It’s becoming clear that the Wisconsin campylobacter outbreak a few weeks back, triggered by tainted unpasteurized milk from a commercial dairy, has created a dilemma for the food safety ideologues.
These are the people in the regulatory, health, and legal communities who argue that raw milk is inherently unsafe. These ideologues don’t want to acknowledge that there are two raw milks in America–the raw milk turned out by the CAFOs, usually under terribly unsanitary conditions and at significant risk for containing pathogens, and the raw milk turned out by dairies committed to producing safe unpasteurized milk sold directly to consumers.
A herd producing certified milk in New Jersey at the Walker-Gordon Farm in Plainsboro (1948). The barn is a simple, sanitary, well-lit building kept immaculately clean. (From NJ Dept of Agriculture archives. Thanks to Joseph Heckman.)So now the ideologues need to somehow figure out a way to categorize the milk from that outbreak as typical of raw milk served up by dairies that regularly distribute raw milk.
The story is back in the news because the publication Food Safety News, published by the Marler-Clark law firm, requested the investigative files in the case and learned something I had learned and reported two weeks ago–that the dairy whose milk sickened 18 people was one devoted to providing milk for commercial purposes. While it informally makes raw milk available to dairy family members, employees, and a few friends, this practice is an afterthought, not at all part of its distribution model.
But Food Safety News didn’t want to deal with the subject of two raw milks, so it developed another spin:
“It may actually be an example of the sort of conventional dairy identified last year by author David Gumpert, who said some farms operate dual systems, one supplying milk for pasteurization and the other for raw milk. (Gumpert wrote The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America’s Emerging Battle Over Food Rights in 2009.)
“A year ago last May, in the online publication Grist, Gumpert reported on the dispute within the Organic Valley cooperative over its board’s decision to prohibit members from selling raw milk, which an estimated 10 percent were doing.”
A few readers who sent me links to the Food Safety News item were upset about its interpretation.
“More of the public needs to know, also, that raw milk, from responsible dairies, has been cunningly slandered by (this depiction of) the WI case,” said one.
“Cunningly slandered”–that’s an excellent way to describe it. The Grist piece I wrote about Organic Valley was about its decision to crack down on dairies that are primarily raw milk producers, which sell their leftover milk to Organic Valley. This practice infuriated many Organic Valley producers which, like the Wisconsin dairy that caused the campylobacter outbreak, choose to send all their milk to the processor…at much lower prices than selling raw milk. Moreover, as demand for raw milk has soared, Organic Valley found itself getting less and less milk from the raw dairies.
The problem with commercial dairies even giving away raw milk is that such milk truly is a high risk, though probably more risky to friends that rarely drink raw milk than to family and employees who have built up immunity to the frequently occurring pathogens.
The key point is that the food safety zealots must hold onto their ideology that says all raw milk is inherently unsafe. So they twist the reality to suit their fantasy world.
***
A good number of the herdshares springing up in California appear to be producing goat’s milk. Is that a sign of growing interest in non-cow raw dairy? No one knows for sure, but Pat Walling wants to make the case for raw milk afficionados expanding their horizons. She’s a blogger. >Cow’s milk is by far the most popular milk in the country, but there are several other raw milks deserving of consideration. While they may not be as popular because of their unusual taste or the rarity of the animals used to produce the milk, it has important benefits.
My first encounter with raw milk at all was actually on a trip to Mongolia last summer, where every herder I met in the Gobi desert presented me with hot milk or milk tea, called suu te tsai. This was made either with sheep, goat or camel milk. Another drink I would enjoy if I became friends with the herders was khoomis, which is made from fermented horse mare’s milk. While at first the flavors were shocking to a cow-milk-fed girl from the States, I found myself coming to really enjoy them, and even missing them upon my return home.
Raw horse milk is not consumed “straight” because the lactose content is significantly higher than cow’s milk, and even med students going for their medical billing certification can tell you that that would make it a laxative. However, when it’s fermented, the bacteria in raw milk break down the lactose into alcohol and other sugars, so it becomes drinkable even by people who don’t produce any lactase.
