Once upon a time, I naively expected that if there were new credible scientific evidence that raw milk showed health benefits over pasteurized milk, the health and regulatory communities might relax their negative attitudes.
But a couple years ago, when I gave a talk at Rutgers University in New Jersey and expressed my hopes for a meeting of the minds between opponents and proponents of raw dairy, a psychiatrist warned me about holding such expectations. The psychiatrist, Richard Schwartzman, explained the regulatory opposition this way:
One might expect that honorable people with good intentions, on both sides of the table, could somehow resolve the raw milk issue without battling in court I contend no matter how much proof of safety is presented or what additional information is provided, the government authorities will never relent in their efforts to end sales of unpasteurized milk.
Why such heavy resistance? “In their minds they must stop ‘dangerous’ activities and behaviors, never realizing their prohibitive actions are not really for the good of others but rather to make themselves feel better by putting an end to the behavior that makes them intensely anxious.
I thought about his observations as I was reviewing an assessment from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration side about recent raw milk research. It came from the nearly invisible head of the FDA’s dairy division, John Sheehan, who only rarely treats us to his pearls of wisdom. But as part of his support of the Maine Department of Agriculture’s anti-food-sovereignty campaign launched last year, Sheehan submitted testimony to oppose state legislation that would have allowed small farms to sell raw milk from their farm sites without a license, and it showed up in the nearly 700 pages of info obtained by lawyers for Maine farmer Dan Brown.
Just as background, we’ve had at least three significant studies in recent years providing data suggesting raw milk likely confers significant immune benefits on children against allergies and asthma. First, there was a 2006 study of nearly 15,000 European school-age children, known as the PARSIFAL study, which concluded, consumption of farm milk may offer protection against asthma and allergy. While half the families said they boiled their farm milk before serving it, the researchers thought that number was likely biased due to the social desirability of responses because raw milk consumption is not recommended for young children.
The first thing I noticed in reading through Sheehan’s testimony assessing this study was his dismissive attitude toward raw milk proponents, hinting at the intensity of the political struggle over raw milk: Raw milk advocates have mischaracterized scientific literature in the past and indeed, where we have seen them do so, we have exposed their errors. Their characterization of the article on the PARSIFAL study (Waser et al) is therefore not at all surprising and, indeed, the journal article on the PARSIFAL study has been mischaracterized by raw milk advocates since it first appeared.
Where were proponents wrong? The study is about farm milk, not raw milk. The authors of the study took great pains to explain as much in their Clinical and Experimental Allergy article. The authors clearly state also in the article that (t)he present study does not allow evaluating the effects of pasteurized vs. raw milk consumption because no objective confirmation of the raw milk status of the farm milk samples was available.
But might not the article be suggestive of enough possible benefits to warrant pursuing the research further, as the authors themselves recommended? No, theres not even a hint by Sheehan of being intrigued. His testimony concluded: The study does not indicate, as some raw milk advocates claim, that raw milk prevents allergies and asthma in children.
Sheehan didnt comment on a followup study in 2011 of more than 8,000 European children, known as the GABRIELA studyperhaps because it was more emphatic than the PARSIFAL study in pointing up raw milks benefits: The results of this large epidemiologic study add to the increasing body of evidence identifying consumption of farm milk (early in life) to be associated with a reduced risk of childhood asthma and allergies independently of concomitant farm exposures. The results indicate that the effect is due to the consumption of unheated farm milk. For the first time, associations between objectively measured milk constituents and asthma and atopy (inclination toward allergies) could be demonstrated. Just to emphasize their point that only the unpasteurized milk produced the asthma and allergy protection, the authors stated, Boiled farm milk did not show a protective effect.
Contrary to what many raw milk advocates assumed at the timethat the good bacteria in raw milk are mainly responsible for its healing properties–the studys authors said the real help came from certain whey proteins. Milk processing, such as heating, does not affect heat stable caseins, whereas whey proteins, accounting for 18% of the total protein in cows milk, are more sensitive to heat treatment and might influence the bioavailability of the proteins.
While Sheehan of the FDA didnt comment on this study, he had made clear his view in the Maine testimony that the GABRIELA researchers couldnt have been correct. Pasteurization does not destroy milk proteins, he claimed. Caseins, the major family of milk proteins, are largely unaffected by pasteurization (Farrell and Douglas). Any changes which might occur with whey proteins are barely perceptible. Yes, he says with such conviction that changes to whey proteins “are barely perceptible.”
There was more to come, this time from the U.S. In spinoff research from the GABRIELA study, published in 2012. Researchers in the U.S. and Europe surveyed 157 American Amish families, along with about 3,000 Swiss farming families, and close to 11,000 Swiss families who did not live on a farm. They also did testing on the Amish children. They wanted to know about allergy and asthma rates in the children ages 6-12.
The Amish children had less than one-third the allergies of the non-farm Swiss children. The researchers found that just five percent of Amish kids had been diagnosed with asthma, compared to 6.8 percent of Swiss farm kids and 11.2 percent of the other Swiss children.
