Memo to raw-milk advocates: Improve information, or get sued
Fifty veterinarians and others concerned with food safety gathered at a raw milk symposium last Sunday in Seattle. Sponsored by the American Veterinarian Medical Association (AVMA), “The Raw Milk Conundrum” featured speakers from nearly every regulatory agency in this country, food safety academics, and food-related injury attorney William Marler. In an unusual move, the panel also included two raw-milk advocates: David Gumpert, author of The Complete Patient blog and the forthcoming book "The Raw Milk Revolution," and me. I was there to present a survey that described the views of people who choose to drink unpasteurized milk; for more about it, see this post on my blog. Basically, I argued that consumers should have access to raw milk but that they should also be accurately informed of its risks.
The role and responsibility of raw-milk information for consumers turned out to be a running theme at the symposium.
WAPF warning shot
Two days before the meeting, Marler dropped a bombshell on the raw milk community with a PowerPoint slideshow on his site implying that he was considering suing the Weston A. Price Foundation, the most active raw milk consumer advocacy group in this country, on behalf of his clients injured by unpasteurized milk.
Marler has sued several parties for raw milk injuries to date, including the raw milk producer and two health food stores implicated in the 2006 E. coli 0157:H7 outbreak in California that was tied to raw milk. He is arguing that the WAPF may also be liable for injury under enterprise liability law, in which trade associations have been successfully sued for providing safety information they knew to be incorrect. Marler pointed to a case of a child injured by diving off the diving board into a swimming pool. Twenty years before the injury, the National Pool and Spa Institute (NSPI) — an organization that had taken it upon itself to provide members with safety information — had conducted a study that suggested the diving board in question was unsafe but failed to inform manufacturers and consumers.
A key element of that case, in which the NSPI and diving board manufacturer shared liability, was that the NSPI had volunteered itself as the expert on pool safety; consumers and retailers heeded its advice. The comparison to the WAPF is fairly strong: there is no other group more prominent in promoting raw milk, and much of the promotion is based on its claims of raw milk safety. If those claims are incorrect, and if WAPF knows that the information is incorrect, it could be liable for consumer injury.
"If you are a leader in the movement and your misinformation causes a child to lose his kidneys, you are in my crosshairs," said Marler.
The good bacteria vs. bad bacteria myth
One possible area of misinformation brought up by a number of symposium speakers (including me) was the idea that the beneficial properties of raw milk can kill pathogens. Raw milk does contain enzymes that are known to compete with pathogens, but the key question for consumers is whether this process of "competitive exclusion," as microbiologists call it, ensures raw milk safety.
Realmilk.com is an informational website about unpasteurized milk created and maintained by WAPF; it also has links to raw milk producers. On it, a dairyman describes a private lab test he funded in which he had pathogens introduced into his own milk and colostrum. Referring to the counts of E. coli 0157:H7, he says the E. coli "did not grow and declined substantially over time." The lab report, which is available on the Internet, tells a different story. In the graph to the right, I present the data for E. coli 0157:H7 in the two milk and colostrum samples. Microbiologists would transform the bacteria counts and express them on a log scale, but for our purposes we can see that the number of pathogenic cells declines by Day 4 of the test and then largely recovers by Day 7. As it may take fewer than 50 cells of this bacteria to make a person sick, complete reduction of the pathogen is necessary to ensure safety of the final product. We certainly see no evidence in this study of complete destruction of the disease-causing organism.
In a review of the research on competitive exclusion, symposium speaker Michele Jay Russell, D.V.M., showed that there is no clear evidence that raw milk is self-protective against pathogens. She presented some preliminary evidence in a U.C. Davis study on competitive exclusion in raw milk produced for human consumption. Researchers purchased fresh raw milk at the grocery store and inoculated it with Salmonella to examine the change in numbers over time. At refrigerated temperatures, the Salmonella did not tend to grow, but they also did not die off. In the milk stored at room temperature, the Salmonella grew from hundreds of cells to hundreds of thousands of cells in just two days.
The evidence that raw milk can kill pathogens is at best far more complex than is suggested in the WAPF literature about raw milk safety.
