Food Safety website for the latest in the war of words … a brilliant piece of propaganda. What fear-mongering looks like when done by masters of the craft … right up there with the all -time classics = the claim of the Brits, in WW One, that “the Huns took babies out of a nursery, and tossed them off a balcony onto bayonets of soldiers below’. Or ; the modern example = that performance by the ‘crisis actress’ = that “Iraqi soldiers had gone into a hospital in Kuwait and unplugged critical care support for newborns”. Utter lies, yet overwhelming for manipulating public opinion … you’ve got to give the Devil his due : they may be whores, but the press-titutes are smart : they know that once the emotions are engaged, logic is irrelevant.

    http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2014/02/a-mom-and-a-dairymans-plea-dont-feed-children-raw-milk/

    Reply
  19. Shawna Barr
    Shawna Barr on February 18, 2014 at 6:43 pm
    It worked for me Gordon. Total emotional highjack. After tears from my mom’s heart (which I dont’ regret) and a bit nausea, I’ve now re-activated my brain. This article mentions nothing about conditions on the farm. It also fails to mention that after this tragedy, the Oregon Raw Milk Producers Association was formed to train farmers, and RAWMI held a training there. The article states multiple times that the farmers lacked information. So sad.
    Reply
  20. Deborah - Pacifica
    Deborah - Pacifica on February 18, 2014 at 9:47 pm
    Don’t know if anyone has watched this yet…’Farmed and Dangerous’, it is sponsored & produced by Chipotle. Of an interesting note, check out the Cast of Characters here: http://farmedanddangerous.com/#/characters/buck. It will be interesting to see what becomes of this, let alone if anyone will get the concept behind this series. I had heard that this was coming, but forgot about it until a friend called me yesterday to see if I had seen it yet. You can watch the episode online: http://farmedanddangerous.com/#/watch.
    Reply
  21. Mary McGonigle-Martin
    Mary McGonigle-Martin on February 19, 2014 at 2:45 am
    Hemorrhagic Colitis http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/digestive_disorders/gastroenteritis/hemorrhagic_colitis.html

    http://www.everydayhealth.com/ulcerative-colitis/get-the-facts-about-ecoli-hemorrhagic-colitis.aspx

    Treating E. Coli Hemorrhagic Colitis

    “Inflammatory bowel diseases like ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease can also cause bloody diarrhea, but they are long-lasting diseases. E. coli colitis usually clears up on its own within about one week,” said LoSavio.

    Symptoms of E. coli hemorrhagic colitis usually begin about three days after the bacteria get into your digestive system. Symptoms can range from mild diarrhea and cramping to severe diarrhea, abdominal pain, bloody stools, nausea, and vomiting. “Severe diarrhea can lead to dehydration and weakness,” said LoSavio.

    Symptoms usually last for 5 to 10 days, and most people get better by just taking it easy and drinking plenty of fluids. But serious cases do occur and HUS is a rare but dangerous complication. Symptoms of HUS are decreased urine output and dark-colored urine.

    On day four, they did a sigmoidoscopy on Chris. I have a picture of his inflamed colon. He was diagnosed with colitis.

    I’m surprised you’ve been in medicine for 30 years and don’t know about hemorrhagic colitis.

