As he reports in a comment following my previous blog post, Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy Co. sent a letter to Pat Kennelly, food safety chief at the California Department of Public Health, expressing upset about the agencys press release related to possible raw milk illnesses. According to the letter, When Claravale was shut down two weeks ago, CA DPH published a Press Release that warned consumers against consumption of any raw milk. It went so far as to claim and say that raw milk is inherently unsafe regardless of how it is produced. Please consider this letter to be a formal complaint regarding that official CA DPH Press Release and the official links imbedded in that Press Release. McAfees letter went on to describe the successes of the Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI) in improving raw milk safety. Today, McAfee told me he has since spoken with Kennelly, and has been invited to meet with the official in the next few weeks to update him on RAWMI and provide information on raw milks health benefits.
The challenge of correcting inaccuracies and propaganda from both the media and public health officials also grabs the attention of John Moody, in this guest blog post. Moody is interim executive director of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund. He also owns a farm, and helps manage a private food club in Kentucky.
by John Moody
Americas media have a real hard time reporting accurately about raw milk. A great example comes from a recent Today Health post.
You would think, given that raw milk hasnt caused a single death in more than 25 years, while pasteurized milk claimed at least three lives last week (from tainted ice cream), and two deaths from pasteurized milk cheese last year, and three deaths from fluid milk in 2007 (plus a still-birth), we would be treated to a more balanced and even-handed approach to the complex issues relating to food safety in general and raw milk in particular.
I guess I set my hopes too high.
Bioethicist Arthur Caplan, head of the Division of Medical Ethics, at New York University, tells Today Health, Adults drive, cliff dive and smoke, but they have to be informed about risks. The ethical considerations become much more difficult when kids are involved.
Too bad riding in a car is riskier than drinking raw milk, statistically speaking, especially for kids who, last I checked, dont have much choice when it comes to their driver or their dinner, whether it be raw milk or refined pseudo foods that sicken thousands each year and do far more damage with degenerative diseases and deformed body structures from lack of adequate nutrition.
But, anyway, its all for the kids. You know, the vending machines in public schools full of processed, highly adulterated, FDA-approved diabetes- and other disease-causing junk food. The school lunches that would barely sustain an amoebas nutritional needs, let alone those of growing children (who are rebelling against the school lunches en mass as we speak). The endless fast food feasts and poison pizzas kids shovel down across our nation, made artificially cheap by the USDA-approved billions in tax dollars doled out each year in subsidies. Yep, this is all for the kids. Like those highly processed, hardly-cheese-containing Kraft cheese singles that bear the Kids Eat Right seal that the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics claims isnt really a seal of approval.
The dairy industry worries that illnesses from raw milk sales could damage public confidence in the safety of dairy products.
This line of reasoning always cracks me up. You would think it was a line from a Jim Gaffigan stand-up routine, it is such a good shtick. Do people buying real Rolexes harm the sales of the cheap imitation Rolexes hocked at world monuments (and vice versa)?
If anything, the damage done by pasteurized dairy and the bad rap modern real, raw milk gets from its industrial processed knock-off counterpart (see Andy Rooneys entertaining segment) does far more harm to raw milk farmers than any raw milk outbreak has ever done to industrial milk. But the anti-raw-milk propaganda machine has never had a knack for clear and accurate thinking or data on these issues, which would get in the way of agendas, control of the dairy industry, and the steady stream of fear-mongering those agencies foist upon the unsuspecting populace. And the media never seem to have the inclination to challenge such illogical assertions.
I grew up on a dairy farm and anytime you start milking a cow I will tell you they start defecating, and it can get everywhere, says Dr. Faith Critzer, a food microbiologist with the University of Tennessee and a food safety extension specialist for the state of Tennessee. There are just too many points of contamination and pasteurization will get rid of contamination. It will save your life.
Food safety is a complex issue. All food producers, raw milk and otherwise, should be striving to ensure safe food for their patrons. But all food systems, just like all of life, have risks, and while we can work to minimize those risks, even the best efforts of our alphabet-soup government agencies and the most advanced technologies cant eliminate them. Indeed, sometimes they actually increase them. As much as the food police think pasteurization is some magical cure all, it isnt.