Another example of problematic content on the WAPF sites is an article "Is Raw Milk Safe for Babies?" that lists contaminated milk outbreaks in California from 1982 to 1996. According to the WAPF article, no sicknesses from raw milk occurred in that time, yet multiple outbreaks were linked to pasteurized milk and other foods. Many Californians however may remember that there were a series of outbreaks linked to raw milk in that timeframe, for example this one, cited in a published article on outbreaks in the early 1980s. I checked the outbreak data provided by the CDC, which lists outbreaks by year. I selected 1995 randomly, scrolled down to a "raw milk" outbreak, and discovered it was in California. So, there have been raw milk outbreaks in California, and they have been fairly widely covered. While some might quibble with the evidence linking these incidents to raw milk, it does consumers no service to pretend there never was an outbreak in the first place. I contacted the president of the WAPF about 18 months ago with this concern. She responded that the outbreak table in question was developed by another raw-milk advocate — Aajonus Vonderplanitz — not WAPF; she did not seem concerned with its content.
Advocacy groups make claims all the time that are not based in solid research. For example, groups opposed to genetically modified organisms in food production make many health-related claims that industry disputes. One claim is that the genetically engineered growth hormone used in dairy cows, recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), is linked to breast cancer in humans; another claim is that genetically modified corn causes fertility problems. Like many claims that advocates make every day, the health effects of genetically modified foods are not well documented — partly because, as we have written here and many others have elsewhere, there is an absence of much long-term, independent research.
But while it's the lack of solid research on the long-term impact on human health and the environment that keeps GM foods off most Ethicureans' menu, raw milk claims play a different role, because the recommendations are to drink it, not avoid it. We may choose a life of rBST-free milk and never suffer physical injury as a result, but we can't ignore that even raw milk produced with great care has the potential to harm us. Raw milk can harbor disease-causing pathogens. If you are a raw-milk consumer and that fact surprises you, you may just end up as a witness in a Marler-Clark lawsuit.
Drowning in a teacup?
At last week's symposium, speaker David Gumpert argued that so few outbreaks are linked to raw milk that regulators are making more out of the issue than it merits. “I kind of agree with that guy,” said William Keene of Oregon Public Health Services, later adding “We have won the war.” He described that the vast majority of consumers are not even aware of raw milk. He questioned the resources put into regulating raw milk, implying that there were more productive avenues for funding.
In the final minutes of the 10-hour-long symposium, Keene’s no-nonsense “Why are we making such a big fuss of all of this?” attitude appeared to win the day. Others had countered that food safety professionals have an obligation to keep the public informed, especially as more people seek unprocessed food, including raw milk.
A slender blonde woman then waved her arm and said, “I am ready to speak now.” I had a good idea about what she was about to say, since I had met her the evening before. Mary McGonigle-Martin is the mother of Chris Martin, a child who spent two months in a California hospital after the 2006 E. coli outbreak linked to a raw dairy in California. As she began to speak, I turned away and stared at my lap so that I would not cry in the middle of the Seattle Convention Center.
"I believed the claims," she said. "I believed that the milk was tested regularly. I didn’t know that there was no approved on-farm test for E. coli. I thought if you tested the milk for it, it would guarantee its safety. I didn’t know that you really can never test all of the milk. I believed what I read on the Internet and felt safe in feeding raw milk to my son. He drank it for two weeks before he ended up in the hospital fighting for his life. I don’t want any other mother to go through this.”
When Martin was finished and I felt composed, I turned and caught sight of a California food safety expert still staring at his lap. What I did learn about the food safety crowd this week is that they have a great deal of compassion for consumers. Their job is to keep the public safe from high-risk foods. When they hear stories like Martin’s, it is likely difficult for them to think about ignoring regulation of raw milk.
Later in my Seattle stay, I met up with a friend who, like me, grew up in California’s dairy country. When I mentioned the symposium, he said: “Raw milk is great. I used to get it straight from a friend’s small dairy. You just have to know that every five or six years, you are going to puke your guts out. Besides that — it’s great.”
I responded: “If you were in charge of raw milk consumer information, I doubt there would have been a symposium this week.”
Read more:
- "Heckled at the Raw Milk Symposium," about my experience speaking
- David Gumpert has several posts about the symposium on his blog, "Further Reflections on Raw Milk Symposium: You Have to Hope There’s Benefit in Seeing Each Other As People" and "Participants at Raw Milk Symposium Dump on the Weston A. Price Foundation; What Is Its Responsibility?"