Why the differences? The authors said they didnt know for sure, but speculated that raw milk likely played a role: All the Amish children and the Swiss farm children had exposure to large animals and a significant percentage consumed milk directly from the farm. Recent studies have implicated a protective effect from farm milk.
I’m not always enamored of psychiatrists’ theories of political behavior, but Dr. Schwartzman seems to have been right on target. The “scientists” will never exhibit curiosity about something at odds with their political ideology and personal prejudices.
**
Readers of this blog have long been aware of the FDA’s willingness to employ the most aggressive spying and surveillance tactics to go after those targeted as dangerous. In investigating food club members obtaining food from farmer Dan Allgyer, the FDA in 2010 and 2011 sent agents into people’s homes to obtain raw milk. Now even Congress has gotten a taste of the agency’s total disregard for privacy, via revelations that the FDA has been spying on its own scientists, and their communications with politicians, journalists, and others.
This interesting reaction from a U.S. Senator: “Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican whose former staff members e-mails were cataloged in the surveillance database, said that ‘the F.D.A. is discouraging whistle-blowers.’ He added that agency officials ‘have absolutely no business reading the private e-mails of their employees. They think they can be the Gestapo and do anything they want.’ ”
Gee, the politicians give the FDA endless budgets and provide no oversight, and then they’re surprised when the agency turns on its own benefactors. They should know better than anyone that hunger for power has no limits.
**
The Raw Milk Institute has just published its “Common Standards” to help guide raw dairy producers in improving safety. It has all kinds of guidelines for safety planning and goals. And despite the objections from the anti-raw-milk types, it does mention pathogens, even lists examples, in several places. RAWMI is making important progress in establishing models and standards for improving raw milk quality and safety.
It appears that OP cannot be listed as it states they must sell from the farm only. How much will all that testing cost?
And we also need one of those for pasteurized milk, too. Maybe you could supply that information, as well?
On the pathogens-in-chickens situation, there is a scandal brewing over millions of urinary tract infections in women that can’t be cured because they were caused by antibiotic-resistant pathogens.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/is-contaminated-chicken-to-blame-for-millions-of-utis/254360/
Authorities have known for years that half or more of all chickens are contaminated, and did nothing about the problem. Now that it turns out the infections can’t be treated…well…big problem. I supposed the excuse will be that the regulators were too busy ridding the country of raw milk.
“especially those produce that have been sprayed with the toxic CAFOs obtained manure (yes, this is a big practice & people are not even aware of this!)!! ”
I did not know this.
” totally ignore all the more serious pathogens within so many other foods and that are much more prolific to the general public”
Perhaps they are in bed with big ag, et al?
“If they are so genuine in food safety, why do they not include all these other major pathogen problems that have caused more food borne illnesses and hospitalizations than raw milk??!!”
Because they are NOT genuine.
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5394
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2000/3vol12.htm
Try these articles on for size. The practice of using human waste as a fertilizer has been going on for centuries. Now all we have to do is figure out a way of keeping the numerous chemicals, drugs, and heavy metals out of it.
The practice of dumping human waste on Ontario’s farmlands is largely unknown, controversial but legal. In Ontario, foods from strawberries to steak may be fertilized by human excrement.
In Accra (Ghana), 200,000 people a day eat salad from land irrigated with urine and human manure.
Ken
It’s the ” numerous chemicals, drugs, and heavy metals” that is used on the foods meats & produce & dairy that is subjected to people unknowingly that is of concern.
I do share all links I find interesting.
Undoubtedly many are eating “CAFO produced foods to boost their immune systems”, They probably are misinformed that the govt will protect them and look out for their best interest. The govt wouldn’t allow anything to be unleashed onto the market that is harmful. Would they?
They are eating the CAFO produce, meats, and dairy thinking it is healthful. tsk tsk All those chemicals,drugs, etc that bombards their bodies on a daily basis is probably a major contribution to their ill health. Some of the major factors in the cause of modern diseases is the environment, and what we put in our bodies.
I’ve been tracing my genealogy, and have gotten back to the 1200s and more than 95% lived into their 80s and 90s, as the time progressed into the late 1800s and 1900s the ages decreased to 60s- 90s. Why? Environment and nutrition.
I have a dear friend that is a P.A. (I’m a former P.A. in Interventional Cardiology) at VA Palo Alto, she is getting ready to get out too & pretty much for the same reasons as you did. And just like you & I, she will never go back to a hospital/clinic setting ever again. Yes, it is a tough job trying to get people to learn about what makes a more healthier dietary practice. One of the major factors is that there is no advertisement, no public discussions, no information via the media, etc. on what makes a healthier dietary habit. Instead, people are inundated with all the mesmerizing, colorful, attention getting, falsifying commercials…but you never see any commercials promoting the more nutrient dense, natural, unprocessed, adulterated, truly healthy for you foods that they really should be eating. What a shame! I do have a few physician friends that are trying their hardest to inform their patients about all of this, some pay attention & some ignore it! So sad!
We will edit to make this more clear. Good catch….