    Reply
  22. rawmilkmike
    rawmilkmike on February 19, 2014 at 4:15 am
    Mary, a new CDC study shows raw milk prevents foodborne illness. Food safety professor Ben Chapman of North Carolina State University agrees raw milk has a negative risk factor.
    http://foodsafetytalk.com/food-safety-talk/2014/2/8/food-safety-talk-55-damn-ignorant-phds
    On Don and Ben’s podcast #55(01:04:03) Ben said, you’d need to meet all 163,000 raw milk consumers in Minnesota if you wanted to find one that would say they got sick from raw milk. This is a negative risk-factor because the average non-raw milk drinking public has a 15% per year chance of acquiring a foodborne illness while Minnesota’s raw milk drinkers only have a 1.7% per year chance. A negative risk-factor means raw milk is preventing foodborne illness not causing it.
    …
    Health officials in Minnesota said Wednesday that based on a 10-year study, they estimate that a little over 17% of the state’s residents who drank raw milk got sick during the 10-year study. http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sn-minnesota-raw-milk-20131211,0,1666103.story#axzz2tOoRRo3j
    According to new estimates from the CDC, about 48 million people (That’s 15% or1 in 6 Americans) get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die each year from foodborne diseases. http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2010/r101215.html
    Reply
  23. Deborah - Pacifica
    Deborah - Pacifica on February 19, 2014 at 4:45 am
    Oh Mary…Mary…Mary, you have a very, very bad habit of twisting what someone writes in their post…either that, or you have a hard time comprehending what you are reading!! Not once did I state, nor allude to not knowing about hemorrhagic colitis…I am very much aware of hemorrhagic colitis, as well as, ulcerative colitis and ischemic colitis and idiopathic colitis and latrogenic colitis and vascular colitis and infectious colitis and so on…I’m think you get the picture! Be that as it may, what I DID say was in response to your statement of ‘Anyone who has an E.coli infection will have colitis’ as being medically incorrect. I am not going to post all of the medical papers/documents nor site numerous medical sources about colitis. Colitis is not so cut & dry as you would like it to be…it is a very complex medical situation that is NOT the same from patient to patient. You need to understand that your experience is just that…it is not, nor will it ever be the same for many, many other patients. Each manifestation is going to be different, each one will be of a different cause & effect, even if it seems to be of similar type. There is no ‘cookbook’ diagnosis, nor ‘cookbook’ treatment for the complexities of colitis as each patient is different & reacts differently. I was trying to keep it simplified for your sake, but you elected to take it further. I find it very curious that you want to challenge someone who has gone through 8yrs of medical training & 4 additional yrs of specialty training!
    Reply
  25. rawmilkmike
    rawmilkmike on February 19, 2014 at 4:07 pm
    Mary, children, the elderly, and the immune compromised are the ones you hurt most with your raw milk prohibition. Milk is the most natural food for children, as apposed to spinach and Brussels sprouts, the elderly have often lost many of their chewing teeth, and the immune compromised certainly need it’s known health benefits. Young children get diarrhea half as often as adults. Any foodborne illness that can also be spread by human contact will be rampant in schools and day-cares. So where do you get your association with raw milk?
    …
    “The two items pushed on our elderly for good health are Ensure and flu shots. My grandmother was healthy until she started drinking Ensure everyday. No wonder she started having bowel issues for the first time in her life. And for the flu shots, 4 years ago my Grandmother was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s.” Who: Mary McGonigle-…| when: Tue, 05/01/2007 – 23:2
    http://thecompletepatient.com/article/2007/april/30/coming-face-face-eldercare-when-faith-physician-becomes-intimidation
    …
    Mary, raw milk prevents foodborne illness because it has a negative risk factor.
    http://foodsafetytalk.com/food-safety-talk/2014/2/8/food-safety-talk-55-damn-ignorant-phds
    …
    Minnesota’s raw milk drinkers only have a 1.7% per year(17% per 10 years) chance of getting sick from foodborne diseases. http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sn-minnesota-raw-milk-20131211,0,1666103.story#axzz2tOoRRo3j
    …
    According to the CDC, about 48 million people (That’s 15% or1 in 6 Americans) get sick each year from foodborne diseases. http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2010/r101215.html
    …
    “Well, children in the studies who received Lactobacillus had about a half a day (0.7 days to be exact) decrease in the duration of their diarrhea, and 1.6 fewer episodes of diarrhea after the second day of treatment.” http://pediatrics.about.com/cs/pediatricadvice/a/lactobacillus.htm
    …
    “PROBIOTIC PROPERTIES OF LACTOBACILLI STRAINS ISOLATED FROM RAW COW MILK IN THE WESTERN HIGHLANDS OF CAMEROON” http://bioaliment.ugal.ro/revista/9/paper%2092.pdf
    Reply
  26. Deborah - Pacifica
    Deborah - Pacifica on February 19, 2014 at 4:21 pm
    I’m sorry, Mary, but I do not agree with your statement for many reasons & on many levels. You are forgetting that I was raised on raw milk & I raised my 4 children on raw milk & none of us encountered any problems and/or issues with raw milk. But, there is also a major difference between myself, my children and you or your son…we all had a very strong, healthy, fortified immune system. I truly feel that your son’s immune system had been strongly compromised & you may not have recognized, let alone have known it. Unfortunately, there is no physical evidence nor no test to assess an immune system of a person. A person can look perfectly healthy, yet have a compromised immune system & not know it. Yes, I truly feel that your son probably should not have been placed on raw milk in the quantity that he began with, but that is a moot point at this time. Anyone who approaches me with questions about starting raw milk, I strongly encourage that they start out with only a few ounces once per day & then gradually & slowly increase the amounts over time. By doing so, it will slowly rebuild, restore & reset the proper flora environment within the stomach & intestines. So, knowing your penchant for wanting to always have the last word…let’s just say we agree to disagree!
    Reply
  27. Mary McGonigle-Martin
    Mary McGonigle-Martin on February 19, 2014 at 4:45 pm
    I guess you didn’t bother watching the video.
    Reply
  28. Deborah - Pacifica
    Deborah - Pacifica on February 19, 2014 at 5:33 pm
    Once again, Mary, you guessed wrong!
    Reply
  29. mark mcafee
    mark mcafee on February 19, 2014 at 8:39 pm
    There has been a deep dialogue off line among RAWMI LISTED producers regarding the Foundation Farms article and the really cheap shot that FoodSafety News made against all raw milk.