Photo of raw milk from local farm by Ethicurean editor Bonnie Powell
Comments
By Inoculated Mind on July 20th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Good article! I would certainly like to see the likes of Bill Marler go after the Weston A. Price Foundation... that would be interesting.
I would like to draw everyone's attention to this blog post on Aetology, back in 2006 during the Spinach and raw milk E. coli outbreaks, food writer and raw milk advocate Nina Planck wrote about E. coli, pinning it on 'industrial ag'. She stepped into her own manure when she commented that raw milk is both A. Sterile, and B. Has beneficial bacteria that eliminate pathogens. When we pointed out that she was contradicting herself, she disappeared.
Please keep tabs on the raw milk sites, I would be interested to see if their information changes to shore up their legal liabilities.
I would also like to make a comment about the clever argument in the post above about the distinction between the raw milk issue and the genetic engineering issue. I suggest that in the case of GE traits that displace pesticides (Bt), the reverse may be true, that avoiding them may be slightly more risky to your health than eating them, since you would be exposed to more pesticide residues (albeit low amounts of pesticides). Heck, in the case of higher levels of fungal mycotoxins in organic grains (because they are more bitten, which allows the fungi to take hold), in some cases 'eat organic' would be more risky. Our foods are beset with dangers, and as in the raw milk issue, the assumption that 'natural' is better or safer often goes contra-evidence.
By Melissa on July 20th, 2009 at 10:53 am
I would like to see more information on how other countries treat raw milk. When I was in Switzerland I bought it at a special store and they told me there is a strict certification system.
Back in the old days maybe raw milk was fine for tots, but these days we need to think about how poisoned our food system is...and the tentacles of that poisoned food system very much extend to natural and sustainable growing methods because pathogenic e coli is now a part of the ecology. They've found it in everything from seagulls to deer.
Unlike Inoculated Mind, I'm still going to blame this on industrial ag, but we are going to have to accept that some things just aren't safe anymore despite being produced with love and care.
By Walter Jeffries on July 20th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
"Basically, I argued that consumers should have access to raw milk but that they should also be accurately informed of its risks."
Yes. In all things let this be true. Government should allow informed choices.
By Inoculated Mind on July 20th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Re: Melissa,
I didn't say that industrial ag doesn't have a part in it. I was pointing out that Nina Planck was placing the blame for the spinach outbreak squarely on industrial factory farms, without evidence. Interestingly enough, the spinach farm in question was on the second year of a 3-year transition to Organic, which is often missed in the discussion.
If a certain feeding regimen is encouraging the persistance of O157:H7, for example, that presents a problem that needs to be fixed. But E. coli O157:H7's pedigree goes back long before 'industrial ag' came along - it wasn't invented on factory farms.
It is not true that things were safe before but weren't safe now - food poisoning cases continue to go down over the years. For a more historical outlook, you could check out Death in the Pot. What has certainly changed is the public perception of food safety. There was no idyllic past where food was safe and it is now dangerous.
Speaking of love and care, the Fresno raw milk company that was implicated in one 2006 E. coli outbreak told its customers that it could no longer guarrantee that its milk arrives un-soured. They used to reimburse or replace in that case, but coudl no longer afford to do so. Although the argument that these products should be available for people to choose if they so desire, the counter-argument is that we cannot sit and watch such poisonings take place without doing something about it.
The best analogy is seat belts. If you take the "informed choice" without restrictions argument to its full extend, there should be no seat belt laws. Although it is paternalistic, they undeniably save lives.
By Gayle on July 20th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
“Raw milk is great. I used to get it straight from a friend’s small dairy. You just have to know that every five or six years, you are going to puke your guts out. Besides that — it’s great.”
I drank "raw" milk growing up and never puked my guts out from it. However, it was straight from the cooler on our dairy farm to our fridge. My family was responsible for then entire, albeit short, supply chain and no contamination took place. However, as the supply chain increases considerably when it goes off-farm, I really hesitate to recommend unpasteurized milk sales. The people I have spoken to do not understand the dangers of infection and tend to believe that consumers' rights are being circumvented rather than pausing to consider other alternatives.
In my family, too, milk was boiled prior to given to infants for drinking. In Holland, my Oma milked her own goat, but would boil the milk, too, as a precaution. Pasteurization is not new and is not a corporate-bigwig imposition.