Just ask those affected by the Blue Bell Creameries listeria outbreak. Unfortunately, it didnt save the lives of those consuming pasteurized dairy last month, nor did it in dozens of other outbreaks over the past three decades.
“Indeed, between 1998 and 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, reported:
- 79 percent of reported food-borne illnesses were due to raw milk or cheese.
This data is completely false (and its not clear where it originated). In reality, food-borne illnesses caused by raw milk are about 1% or less of total reported food-borne illnesses (about 100-150 out of a total of about 15,000 illnesses). But the CDC and FDA serve up data intended to confusefor example, its rarely annualized and compared from one year to the next. The media assume that because they are dealing with the most august scientists on the planet, there is no need to challenge or question the data. If they did question, they might be surprised at the silence and throat-clearing that would indicate the manipulation behind the information.
Its about time the media began asking the same tough questions of government and industry scientists that it asks of small-farm producers.
As to the quote “Indeed, between 1998 and 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, reported: 79 percent of reported food-borne illnesses were due to raw milk or cheese.”
I think it’s pretty safe to deduct that blatant misinfo was probably hatched by someone in the industrial milk cartel PR establishment, then spoon fed to both the CDC and the mainstream news outlets.
It is not true and can not be true. If it was true then raw milk would top the list of most risky or most dangerous foods in America. I strongly suggest that the FTCLDF takes up this cause and shed light on this completely false reporting. If we do not force proper reporting and telling of the truth…the lies will simply keep flowing. This legal suit would create a couple of things….it would create good news for raw milk and secondly, it would bring the liars to justice. This suit must be personal and bring real pain. Monetary pain with exposure to political pressure. When these lies are exposed…apologies will be compelled by the courts.
When Pat and I spoke today he said a very interesting thing…”.all of those studies and benefits for raw milk are not something CADPH can not discuss because no benefit claims on food can be made”.
This comment is pure FDA pharma policy and drives directly at the current medical paradigm, where “only drugs can claim benefits”. The “food is irrelevant policy” drives directly at why Americans are fat and sick!!!!
This is the foundation hat separates the policy makers and enforcers from the consumers that refuse to follow the idiotic illness causing pharma policies of the FDA.
I offer one piece of evidence to prove my case: when I sit down to watch CNN after dinner most ads are for Pharma drugs to fix your erectile problem or turn off some kind of pain or inflammation that are rampant in America. Then….here come the legal ambulance chasing lawyer ads that ask injured consumers to call in order to collect on damages caused by pharma drugs that were promoted in the previous ads.
It is insane!!!! Truly insane. The conscious have opted out of this three ring circus that feeds upon itself and injures people.
Take the USDA advice,..” Get to know your farmer and get to know your food” forget the clowns and military garbed idiots at the FDA.
It is all so very clear!! Nice article John.
I’m curious, do you actually *WATCH* CNN for the content, or for entertainment purposes only such as to compare the ads? (sarcastic tone)
He told me: you know, California also allows smoking which has been shown to be very dangerous and also drinking of alcohol. Both of these legally available items have ” required warnings on them just like raw milk”. My blood boiled at that point even though i said nothing to indicate my internal contempt for the comment. That shows the mind set of our regulators and where they are….
It is going to take some real education to retrieve them from a very ignorant and dark place.
Even though I disagree with the comments shared by Pat, we have a solid relationship and can listen to one another and agree to disagree. It will be interesting to see how his positions evolve after the irrefutable raw milk facts are discussed with CDC data and RAWMI test information is shared.
Facts are the facts…deaths from pasteurized dairy products are deaths from pasteurized dairy products.
https://www.organicconsumers.org/essays/why-does-dairy-industry-oppose-gmo-labels
http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2015/04/11/effects-pharmaceuticals-wildlife.aspx?e_cid=20150404Z1_PetsNL_artTestA_HP3&utm_source=petnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=artTestA_HP3&utm_campaign=20150404Z1&et_cid=DM71038&et_rid=901850505
Drugs taken by humans and animals are flushed into the environment in sewage. They are also discharged by pharmaceutical production facilities
The drugs deemed most harmful to animals and the environment include hormones, antibiotics, painkillers, anti-depressants, anti-cancer drugs, and in veterinary medicine, anti-parasitics.
