(This is a joint report I did with Liz Reitzig of Nourishing Liberty.)
Nearly a year ago, Marylands House of Representatives heard from proponents and opponents of legislation to legalize raw milk herd shares. As enthusiastic and well organized as the proponents were, success seemed a long shot. Based as it is in the U.S. Food and Drug Administrations back yard, Maryland has been one of the most hostile places in the country to raw milk, and even a slight opening of the door to raw milk would have been a huge deal.
When the hearings were over, the committee overseeing the legislation took a predictable stepwhile it didnt kill the legislation outright (that would have appeared too arbitrary, given all the enthusiasm for the legislation), it did the next best thing: it asked for a committee of public health experts at Johns Hopkins University to provide its opinion on raw milk.
At the time, the referral to Johns Hopkins seemed a clever way to dispose of the legislation. After all, there was no reason to believe public health professionals at Johns Hopkins wouldnt just parrot the FDA line on raw milk being inherently dangerous.
Surprise! The sure thing didnt quite work out as opponents might have expected. In their report to the Maryland House of Delegates Health and Government Operations Committee earlier this month, a group of prominent public health scientists from Johns Hopkins University is suggesting, for the first time, that both raw milk opponents and advocates, would gain much by being willing to discuss and compromise on their positions.
Now, dont get us wrong, this university report isnt a ringing endorsement of raw milk. At the start of the report, billed as a literature review of research on raw and pasteurized milk, the authors state: Overall, our review identified no evidence that the potential benefits of consuming raw milk outweigh the known health risks. Based on our findings, we discourage the consumption of raw milk. The risks of consuming raw milk instead of pasteurized milk are well established in the scientific literature, and in some cases can have severe or even fatal consequences.
The authors, in their literature analysis, seemed not inclined to allow inclusion of studies and reports favorable to raw milk; notably, they refused to include a six-year analysis out of Michigan by a joint committee including regulators, farmers, and academics that encouraged the state to make raw milk available. The authors noted as well: “We should like to note that the research on the microbiome and its effects on human health is in its infancy and that there is no direct evidence to suggest that microbial exposures have a net benefit to human health.”
By the end of the report, however, the authors were much more sympathetic to raw milk, per this comparison of pasteurized and raw milk: It is important to reiterate the systematic differences between most raw and pasteurized milk production in the U.S. and how they complicate the public health argument for one or the other (Mendelson 2011). Today most pasteurized milk is produced at an industrial scale, with farms containing thousands of cows fed corn and soy predicts, and milk sent to dairy processing plants in bulk tanks. Dairy farmers at these industrial farms have the opportunity to be more lax about hygienic practices. Further, the potential for cross-contamination of milk before or after pasteurization is substantial due to these potential factors: a large number of workers, biofilms in distribution pipes, and unsterilized equipment (Mendelson 2011; Oliver et al. 2005).
On the other hand, milk that is intentionally sold unpasteurized is often produced on small farms with grass-fed cows and sold to local consumers (Baars 2013). While hygienic practices are not ensured in this setting, these farmers may be more concerned for each individual animals health and the health of their customers. They thus may strive to prevent microbial or other contamination. We believe in the benefit of consuming milk and other food products on a local scale, as it is both environmentally sustainable and can support the local economy.
In their conclusion, the Johns Hopkins scientists seemed to be recommending a compromise approach in Maryland, based on strict labeling of raw milk. In conclusion, given the scientific evidence, we do not recommend the consumption of raw milk. If raw milk sales became legal in Maryland, we would strongly recommend that a labeling system be implemented and that farm safety and hygienic practices be required. We would also recommend restricting pregnant women and children from drinking raw milk due to their increased susceptibility to microbial hazards.
The pro-raw-milk contingent is pushing for re-introduction of the herd share legislation. The battle may well not be over whether there is legislation passed, but what kind of legislation. Will it be herd share legislation that allows open entry to dairy farmers? Or legislation with so many restrictions that only a few well-heeled dairy farmers can comply? One thing is for surethe Johns Hopkins report, with its emphasis on compromise, will likely change the political atmosphere in Maryland, and possibly beyond.
What about all of the EU science? Why didn’t the Hopkins group call us out in California and inquire about our protocols and experiences. Did Hopkins call the PhDs at Splash or the UC Davis IMGC…did Hopkins call Von Mutius in the EU and ask about asthma and allergies???
All very pathetically sad indeed.