By Farmboy on July 21st, 2009 at 9:59 am
This is a very important thread and I'm glad that it is generating multiple responses. I am a member of Weston Price Foundation and have no doubt that the dietary guidance which it has brought to light is essential for the healing of our planet, beginning with our own degraded human health. Please take time to review the organization's website and, if you interested, search out a local chapter. These issues are too significant and complex to reduce to blogging. I have to reject the analogy between safety belts and milk as one that reflects a one size fits all attitude about food. With safety belts, we know they work and we have a pretty standardized design system for making them work well. Wear it and stay seated, don't wear it and be projected. The seat belt is a tool. Food is not a tool, unless you care to think of the body as a machine, which I don't. Food is the foundation of our physical, emotional and spiritual well being and there is an extremely high degree of variation in how it affects us. Think of re-constituted dry powered milk which is loaded with horribly oxidized cholesterol, then think of properly handled whole, raw milk from a beautiful grazing Jersey. Is there a greater difference here than in the last two seat belts that you used? Despite the Hudson Institute's insistence that "Milk is Milk", it is most definitely not. And Nina Planck has not "disappeared" to my knowledge - check out her website for updates.
The good news about the impending collapse of the industrial agricultural model (the model that believes that human beings are machines) is that we have all the wisdom we need to resurrect a food system that will nourish us and support a healthy environment. The best news is that the food that will do so tastes delicious! Check out Weston Price, check out everything you deem credible, then think for yourself.
By jennywenny on July 21st, 2009 at 3:12 pm
It is incredibly refreshing to see an article like this that calmly puts both views forward. Thanks for being so well balanced about it all. I have no interest in raw milk, I agree that maybe people should be able to get it directly from the farm, as long as they fully understand the risks involved.
By Inoculated Mind on July 21st, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Re: Farmboy:
"I have to reject the analogy between safety belts and milk as one that reflects a one size fits all attitude about food."
Reality has only one size. I don't accept relativism when it comes to statements of fact. And the facts about the record of raw milk in terms of food safety are what I'm talking about.
As for emotional and spiritual well-being, I think you've just put forward the actual motivations of the Weston Price food philosophy. Personally, I derive plenty of emotional satisfaction from pasteurized milk products, especially (and emphatically) in the form of cheese, but I can understand that some people want to have their milk taste the way it does straight out of the cow. The question is, does such an emotion trump the emotion we feel for people who are harmed by such practices?
As for the spiritual part, I somehow doubt that anyone's spiritual well being is dependent upon keeping their milk from being temporarily heated. And in a world that is still rife with uncertainties, do we need more food religions?
The dichotomy between the uber-industrial pasturized milk system and the raw milk 'final solution' is a false one. Why not have small, regional dairies that pasturize their milk? I grew up with one practically in my back yard, Clover Stornetta in Petaluma, CA. It is dishonest to suggest that the only alternative to the megamilkopolis is microEcolipse.
You misunderstand me, I didn't mean that Nina Planck disappeared off the face of the Earth - I think she has much more confidence than that. But what she did do was disappear from the blog discussion and not answer any more questions. A case of keyboard-in-mouth if I ever saw one!
"These issues are too significant and complex to reduce to blogging."
Try me. :) Blogging is a tool, and the only thing that dictates the level of discourse are its participants.
By Hannah Wallace on July 22nd, 2009 at 6:31 am
Excellent post, Amanda, and thanks for keeping us informed about what's going on in the world of Raw Milk. I wrote an article years ago for Salon, where I tried to give equal weight to both sides of the argument. (see here if you missed it: http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2007/01/19/raw_milk/)
Ultimately, it is heartbreaking to hear any mother (or father) talk about a child getting deathly ill from any food or drink, but especially one that's supposed to be healthy. There is nothing wrong, in my mind, with getting the WAPF and other consumer advocates to be more careful about backing up their assertions—as a raw milk drinker myself, I welcome more accurate information. (And generally speaking, I think the WAPF does better than most consumer advocate sites in presenting a lot of good solid science. I do agree, though, esp. given the detailed info from Amanda above that the evidence that raw milk internally kills pathogens is slim.) On the other hand, doesn't raw milk sold in California grocery stores have a big fat label on it saying "Raw Milk May Contain Deadly Pathogens"? (Or somesuch. It's been a year or so since I was in the Bay Area.) This seems the perfect way to handle "the raw milk conundrum": warn consumers on the label—and then they know they're taking a risk when they buy it.