Ken
Mary, the article is very explicit, “79 percent of reported food-borne illnesses were due to raw milk or cheese.”
Now, I just went back to the article to see if it might have been corrected, and it wasn’t. Mind you, I posted a comment shortly after the article came out, pointing out the inaccuracy. (Comments seem to have been wiped away in the meantime, and there’s no comment section I could find.) Even if the statement was meant to say that raw milk accounts for 79% of all dairy illnesses, that would be inaccurate as well, way too high.
BTW, I just realized in reviewing the article again that it begins with a major inaccuracy. It states that West Virginia just enacted legislation to allow herd shares. The legislatures passed the herd share law, but the state’s governor just in the last couple days vetoed it….so no new law there. Just reenforces these last two blog posts about how the media and the regulators too often play fast and loose with the facts about raw milk.
Prison outbreaks – very funny . . . 😉
You state, I think if that data number was changed to outbreaks versus illnesses, the statistic would be correct.
It undoubtedly would however it would also be duplicitous.
I am not sure if youve read Davids latest book. If not then refer to page 96 in chapter six where he makes a distinction between using outbreaks as apposed to illnesses in order to estimate the hazard of raw milk as apposed pasteurized milk. That should answer your query.
Ken
That’s the point, Mary. Shoulda, woulda, coulda. The point is the article is highly inaccurate because it presents incorrect information.
This way of presenting the data (outbreaks vs illnesses) is, a we know, a favorite CDC technique to distort the data. So I grant you, this change would have shifted the article from being completely inaccurate in key points to being highly misleading in key points. (The article actually incorporates another favorite CDC trick in the bullet points following the point in contention here–it presents from CDC total illnesses covering a number of years, rather than annual or average annual illnesses, so as to make the numbers look large.)
I wonder, would you rather, in the official data collection, that Chris’ illness be simply lumped together as an anonymous piece of a single raw milk “outbreak” or counted separately, as one of several individual illnesses from E.coli O157:H7, with varying degrees of severity?
The reason that the CAFO based dairy industry supports GMO’s is because, the industrial dairy system does not know its consumers. Their operations have no trespassing signs at their entrances. They do not sell directly to consumers and have never heard a mom say….no GMOs for my family please. This is something that a farmers market or raw milk producer would hear all the time.
A farmers opinions andcproducts reflect the needs of his direct customers needs. A creamery with commingled highly processed products with a national brand is not the same as looking into the eyes of a mom with kids.
From 2007 to 2012, the CDC National Outbreak Reporting System received reports indicating:
? 81 outbreaks of infections due to consumption of raw milk resulting in 979 illnesses, 7hospitalizations, and no deaths.
?
Happy loving and forgiving Easter to you and your family.
In response to the CDC letter that was sent out….can you please “define for me what illness” means? The 973 ” illnesses” could be anything from a visit to the doctors office for diarrhea or something more spectacular. Illness is undefined in the CDC letter.
I will say that the CDC letter makes one huge break through, it does say that special management of raw milk production does reduce the risk of raw milk….this is a major concession. One that I have not seen the government make in the past.
The next admission that I would like to see is that RAWMI like management reduces raw milk consumption risk to such a low level that it is equal to or less of a risk than a five log kill of pasteurization.
The CDC still claims that pasteurization is the only way to render dairy products safe. That it not correct or accurate or current information. As a science based organization…the CDC must get up to speed with current data, applied technologies and AOAC tests including speed of tests. The current standards for raw milk and the leading technologies reduce raw milk consumption risk to far below most any other foods. Test & Hold as performed by OPDC and Ed Shank in PENNSYLVANIA are two of those examples.