If we lived by the scientific literature….we would all be dead. The FDA has been fully corrupted by the scientific literature. How many times have we heard of the lies that got some drug passed the FDA….then it killed 100,000 people…whoops, darn, ( hope the stock did well prior to the big hit!! ). VIOXX, Celebrex to name just two of the many killer FDA approved drugs. That’s Science….
GMO is science….pesticides, antibiotic resistance, autism, obesity, low fat diets, fake sugars, synthetic baby formulas, MRSA, C-Diff deaths, and vaccination…these are all the results of science. “You can READ all about this tragic stuff in the LITERATURE”.
I found it quite interesting that the Hopkins literature review completely discounted the value of the Human Genome project and the vital role of bacteria in our DNA and genetic expression. The Hopkins literature reviews said that the Human Genome studies were still very new and could not be relied upon ( my summary of their disregard for $4 billion dollars of NIH research and discovery ). They said this in spite of the amazing effectiveness of the fecal transplant!!! that saves lives.
While this study shows just the slightest glimmer of possible hope….the Hopkins literature review is a worthless piece of twisted junk to be used to abuse the truth. It is biased, incomplete, filtered, politically motivated and narrow, ….and these Hopkins authors call themselves PhD’s?? That is why living according to the literature is like driving 100 miles per hour in your car….while using officially approved rear view mirrors on someone else’s parked car to steer going forward in your out of control vehicle. Idiots….simple and pure….idiots. Why do I call them names, because they are weak and they do not stand for ethical and moral review. They take money and in the taking of money they use their university status to place authority behind a BIASED agenda. That’s prostitution. How can they sleep at night….
What will the Hopkins PhDs reviewers they tell their children when they have asthma, diabetes, obesity, Crohns and autism? “That they disregarded the science” when the information was available and actionable??
I was at that hearing. I saw the faces of the hearing members. I saw the data that was presented. I spoke and presented to that committee.
Corruption….deep and pitiful corruption. This is how the back yard of the FDA operates. It is sick.
That’s not how I live.
Mark, I agree that the Johns Hopkins PhDs were highly biased in their literature selection decisions. That is why it is all the more surprising that they failed to come to the “right” conclusion. They could have very easily fallen in line with the FDA and CDC that raw milk is inherently dangerous and should be banned. But they didn’t.
I wonder if they realized the political import of their conclusion. These pals of the CDC and FDA talked about “compromise” and coming up with raw milk labels. Were they perhaps putting out a trial balloon to set the stage for a shift by their pals? Or were they simply political novices who had no appreciation of what they were doing? My sense is they had a stronger appreciation for the nature of the raw milk controversy than we might think. That would make their shift all the more remarkable.
An observer taking to longer term view of the Hopkins review, might very well see this as a moderating event considering the inflexible hard line position taken by the CDC, FDA and the medical community at the national level.
It just turns my stomach and nauseates me to know end, that smart people can not connect the dots and do the short simple math about why markets are rejecting processed milk. Lactose intolerance, severe allergy etc….these are issues with pasteurized milk. Raw milk can be very safe if produced with care….or it can be PMO, CAFO stuff and should be processed.
This is not rocket science….
This is instead political science and all the rules are broken as the consumers suffer.
Breast milk is raw milk!!! Breast milk contains 700 or more kinds of bacteria including human pathogens. There is a reason for this….. These are the building blocks to pour the foundation of infantile immunity. I guess this is something PHDs know nothing of. They discount NIH multiple billion dollar Genomics discoveries that pin point the origins of our genetics and profoundly assign incredible value to the 99% of humans that is genetically bacterial in origin.
Dogma for the sake of reinforcement of the status quo….real science and discovery be damned.
I urge those who care about your country, to educate you-selves about the case of David Hinkson
URL < http://www.ini-world-report.org/2014/12/01/veteran-falsely-convicted-by-lying-judge/ >
His experience relates directly to the Campaign for REAL MILK, in that the travesty visited upon him, proves the depths to which the fascisti will go, for suppressing genuine antidotes to the plagues upon the nation. Those on the front lines of this Campaign, as well as those who anonymously go about the chores, ought to thank God every day when you’re down on your knees doing the milking, that the REAL MILK still flows, despite the wickedness in high places
When i was nursing my wee ones decades ago, I was told that breastmilk was totally sterile. No bacteria. Never gave it much thought since then, so this, Mark, is new information for me (but somehow does not surprise me). Wouldn’t surprise me if most people still believe this.