The other milks I mentioned, thankfully, have a much lower lactose content, so they can be drunk straight from the goat so to speak. Goat milk has a similar lactose content to cows (4.1 percent as opposed to 4.7 percent), but is more digestible thanks to having fewer allergenic proteins. Sheep’s milk has a higher lactose content, but the nutritional value is very high and it has more conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), which may help to prevent cancer. Camel milk tastes heavy and salty, but not only can it be drunk by lactose intolerants, it has tons of CLA and has been proven to help relieve a whole slough of medical issues from Autism to Diabetes.
Pasteurization of these milks may destroy a great deal of the positive effects of these milks, which is a terrible shame. Besides the health benefits, though, these milks are really quite delicious and should not be missed out on, even if at first they may seem a little strange.
I made a few different varieties of cheese, but by far the best was the lactic-curd bloomy-rinded variety (along the lines of chaource), which ripened into a very flavorful gooey delicacy.
Too bad that Marler's goons are skewing the Wisconsin outbreak. Just proves all the more, the need for certification to distinguish between real raw milk and raw milk for the pasteurizers.
http://books.google.com/books?id=AFQEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39#v=onepage&q&f=false
Anyone care to comment from personal experience regarding the taste?
I guess the seal's milk beats the WB any day!! You have to wonder if the seal's milk would form a good curd, though? Human milk, for example, forms a weak curd at best… there's just no way you could make cheddar or gruyere out of that!
Perhaps a more accurate claim would be that the WB is the highest fat content of any known ruminant. But I suppose that someday I could be proven wrong on that claim too!
No, but 65% BF seal milk sure would make a LOT of butter!
Butter on the brain, sorry… my Jersey heifer calved last Sunday with a Jersey-Dexter heifer and I'm getting a LOT of cream..
Butttterrrrrrr!!! lol
My guess would be that the milk is high in short-chain fatty acids, because they are more fluid, more water soluable, and more liquid at cooler temperatures. Given the super-high milkfat content, this seems plausibe.
Also of interest would be the lipase content and composition of the serum phase… an important concern with the high fat content, especially for the baby seal!!
Of course, I could be totally off-base in my analysis… it is just a guess. The science is almost 50 years old, and they probably didn't have those analytical technologies readily available in 1964! I wonder if there are any more recent studies on seal's milk?
"Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium species are known to produce GABA. Escherichia, Bacillus, and Saccharomyces produce norepinephrine. Candida, Streptococcus, Escherichia, and Enterococcus produce serotonin. Bacillus and Serratia produce dopamine, and Lactobacillus species produce acetylcholine. Thats pretty much the entire hit parade of major neurotransmitters (theres histamine and glutamate and a few others and histamine is known to be produced by some bacteria that infect shellfish, for example, causing food poisoning)."
http://evolutionarypsychiatry.blogspot.com/2011/07/groovy-probiotics.html
http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/story/931ca8905f6a426283072c8a85b2b17b/SC–Raw-Milk-Warning/
http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2011/06/raw_milk_threat_announced_in_m.html
http://articles.ktuu.com/2011-06-27/unpasteurized-milk_29710992
http://www.examiner.com/infectious-disease-in-national/raw-milk-to-blame-for-wisconsin-campylobacter-outbreak
"The farm is licensed and in good standing with the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection."
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iafp/jfp/2011/00000074/00000005/art00008
Neither stories say what type of dairies the BTM is from, so one can only assume it is the mega dairies bulk tanks that was intended for pasteurization which would be toxic and not intended to be consumed raw.
C difficile is an organism that thrives in a sterile environment due to a lack of microbial competition created by a paranoid medical community and their antagonistic approach to dealing with organisms.
The above article states that the, interim NHS chief of staff, is reviewing each case to determine what role the C. difficile played in the deaths.
Apart from the failings of a sterile environment scenario, one would hope she would review each of the cases to determine what role the administering of various drugs, antibiotics and/or vaccines played with respect to each individual's death.
Our frantic obsession with organisms can be enlightened to hens going to hell in a hen basket.
Ken Conrad
Glad you appreciate the "two raw milks" implications. Producers definitely need to be vigilant to reduce and eliminate problems from milk intended to be consumed unpasteurized; they just have more than enough to contend with in fending off the relentless pressure from authorities seeking to hang them even when there are no missteps, that they don't need to be blamed for episodes they had nothing to do with.