By the way, is anyone else wondering why the AVMA sponsored the raw milk symposium in Seattle?
By Michele Jay-Russell on July 22nd, 2009 at 10:39 am
Hannah,
As one of the conference organizers (and a DVM), I am responding to your question about why AVMA sponsored the raw milk symposium this year in Seattle. Veterinarians have a long history of working in food safety. For example, large animal practitioners care for the health of the animals that produce dairy products and eventually enter the food supply. Additionally, some veterinarians go on to become board certified in "veterinary preventive medicine," a speciality that includes expertise in fooborne pathogens and food safety (see: http://www.acvpm.org). Many of the pathogens --Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7, Campylobacter, Brucella, bovine tuberculosis--that cause foodborne diseases are "zoonotic" (infectious diseases transmitted between animals and humans). Raw milk is one of the potential vehicles of transmission of these pathogens to humans. For more information, see this link to AVMA's policy on food safety: http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/food_safety.asp
By Inoculated Mind on July 22nd, 2009 at 11:05 am
Last I checked, raw milk is illegal to sell in CA stores for human consumption, but I may be mistaken.
By Inoculated Mind on July 22nd, 2009 at 11:08 am
Oh wait, I'm sorry, I remember what I was thinking of. Raw milk from California was being shipped to other states as "not for human consumption" to get around the bans in those states. It is legal to sell in CA still.
Had I waited 10 seconds before hitting 'submit'...
By Michele Jay-Russell on July 22nd, 2009 at 11:19 am
Amanda, very well written article.
Hannah, as one of the conference organizers (and a DVM), I am responding to your question about why AVMA sponsored the raw milk symposium this year in Seattle. Veterinarians have a long history of working in food safety. For example, large animal practitioners care for the health of the animals that eventually enter the food supply and produce dairy products. Additionally, some veterinarians go on to become board certified in "veterinary preventive medicine," a speciality that includes expertise in fooborne pathogens and food safety (see: http://www.acvpm.org). Many of the pathogens --Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7, Campylobacter, Brucella, bovine tuberculosis--that cause foodborne diseases are "zoonotic" (infectious diseases transmitted between animals and humans). Raw milk is one of the potential vehicles of transmission of these pathogens to humans. For more information, see this link to AVMA's policy on food safety: http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/food_safety.asp
By Farmboy on July 22nd, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Raw milk isn’t the “final solution”; it’s more like the first solution, the one that human societies around the globe were founded upon thousands of years ago. Raw milk and its lacto-fermented by-products are the foundation of healthy diets on every continent.
A scientist such as yourself should realize that you are not stating facts about raw milk; you are selecting anecdotal and often incorrectly reported incidents that support your presumptions. If we followed your facts and logic, we would stop using seat belts if even one person wearing one was injured or killed in a crash. Again, human beings have thrived on raw milk for thousands of years and there is no reason why we cannot continue to do so. Risk free? No, walking down the stairs involves risk. And yes, there are staircase personal injury lawyers – I hope nobody ever needs one. But the health benefits of raw milk, the ecological benefits of good grazing, and the economic benefits of family farms far outweighs that risk to me when I conduct due diligence on the source.
Why should my desire to drink raw milk trump the way that you feel for people who are hurt by the practice? I’m sorry, you’ll have to take responsibility for your emotions all by yourself. Should we outlaw hunting because a hunter is accidentally injured or killed on occasion?
I wouldn’t say that a person’s spiritual well being depends exclusively on what they eat, but it is distorted thinking to believe that the two can be separated completely.
I did not suggest that there is only one alternative to megamilkopolis. I am saying that I want the legal right to purchase my preferred alternative, which is raw milk from pasture raised ruminants. You can have all the pasteurized milk you like – though I’m glad to share any raw milk I have.
There is a difference between religion and spirituality, and I am not proposing a “food religion” as you suggest. I know and base my life upon the fact that what I eat, where it comes from, how it is produced and who provides it to me will definitely impact my karma. Do you disagree?
By Inoculated Mind on July 23rd, 2009 at 11:36 am
"A scientist such as yourself should realize that you are not stating facts about raw milk; you are selecting anecdotal and often incorrectly reported incidents that support your presumptions."