It is fascinating to watch and observe as our CDC struggles to pull itself out of the dark ages. They still quote 18th century data.
How funny…..except it isn’t.
It is extremely serious when the CDC claims that pasteurization is the end all be all of safety, when it is directly associated with listeria Monocytogenes and death….plenty of it !!! And No deaths from raw milk in recent recorded history or the last 50 years.
That’s pathetic and that is not science. That’s politics….
I will be sending the signers of that letter sent out to interested raw milk regulating agencies a direct letter next week. In that letter I will try and bring them up to speed on current applied technologies and the state of affairs in modern raw milk production.
Again….please define for me what an illness is and what it is? As it is used in your link, it is a waste basket term that is unknown and meaningless. It could very well mean that the consumer is now far more healthy because of dramatic improvement in immunity and now will not get sick from bugs when exposed in the future. That’s a good thing.
So…how many of those 973 are blessed with better immunity now!??
Here’s another of those articles on the pros and cons of raw milk, out of Wyoming, which has just loosened its restrictions. The article makes a good effort to be balanced. I posted a comment challenging an assertion by one of the public health people that it is “scientific consensus” there are no differences in the health benefits between raw and pasteurized milk based on “well-controlled peer-reviewed studies.” I requested the links to those studies. Think I’ll get them?
That being said, for the 979 raw milk illnesses during the reported timeframe, it is know information that 73 were hospitalized. That is 13%. For the other 87%, they were ill enough to get a stool sample done.
If you are ill enough to get a stool sample taken, symptoms of severe diarrhea and/or vomiting had to be occurring for at least a few days. A typical duration for an illness without complications is listed below.
Campy–you can be ill from 1 day to several weeks http://www.about-campylobacter.com/campylobacter_symptoms_risks#.VSGI2v10xD8
Salmonella– 3 to 7 days http://www.about-salmonella.com/salmonella_symptoms_risks#.VSGJdP10xD8
E.coli– 1 to 10 days http://www.about-ecoli.com/ecoli_symptoms_risks#.VSGKdv10xD8
State reports are only written when there is an outbreak. In these state reports, more detailed information is given to the severity of the illnesses, ages, and length of stay in the hospital. However, all states write reports differently. Some are very detailed and others are not. I have personally read all the E.coli raw milk outbreak reports since 2005, except for the outbreaks that have occurred in the state of Washington. I wasn’t able to get those.
When Chris was in the hospital we did ask about immunity from E.coli. We were told he wasn’t. It may work that way for Campy, but it doesn’t for E.coli and I don’t know about Salmonella. This would be a good question to ask Cat Berge.
Mary, we have a completely outmoded–actually, embarrassingly outmoded–database system for collecting info on food-borne outbreaks.
http://wwwn.cdc.gov/foodborneoutbreaks/
For one thing, it’s impossible to isolate a particular food, like say chicken or ground beef….or raw milk, and do a search for the number of illnesses. What that means is that anyone who wants that data has to manually search through “raw” data and manually count up the illnesses. And the designations of foods aren’t consistent, either. For raw milk, it might say “raw goat milk”, “raw milk”, or just “milk” (not indicating whether raw nor not).
I go through the mechanics of the database system in some detail in The Raw Milk Answer Book.
I too look forward to resding those well designed and peer reviewed studies that compare raw and pasteurized milk to prove that there are no benefits to raw milk….
These studies do not exist. I have every study on the benefits of raw milk published in the last 15 years. I have also spent some very quality time at the International Milk Genomics Consortium conferences ( here at uc davis and in Arhus Denmark ) and spoken with the leading breast milk and raw cows milk scientists….they have a consensus all right. Their consensus is this: there are 2100 proteins in raw milk and every one is them is destroyed under the intense heat of processing. These scientists have been funded by millions of dollars to search for and identify the beneficial elements found in raw milk and then transfer them in some fashion back into processed dead milk….
Their conclusion….they are deeply frustrated. It does not work!!!! Bacteria, fat globules, enzymes, lactoferrin, oligosacarrides….and a million more things found in raw milk ( breast milk ) are literally life itself and can not be synthetically reproduced. Pieces of dead ….cannot be made back into the living whole.