David
I would not rely upon fundamentalist ideologies. This applies equally to advocates of germ theory and advocates of terrain theory. The truth is far more complicated than either ideology would lead on.
Please see this video about how listeria monocytogenes infections work:
Listeria is another example of an organism which thrives in "dead" enviroments such as pastuerized milk plants, and is rarely associated with raw dairy products (with the notable exception of certain unacidified Mexican-style cheeses, because they are high in salt and lack any lactic culture — listeria is very salt-tolerant but a poor competitor with lactic-acid producing bacteria).
However, to suggest that listeria infection is NOT caused by a particular organism is just as ignorant as to suggest that all raw milk is inherintly dangerous. Both are sweeping generalizations driven by a fundamentalist ideology.
I say this as someone who has knowingly consumed cheese that tested positive for Listeria and never experienced infection. Listeria preys primarily upon people with comprimised immune systems such as pregnant women and infants. About 20% of listeria infections result in death.
As a producer of food, we have a responsibility to make sure that our food is safe for all people to consume, regardless of whether they are immuno-comprimised or not. Fundamentalist explanations are not very helpful, on either side, IMO.
Miguel's view is not a fundamentalist one. C. dif was discovered in the 70's – mainly in neonates. Clostridia don't compete well with other bacteria, so they were quickly wiped out as the baby grew.
We then started using broad-spectrum antibiotics that would kill most of our existing pathogens, but they wouldn't kill Clostridia. Overgrowth of the organism would occur, mainly in old and frail patients, and pseudomembranous colitis would occur.
Then we started to treat these iatrogenic secondary infections with metronidazole and vancomycin. Not only are some strains of Clostridia now resistant to these drugs, but the organism now produces 20 times more toxin than it used to, so now it can infect and kill younger people in the community at large who have taken just one dose of an antibiotic. All of this has happened in the past 30 years or so.
This 'pathogen' used to have a place in the continuum of normal gut bacteria. It is dangerous now only because man has made it so. To deny this and continue using antibiotics to treat it is like putting your head in the sand.
Does this mean we can ignore the threat of campy contamination of raw milk because of an ideological rejection of germ theory? No, I don't think we can.
You are right about C. Difficile, and I certainly agree that anti-biotics are abused by the medical system (and even moreso by the conventional agricultural system). However, the (limited) research I have done on C. Difficile suggests it is only found naturally in the gut of a small percentage of the population. More than likely, the reason that hospitals are breeding grounds for this organisms is because there are already many immuno-comprimised people in a small space, and C. Difficile forms spores which are very resistant to normal cleaners. Certainly the anti-biotics play a role, but I don't think it is ever so simple as to just point the finger at one factor.
I like miguel and his perspective. Miguel is clearly someone who is dedicated to building a community around sustainable agriculture. However, my issue with his philosophy is this — suggesting that germs are not the cause disease is like suggesting that seeds are not the source of new plants. Yes, its true that other conditions need to be met for a seed to sprout (warmth, moisture, certain soil conditions, etc…) but without a seed there can be no new plant. And a seed of basil cannot magically turn into a seed of wheat, no matter how much the terrain selects for wheat.
The perspective I am suggesting is that we take is a nuanced blend of both germ theory and terrain theory, because I believe that BOTH are factors which influence disease.
I guess I don't see how to blend germ theory with terrain theory.It seems to be an either or situation. I start with the idea that a diverse system is more stable and resilient than a monoculture.When a system is out of balance or unstable we don't bring it back to a stable system by eliminating some of the diversity.Germ theory leads us to eliminating some of the elements of the system.I see this approach as changing one kind of instability for another.Even in a critically ill case there are effective methods that support the body's natural tendency to return to a balanced state.In agriculture it is easier to see the mistakes we make when we try to grow monoculture crops.Because nature always moves towards a more stable system,a climax system,when conditions(climate) remain stable,we have to do a lot of extra work to maintain instability or monoculture.
Your seed example ignores the nature of micro organisms that can transfer genes horizontally in real time.
Organisms are indeed present in disease processes as they are in healthy living , and they may complicate an ailment with their waste products which can be very toxic at times, but the germ alone is merely responding to its environment and the conditions we have created. It is not the sole cause of disease.