The Fermentation Festival in Santa Barbara was attended by more than 500 people today. Awesome food! KPFA radio will cover RawMilk as a big story this Thursday!!
If those people are computer users, give them the web address to read about Uffe Ravnskov on cholesterol myths, give them the web address to the WAPF info on saturated fat myths, and give them the web site for Dr. Duane Graveline (former astronaut) if they want to know about ALL of the damage caused by statins. He has some very personal experience in that regard. Those would be excellent places for people to start getting just a small taste of what the world is like in regard to how facts are twisted and how easy it is to convince people that something bad is really something good – our entire medical industrial complex is stellar in that regard – which is why people think they need a *medical professional* for everything these days. That includes improperly trained/schooled registered dieticians who give out the worst advice I’ve ever heard.
And if you haven’t read the pdf called Death By Medicine, you should. It’s already 10 years old but you’ll get the message – loud and clear. The death numbers have changed (obviously), but the facts in the article haven’t. I could give you a list of books and web sites and youtube vid’s to watch that would completely boggle your mind. I’ve been studying this stuff for about 10 years (the corruption) and I’ve also been a foodie (a REAL food foodie) all my life because that’s how I was raised. You would be shocked to learn how long most of these practices have been in use and how a small majority (in context) of people are just NOW beginning to sit up and take notice.
Strap yourself to that wagon seat because it’s going to become a very bumpy ride. We the people who want our food rights are up against the world’s biggest criminal enterprises ever devised.
http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=158820
And as far as I’m concerned, Dean Foods has little wiggle room and should be staying out of the spotlight unless their want ALL of their dirty laundry to be aired.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/07/15/certified-organic-farming-how-federal-regulations-help-big-agriculture/3DfE6xEBmb6qUzRNWlovEN/story.html
I am a subscriber, and I’m not sure that link will work for everyone else. The way I understand it, some Globe content is exclusive for a few days before being available to the general public so check back if it doesn’t work for you now.
Anyhow some very interesting comments about regulations and repurcussions, including this nugget that seems similar to what some have been saying here about RAWMI and Mark’s peddling:
“Many of them mistook federal rules as a way to keep standards high and the corporate world out. In reality, the federal stamp of approval helped big companies control the entire space. Local farmers might win the battle over sludge, but they would lose the war once power was firmly in the hands of a national regulator.”
“…history tells us that, far from restraining the power of big companies, an overbearing regulatory bureaucracy benefits them just about every time.”
And also this,
“Pushing back against the regulatory tide isnt about favoring big business; its about containing the power of the state. Just because something is a good idea (organic farming), doesnt mean it should be a law; and just because something should be a law doesnt mean it should be a federal law.”
David, I hope posting these snippets here is not infrigement, if it is please delete.
RAWMI is not pushing itself arround anyplace. RAWMI is going to Oregon to help 40 Small Dairies in Oregon because they reached out to RAWMI as a resource. They will lead themselves from within their own ranks. RAWMI will just assist as a resource and facilitator and bring organization to their need. Charlotte Smith ( the Newburg OR Mom that started her own raw milk dairy to help her own kids recover fully from excema ) has become a force of good all by herself and RAWMI will add structure and content to her strength.
RAWMI’s Mission has been reformed. We saw the light last year. We evolved and now we are driving forward to address a serious need. People want raw milk and dairymen need the training and co-mentoring organization to coordinate their numbers into a force that can produce and protect exceptional quality raw milk and also themselves.
I would love for Bill Marler to attend a RAWMI training day some time…I would love for state and even FDA officials to attend training one day.
They would be amazed at how much: NIH, Human Genome, EU science, CDC, UC Davis data and even FDA PMO information is used and shared. RAWMI cuts to the bare basics of reality and teaches the truth. That is what will build a better nation, healthier people and safer raw milk.
I didn’t tolerate that behavior from my kids, and won’t tolerate it from anyone else.
Ah, Mark, you forget, “truth” is what they fear most.
You are welcome. I believe this will begin to clear up mysteries for many.
I would not listen to anything a psychiatrist had to say about any subject at all. I must ask this question, David – have you seen the video called Marketing of Madness? Have you seen the video The Medicated Child? If not, you must take the time. If when you are finished viewing those vid’s you can say without any doubt at all that psychiatry isn’t a criminal enterprise, I’ll be amazed beyond words.
In the vid The Medicated Child, the child named Jacob (and his older brother) are both under a psychiatrist’s care. Both are taking multiple medications, several times daily. But the thing that struck me as I watched at about the 10 minute and 40 second mark was the food he’s consuming. Really? A corn dog, some Goldfish and a Gatorade?? That was his lunch. Mom looks as though she’s eaten quite a few boxes of Goldfish herself, so maybe she grew up thinking that boxed food and sugared, synthetically fortified drinks are natural and good. I didn’t see one piece of fresh fruit or a fresh veggies or a hamburger patti or a glass of raw milk or water in sight. Does it NOT occur to people that during pregnancy and after the child is born, the food situation involved in that process of growth and development is important? Apparently not.
Don’t these young people ever have a “well, gawwwwwwllly” moment?