David….I think you uncovered a media exaggeration or perhaps a lie. There are zero studies about this question, because no funding exists to study this question. Research Grant Money comes from dairy industry or CDC…they refuse to study this question. They do not want to know this answer.
The EU has done this work and it is profound. See Parsifal, Gabriela, Pasture Cohort, Amish, Loss Von Mutuis (2014 ) Koala….all of these studies profoundly and decisively prove and cross support one another and say the same thing…raw milk is the first food of life and imparts life to those that consume it resulting in: Colds being reduced substantially, asthma reduced, ear infections reduced, allergies reduced, excema reduced! Crohns gone!!
As for pasteurized dairy…go to any doctor in America and complain of any of the above conditions and they will tell you to stop consumption of ” dairy” ( that is pasteurized dairy) Processed dairy triggers the very things that raw milk makes better. Got asthma….get off ( pasteurized ) dairy products. That is the pediatric protocol.
Meanwhile, the moms are not buying the media or FDA, CDC BS and markets for safe raw milk rage upward. The truth ….funny thing about it, it seems to out live the lies.
In six years there were 73 hospitalizations and zero deaths. That’s 12 per year for the entire 50 states of the USA. That’s so low…it is arguably irrelevant.
Fast asthma facts state this:
Today there were 44,000 asthma attacks, 4700 visits to an Emergency Rooms, 1200 hospitalizations, and nine deaths!!!
Now lets reconsider your 12 hospitalizations per year….when raw milk prevents asthma and dramatically improves it.
Arguments against raw milk are laughably irrelevant when the facts are even superficially reviewed.
Some kind of sick joke.
Add 30% reductions of colds for children….debate is over ( LMU Loss Von Mutuis 2014 )
There have been zero reported or suspected illnesses from any RAWMI Listed dairies since any of the Listed dairies have been Listed.
None!!! That does not mean that there will never be an illness from a RAWMI Listed producers milk….it is just a very reduced risk and very unlikely. Food safety is not about attaining zero….it is about dramatic and consistent risk reduction. By the way, pasteurization is a promise of a five log risk reduction and not perfection as claimed by the FDA. Technically…a five log reduction is not zero risk, it is a five log reduction of risk. Obviously, we see this risk coming through when people die after consumption of pasteurized dairy products. Remember Dr. Nicole Martin and Cornell University study and her prediction of 670 deaths per year in the USA from highly processed dairy products. Pretty sobering.
Safety is on the side of raw milk when responsibly produced.
Our Jersey- Holstein crosses came back A2-A2 and our Pure Jerseys came back A1-A1.
That really ends the argument about Jerseys being A2 and some kind of superior breed. I still am not a big A-2 guy. We believe in researching before diving into anything. I thought this was pretty interesting.
Mark, that was very well said.
Now if we can just apply that thought to our overall ecosystem and cut back on all the unnecessary manipulation and man made toxins that soil, microbes, plants, animals all other foods and humans are subjected to in order to achieve comprehensive constructive and lasting gains.
Unfortunately based on our current oligarchic/bureaucratic system, consumers despite their assertiveness, are being denied the right to make informed choices and unless this changes I dont see, to any lasting extent, little of the above coming to fruition.
Ken
Mark, the simple math you did (taking 73 hospitalizations and dividing them by 6 years) to come up with an average annual number is something the CDC refuses to do. (For the record, the 979 illnesses over the 6 years averages 163 illnesses per year, out of a total number of reported food-borne illnesses of 15,000-30,000 per year, or somewhere in the neighborhood of 1% or less of total illnesses.) Moreover, it isn’t clear from the CDC letter whether the number of raw milk illnesses includes raw milk cheese or not. We do know the number includes illnesses from milk produced by conventional dairies and served raw–at least two cases from Wisconsin where conventional milk was served to groups of children and teens.
I have come to conclude that this lack of precision is intentional. The goal in presenting such data is simple: come up with what sounds like a big number, and throw it out there to scare people.