Based on our antagonistic attitude toward organisms and current methods being used to manipulate and control infection no food is safe regardless of a producers effort to ensure quality.
Its silly to suggest that those who question the germ theory do so based on philosophical and/or ideological thinking.
Ken Conrad
What I am arguing against is fundamentalism, such as this:
"I guess I don't see how to blend germ theory with terrain theory. It seems to be an either or situation."
I do NOT believe it is an either/or situation. And yes, I am aware of bacteria's ability to transfer genes horizontally in real time.
As a cheesemaker, this is a very simple matter of practical experience. If I add Flora Danica culture to my cheese milk, I will get a very different flavor profile than if I add L. Helveticus. Obviously, these are examples of monocultures, but even when preparing a traditional whey or bulk starter, a high degree of hygiene and equipment sanitation is required (moreso than if you are using pure commercial cultures, because you are growing up your native background micro-flora into much higher populations than they start at). If your bulk starter is contaminated with coliforms or psycrotrophics because of poor hygenic and sanitation practices, it will lead to bad-tasting cheese and can possibly cause illness outbreaks.
Here's another example to think about — if I eat a piece of high-moisture high-pH cheese that accidentally got contaminated with listeria monocytogenes, and then this listeria was allowed to grow to the point where the cheese contained several million organisms of listeria, do you think I will get sick? I bet I would… but what is to blame for that? Well, you could point to the enviroment. In a low-moisture, low-pH cheese like cheddar, listeria will not thrive like it would in a high-moisture high-pH cheese. On the other hand, it is possible to make high-moisture high-pH cheeses that are free of listeria, but it requires more rigerous hygienic practices than are normally required in the production of cheddar.
And again, I have eaten cheese with known low levels of listeria, just not in a large enough dose to make someone like me sick. If a pregnant women ate it, it may be a different story, though.
As food producers, we have a responsbility to produce food that will not make people sick, regardless of the status of their immune system. Understanding the _interaction_ of terrain and germ is critical to producing safe raw dairy products.
I am finding more and more that it is not only the conditions found at the CAFO that encourages pathogens and their dominance….but also the sloppy CIP ( clean in place…the heat and cleaning systems used to clean the machines ) cleaning protocols that are in place. The structural design of long, large diameter milk lines with internal top surfaces that do not get washed well and have biofilms that innoculate passing raw milk etc….
When raw milk, that is intended for pasteurization, enters a biofilm covered pipe and chiller and tank some protected pathogens emerge and she-bang….danger. Pathogens do not all come from manure!!
What I find most interesting is the intensity of milk system cleanliness that a raw milk dairy must undertake to avoid pathogen or other bacterial innoculation after the milk comes out of the cow. It is handling of the Raw Milk after milking that is so different. Every raw milk nay sayer says….it is the shit in the milk….well….maybe not so fast. It is also and perhaps just as importantly, the shitty handling and chilling of the milk after milking.
In a CAFO operation, first you have ripe cow living and eating "conditions" for pathogen development…ie..antibiotics, BST, grain, corn silage, wetness, no pastures, shaded areas etc….then at milking that raw milk enters unclean milking systems when milking. Double whammy. CAFO raw milk needs to be pasteurized just like the FDA and PMO says.
A Raw Milk dairy is completely different,… out in the cow living and eating areas….and very importantly in the post milking environments as well. Two Raw Milks in America….takes "Two Different Raw Milk American Dairyman" and systems that treat that raw milk differently"
Mark
Industrial, commercial, automated standards do not mean safer cleaner raw milk…short simple systems with less handling, contact surface areas, fewer pumps, and direct to bottle systems coupled with clean pastures and clean milking makes for safer cleaner better high quality raw milk.
His goat milk is a perfect example of a very short and very clean milk system. It was the cleanest, most delicious and most ungoaty like tasting milk I have ever tasted.
Absolutely delicious. The way it is supposed to taste!
I think it's very clear that we have turned several commensal or at least harmless organisms into dangerous pathogens Quiite recenttly with our use of antibiotics. C. dif is one, E. coli and MRSA are two more.
Recently, a new form of MRSA was discovered that our "gold standard" tests could not identify. Instead of the mec-A gene, it contained a variant that gave a false negative for resistance.This organism had been being passed from cattle to people for who knows how long and we had been treating it with inappropriate antibiotics conferring further resistance.