    It is tragic that Marlers team at Food Safety News does not prtomote and integrate the pioneering efforts of RAWMI after and before the Foundation Farms event. That is the real news here!!! Instead… the sick kids are paraded arround the internet as an example of how bad ALL RAW MILK IS!!!

    Meanwhile the real story is that within 30 miles of Foundation Farms, two of the worlds best RAWMI LISTED producers thrive as examples to the world. This just shows how sick this entire paradigm is….how wrong minded the writers are at Food Safety News. Just have absolutely biased and ignorant they all are.

    I am sorry Mary and Bill. I work to be kind, build bridges, share and professional with both of you, but this is unethical, immoral and wrong.

    I ask you to balance your parading portrayal of Foundation Farms with a article about RAWMI and what it has done in Oregon that is good. Truly…we must all admit, Foundation Farms was the perfect storm of ignorance and neglect that was borderline if not crimal in its severity. I reviewed the official report on the outbreak. It was crazy horrible. If you would do everything the oposite of RAWMI RAMP…that was Foundation Farms plus some added extra effort to be dirty. And Food Safety News writes about it as some great apology to the world for all raw milk begging for the greatest excuse for filthy milk as the solution…pasteurization???!!

    As has been noted, this is a plea to emotionally hijack anyone that is willing to read this junk! This is a missinformation WAR and pioneers will be hit with this kind of yellow journalism. Unfair….incomplete, not representative, unfactual, biased and all emotion. What a crock!!

    Reply
  30. D. Smith
    D. Smith on February 19, 2014 at 9:44 pm
    Marler and M. McGonigle have been taking cheap shots for years. They are not about to encourage small farmers because that would cut into their act (read: the $$ from biGdaiRY et al) and I DO mean act. They are like Hell and Damnation working on a single-minded role.

    Check this out from three years ago and also be sure to see the comment section (towards the bottom especially).

    http://drcate.com/raw-milk-why-mess-with-udder-perfection/

    Mary had the absolute gall to accuse Deborah and me of “spending a ridiculous amount of time” on this subject. I guess it all depends which side of the subject you’re on, how you define ridiculous, and how many people actually find out how much time SHE has spent on this subject. To be sure, it’s likely more than three years.

    Reply
  31. David Gumpert
    David Gumpert on February 20, 2014 at 3:08 am

    Shawna,
    You are correct, Dan Brown not really a raw milk issue–it’s a Food Sovereignty issue….about the right of local communities to control their food, outside state and federal regulations. The legal case against Brown is most fundamentally a challenge to the ten Maine communities (including his, in Blue Hill) that passed Food Sovereignty ordinances. Maine communities have organized actively to support local farmers–just search out “Food Sovereignty” on this blog, and you’ll find a lot about their efforts. They even got legislation passed to allow small farms like Brown’s to sell raw milk with less regulation than is required for permitted farmers, and the governor vetoed it last summer.

    http://thecompletepatient.com/article/2013/july/10/behind-scenes-maine-guvs-raw-milk-veto-dance

    Reply
  32. David Gumpert
    David Gumpert on February 20, 2014 at 3:16 am

    Mark, the Foundation Farms article is probably just the beginning. You see, RAWMI and dialog and education are all huge threats to the dairy industry. They want the 100-year war on raw milk to continue at a low boil. If reasonable people on both sides of this issue are exchanging ideas for how to work together to produce safe milk….well, that is a huge threat to Big Dairy….huge threat as in billions of dollars. Then, they just turn up the flame, as in ultra-high-temp pasteurization. They know there can’t be any kind of reasonable exchange of views when the focus is on recriminations. It is sabotage.