Compare the average grassfed organic cow and average non-organic human. Which do you think has fewer chemicals and toxins in their milk? Which do you think pays more scrupulous attention to cleanliness? Which one do you think harbors more human pathogens?
To ask is to answer the question.
There will come a day when the results of the European studies on raw milk consumption’s affect on asthma will be seen as one of many reasons why people are urged to not consume pasteurized milk and parents encouraged to feed their children raw milk from a very young age for the sake of their own good health.
And they will wonder, what were we ever thinking?
I also emphasized that, Treating cows who are about to go dry with antibiotics disrupts the natural flora that exists in the udder. The resulting imbalance from such treatment can lead to serious complications.
http://www.jlucina.com/blog/study-reveals-breast-milk-contains-more-700-types-bacteria
Ken
It is the FDA that is anti learning. In the 1930’s Hitler burned the books he did not agree with….in the 2014’s the FDA shuts down the communication and public access to scientific research. I see no differences…..none, except that burning books does create a nice bon fire with warmth and plenty of political attention. Shutting down the sharing of extremely important discoveries about raw milk and doing this secretly…is simply criminal.
Milk inside of the breast or udder does not have many bacteria…however that is not the milk that is consumed with suckled. Suckled milk comes from the latching on of the babies mouth to the whole nipple and areola or the entire teat. That means that protective bacteria that live on the surface of the breast or teat are also intended to be part of the milk genome. Teat canal colonizing bacteria are also a part of the protective system of the mammals milk system.
We are BACTERIA SAPIENS!!! 99% of our DNA comes from bacteria in and on our bodies. To sterilize ourselves is an invitation to first become immuno-compromized, then sick with autoimmune illness and then die!! If I was a PhD at the FDA, I would protest and then resign as a matter of principle.
Breast milk is not sterile and neither is cows raw milk!!
The natural flora inside the cows udder was disrupted by the use of these antibiotics, which left it vulnerable to unique and serious infections. These infections were the result of organisms (bacteria, fungus and mycoplasma) that have existed for a long time and that were previously not a serious issue even though the animal was continually exposed to them on an ongoing basis. The infections were so severe that the cow would become seriously ill and perhaps die. If the cow did not die it would have to be culled.
Research clearly indicates that intensive management procedures result in poorer animal health yet the ag industry persist in promoting them.
http://www.milkproduction.com/Library/Scientific-articles/Management/Dairy-cow-mortality-A-growing-problem/
Ken
Ken, in the ag industry’s narrow field of analysis, it’s all a matter of cost of inputs vs income from outputs. As we well know by now, the more income exceeds costs, the more successful the approach. Poor animal health isn’t an issue except as it impinges on income, and in the ag industry’s experience, it seems not to be having a big impact. Now, to the extent poor animal health impinges on human health, well, who cares about that, so long as the associated costs aren’t borne by the ag industry.
And since the ag industry donates huge amounts to strategically placed pols, the costs to human health aren’t a concern.
One potential counter trend, affecting health of hens, implemented despite huge opposition from the Big Ag egg industry. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/01/opinion/mark-bittman-hens-unbound.html?_r=0
This sound familiar? It’s an Australian columnist with a major publication on why it’s just common sense that milk be pasteurized. Like a lot of media here, she doesn’t get that raw milk isn’t just pre-pasteurized milk. “Sure. Fresh from the cow would be fine. But the milk you buy in Sydney has been sitting around in cans, on bottling lines, on trucks, on pallets waiting to be delivered to stores, on the shop-floor waiting to be put in the fridge and then in your warm car on the way home, before you consume it. Thats why pasteurisation matters for the several days between cow and cereal-bowl, when bacteria multiply. Thats just basic science.”
This is what happens when people who know nothing about a subject decide to write articles about it.
Do you suppose she actually wants to consume a product like that – I mean, a product that can sit around and be in a warm car – just because it’s pasteurized?? Holy cow. She must not know that warmth doesn’t hurt raw milk, it just produces a different product. I wonder, however, if she knows that pasteurized milk putrifies when it gets warm? She probably wouldn’t understand nor care, since she is obviously in the business of promoting pasteurization.
Football story to follow.
(When I can lay my hands on it.)
Happy New Year.
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
You might be interested also in ‘Phillips Colon Health’, a combination of 3 types of bacteria marketed by Bayer. This product has been promoted in my area just recently. I’m not one for taking supplements, and I’m not sure if Bayer’s probiotic claim has ever been established (beyond the Company).
John