While we cannot eliminate 100% of bacteria, most of us understand the role of good hygiene in producing a healthy and flavorful food product. Some us even understand that creating conditions for a healthy balance of microbes leads to an even more healthy and desirable product. A dead product is an opportunity for poor competors/ cooperators and an unnatural balance. Keep in mind most dairy sanitizers are *antibiotics*, too.
Absolutely. A cheese cave is one such enviroment. Each cave contains its own unique micro-flora of molds, yeasts, and beneficial bacteria, and imparts "terrior" (local flavor) to the cheese via microbial enzymatic action on the surface of the cheese.
However, even the best cheese cave can lead to tainted product if hygienic practices are not followed when handling the cheese. What if you are making a schmear-ripened cheese, and your washing brine get contaminated with listeria because you dropped a cheese on the floor which then comes back into contact with the brine? You are now innoculating every cheese you wash in that brine with listeria.
btw… In the above scenario, you are better off with a raw milk cheese than a pasteurized, because the raw milk cheese will have more beneficial bio-diversity to hold the listeria at bay. But regardless of raw or pasteurized, hygienic handling is important.
While it would seem intuitive that bigger is badder, the data on raw milk safety do not support this hypothesis.
http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011-ALL-dairy-through-July-182.pdf
Furthermore, the deadly listeriosis outbreak in MA a few years ago was linked to a small, local dairy and processing plant. There doesn't seem to be any obvious correlation between dairy size (number of milking cows) and outbreak statistics. The WI outbreak referred to in this post (from the "other" milk) was linked to a farm with 250 cows.
In an article today, Mark McAfee said that "demand for raw milk continues to grow. In fact, he's increased the size of his herd to 430 milking cows in response to an 18 percent increase in demand in 2010."
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/07/no-change-in-states-allowing-raw-milk-sales/
430 cows is still small by CA standards, but that's almost twice the size of the WI dairy selling milk to processors.
I agree with Bill Anderson's comments in this thread that suggest problems are more likely to arise from bad practices (poor hygiene), which would explain why size doesn't matter.
MW
I think Mark is in agreement that the problem that comes with increased cow numbers is that milking systems tend to become more complex,harder to clean and do more damage to the fat globules in the milk.The complex systems that conventional dairies use is a big part of the quality issues we face with milk.Being aware of these issues is the beginning of the solution.Complex milking systems do homogenize the milk to a degree.This makes pasteurization necessary in order to keep the enzymes in the milk from digesting the free fatty acids produced by rough handling of the fat globules.Rancid flavors in the milk are a result of enzymes oxidizing the free fatty acids in the milk.
I wonder what good hygiene practices bill is counting on to make the milk safe.The more complex the milking system,the stronger measures are needed to exclude bacteria from the system.Low bacteria counts achieved by the use of strong anti-bacterial disinfectants have the disadvantage of selecting for opportunistic bacteria that are naturally resistant to many bacteriacides.Pipelines,milk pumps and bulk tanks make it much easier to rapidly cool lots of milk.The trade off is that all of these things are hard on the milk.With a small number of cows there are other ways to cool the milk quickly without treating it roughly.On a small scale it is easier to do it right.On a larger scale it takes some thought and creativity to overcome the quality challenges.
Dead on comments.
It is not so much the size as it is the conditions….I am talking about all the conditions.
environmental, milking machine systems, pipeline diameter, CIP temps, length of lines and number of pumps, chiller plate systems, large bulk tanks, the entire machanical ecosystem must be accounted for…
Short simple systems that provide very close distance and easily managed milk from the cow to the bottle is the best. No question…
Mark
This is especially an issue with goat and sheep milk, because of their relatively small butterfat globule size, they are much more fragile milks that are prone to rancidity upon rough handling. The best pipelines are low pipelines (so the milk doesn't have to get sucked up from the milking claw to the pipeline) and use a positive pressure pump for transfering from the reciever jar to the bulk tank.
Of course, it is stilll critical to make sure the pipeline is thoroughly cleaned, or you will have rancid swill-milk with short shelf life and higher probability of pathogencity, regardless of how gently you handle it.