    Reply
  33. mark mcafee
    mark mcafee on February 20, 2014 at 6:23 am
    As raw milk & almond milk replaces pasteurized milk and fluid pasteurized milk declines at 2 % per year regardless of big dairy Got Milk? Marketing efforts…I am unclear what big dairy will be defending in five years?

    I totally agree… It is sabotage.

    On the positive note, I caught a 50 kt tail wind to San Diego today. I spoke to 35 medical practitioners and guests for 2 hours and held a focus group all about our new creamery plans at OPDC. I left them all with raw milk and kefir samples. Got hugs from tons of moms that love what OPDC raw has done for their families and kids. Yes. Kids especially kids.

    No matter what sabotage and what cheap shots are taken, No one can mess with that solid as a rock farmer to consumer trust and relationship. That one is earned by safety and time.

    This a war of attrition ( fluid pasteurized milk decline ) and education ( knowledge of nutrition ) with a whole lot of consistent RAWMI RAMP work. Nothing can sabotage that.

    Reply
  34. David Gumpert
    David Gumpert on February 20, 2014 at 1:47 pm

    Deborah, your comment here about the corruption of pasteurization went off into an argument with Mary McGonigle Martin. But I can tell you what the response would be to your query: “I would like to hear what Marler has to say when he is finally confronted with documented facts & evidence of successfully treated allergies, ADT, autism, digestive disorders & so on within children & adults.” It will be denial, not just by Marler, but pretty much the entire anti-raw-milk crowd. There is already serious research out of Europe indicating that raw milk helps relieve allergies and asthma, but the deniers have all kinds of excuses–supposed flaws in the research model, it wasn’t raw milk that conferred the benefits, the researchers wouldn’t recommend that children consume raw milk, and on and on. It will be the same as more research comes forth. Because their agenda isn’t about health and safety, it is about $$$, pure and simple. 

    Reply
  35. mark mcafee
    mark mcafee on February 20, 2014 at 2:54 pm
    One more thing. This is sabotage by surogates. I have yet to see a Deans Foods or other huge dairy processor attack raw milk directly. I have not seen the FDA act directly against raw milk accept for testimony in legislative hearings and interstate legal enforcement. The FDA has definitely granted finds go organization to bash raw milk in support of FDA internal policy. WIFFS at UC Davis recrieved mlions several years ago with the expressed use to reduce the number of states that all low raw milk. After those funds dried up… and that mission failed, it is interesting that now WIFFS is looking at ways to make raw milk safer instead of banning it.

    Why is it that the there are two surrogates that seem to stand out more all others. They are Bill Marler and Mary. All others stay generally quiet and speak little.

    Knowing politics it is hard to imagine a paycheck being sent to either of these surrogate anti raw milk fighters. I think it is just passionate altruism. If we stick to our vision and simple out educate them and provide a rock solid track record of safety excellence. The surrogates will starve from lack of food to prey upon. Stop feeding the surrogates.

    Reply
  37. Deborah - Pacifica
    Deborah - Pacifica on February 20, 2014 at 6:51 pm
    Yes, David, sadly all too true! In fact, your exact thoughts ran through my head as I posted that. These are the kind of people that if they were standing right in front of you & you pointed to the sky & said ‘the sky is blue’, without even looking at the sky they would emphatically say ‘no it’s not’!! So the question remains, how does one deal with these kind of people (this is a rhetorical thought provoking question/statement)!?! Obviously, it is a waste of time trying to educate or enlighten them when they will not accept documented evidence, let alone even getting them to look and/or read the evidence! The saddest part of their recent appearance at these two hearings, is that there was no one there to refute them, as well as, produce evidence that contradicts their claims. Here those states are having people from another state come in & interfere with their activities! This should not be acceptable at all!
    Reply
  38. Deborah - Pacifica
    Deborah - Pacifica on February 20, 2014 at 7:32 pm
    Mark reminds us about how many dairy farms are being lost. He is so on point about this, but it is not only happening here in the states, it is also happening in other countries. The usual consequence about a farm closing down is…what to do with all the cows & sadly they are taken to slaughter! This is one group who stepped in to do something about the cows to prevent them from going to slaughter…this video will bring a tear to the eye!! http://vitaminl.tv/video/2677
    Reply
  39. Shelly-D.
    Shelly-D. on February 21, 2014 at 12:16 am
    “WIFFS at UC Davis received millions several years ago with the expressed use to reduce the number of states that allow raw milk. After those funds dried up… and that mission failed,… ”

    Can you tell us more about this, Mark? Do you have info/documents that you can share (announcements, reports, years, how much, which researchers got the money and which projects they worked on, etc?)

    Reply
  40. mark mcafee
    mark mcafee on February 21, 2014 at 4:40 am
    Shelly D.

    I thought I had my act 100% together, but I must admit that I can not provide the link and the evidence that I thought that I had. In 2008, when I testified in the Dean Florez raw milk hearings ( there were several of them ) in Sacramento during the SB 201 initiative, I made a big deal about FDA funding of Healthy America 2020 initiatives. This national Healthy America 2020 initiative funded state programs that had been specifically ear tagged with funds for decreasing the number of states that allow raw milk access. The anti-raw milk portion of this national initiative was amended after a huge public outcry. Now that you have asked me to come up with the actual WIFSS FDA anti- raw milk grant fund uses….I can not. It has been five years and the links that I followed to discover this information are now broken and missing.

    To anyone offended including Dr. Michele Russell, before I make claims of anti-raw milk funding by the FDA…I will find and state my sources. I intend to be 100% beyond reproach in all that I say and do.

    In the vacuum of not having the evidence…I must retract by contention and comment that WIFSS recieved FDA funds with the specific ear tag of decreasing the number of states that allow raw milk access. WIFFS was funded with millions of dollars of FDA grants for a broad range of uses. I just can not find the link data and connection that I cited in 2008. My apologies.

    Reply
  41. Shelly-D.
    Shelly-D. on February 22, 2014 at 3:19 am
    Speaking of WIFSS, their involvement in the “Real Raw Milk Facts” website is interesting, I see them listed here:
    http://www.marlerclark.com/pdfs/RRMF-IAFP-POSTER2011.pdf

    “International Association for Food Protection / July 31-August 3, 2011 / Milwaukee, WI / Linda Harris, Michele Jay-Russell, Xunde Li, Tyann Blessington and Lisa Benjamin attended the IAFP annual meeting. This year marked the 100th anniversary of the organization’s founding in Milwaukee by dairy sanitarians (the original name was International Association of Dairy and Milk Inspectors). The 2011 annual meeting attracted over 2500 individuals from 46 countries, 44 states, and 6 Canadian provinces. A video of food safety professionals (including Linda Harris) offering toasts to the organization has been posted on the IAFP website. Papers authored by WIFSS staff and their students included the following (abstracts available online): …… “P3-96 Real Raw Milk Facts: An Innovative Evidence-based Food Safety Website—MICHELE T. JAY-RUSSELL, William D. Marler, Katherine Feldman, Michael Payne, Patti Waller and Ronald H. Schmidt, WIFSS, University of California-Davis, Davis, CA, USA” – http://dhs.wifss.ucdavis.edu/headcontent/newsletter/2011Aug_newsletter.php

    Reply
  43. D. Smith
    D. Smith on March 6, 2014 at 6:58 pm
    This article is from July of 2011. Is any of this stuff still true today and is it the same in America as what was found in Spain? If so, our gubmint should be more concerned about getting biGdaIRY out of business than giving the axe to small, raw milk farmers. If this information is still reliable, you can see why I’d prefer to drink NO milk if I can’t get raw milk. We should ALL feel that way and maybe if enough people read stuff like this vs the garbage being doled out about raw milk, they might come to that very conclusion. Too bad there isn’t a mass refusal against pasteurized foods.

    http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/its-not-all-white-the-cocktail-of-up-to-20-chemicals-in-a-glass-of-milk/

    The comment section is interesting, and there were a couple of good links posted by readers.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.