I suggest you state your case, rather than hand-waving about relative risks. Show me the peer-reviewed studies that support your notion that raw milk is safe, errr, safer than pasteurized milk. Or at the very least, safe enough that it should be allowed on the market. If a particular model of rifle kept blowing up in the hunters' face, it should be taken off the market - no one is suggesting outlawing milk altogether, which is what the analogy would mean when properly applied.
"I wouldn’t say that a person’s spiritual well being depends exclusively on what they eat".... I didn't say you said that. Who said "exclusively"? You're setting up a straw man and knocking it down. But nonetheless you implied that heating milk would harm someone's spiritual well-being.
"I am saying that I want the legal right to purchase my preferred alternative, which is raw milk from pasture raised ruminants." Don't forget the intermediate steps - you are asking for the legal right to have milk extracted and bottled raw, stored and shipped for a distance, and made available in stores to be purchased, while in the interim, contaminating bacteria grow. If you really want it straight out of the cow, why not live on a farm?
"I know and base my life upon the fact that what I eat, where it comes from, how it is produced and who provides it to me will definitely impact my karma." I disagree in that I do not believe in Karma. (This is a religious concept - and it doesn't help your case that you don't have a food religion.) I agree in that we have a responsibility to eat food in a way that minimizes negative impacts and maximizes positive ones, particularly where human beings come into play. But again, you can have all of that, and pasteurize the milk.
"Again, human beings have thrived on raw milk for thousands of years and there is no reason why we cannot continue to do so."
They've also died on raw milk for thousands of years. It's called pathogens, and they had them back then, too.
Put up the science - you are suggesting that I'm going off of mere anecdote, yet you do not cite a single study in support of your position. About a year ago I made a simple and instructive calculation based upon the rate of raw milk drinkers, and the known rates of illness connected to it. The result was a staggering number of illnesses should everyone consume it. I can redo the calculation if you like, but if your position is indeed science-based, let's have it. :D
By Rebecca T. of HonestMeat on July 23rd, 2009 at 11:48 am
We risk our lives when we eat ground beef, we risk our lives when we turn on the tap, we risk our lives when we smoke or drink or any number of other things. However, all those things are legal to consume and they generally just contain warnings so that people can make their own choice. Why should raw milk be treated any differently? Are you sure there is not some other hidden agenda behind the anti-raw milk folks, such as wanting to abolish small producers, direct farmer-to-consumer sales, or perhaps the availability of raw milk might get more and more consumers asking, "why do we have to cook our milk? what is in it? what are the conditions in which dairy cows are living in?" I think the availability of unadulterated, fresh, real foods scares the food industrialists because they know that it will lead to consumers questioning their practices. They prefer the fascist way of one choice, one way of thinking, no questions asked....or else.
By Hannah Wallace at thefastertimes.com/foodpolitics on July 23rd, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Rebecca: i couldn't agree with you more! But we also need to remember that farm practices make a huge difference. I'm not saying that you can never find E. coli O157:H7 at a small dairy that produces raw milk from grass-fed cows, but it's a lot less likely (as long as the farmer is strictly adhering to good farming practices, and is serious about sanitation, etc.) And indeed, the California veterinarians who inspected Organic Pastures in Cali. after the e. coli scare a few years ago were flabbergasted that they couldn't find a trace of E. coli O157:H7 anywhere on (or in) his heard. Mark McAfee wasn't surprised--he feeds his cows grass and their poop has much less bacteria (for more on this case, see this excellent article: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/04/0081992)
Inoculated Mind is right that if huge industrial dairies began producing raw milk, and selling it across the land, we'd have a lot of sick people out there. But that's because when you scale anything up (see Starbucks, McDonalds, et all) the quality goes WAY down. So happily we continue having a two-tier system: raw milk for those who crave and feel better drinking it (and spend more $$ on it) and pasteurized milk for those who don't want to take the risk (and think pasteurized milk tastes fine, I'm guessing?).
By Inoculated Mind on July 23rd, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Re: Hannah,
I was talking about if we multiplied the number of small dairies that currently produce raw milk out to a number that could produce enough for everyone. If we were to multiply the number of people that get sick from raw milk under current conditions by the same factor, that it would be a huge number of people getting sick. I'm sure though that if some of those huge dairies produced raw milk that it could be worse than that.
Re: Rebecca T.
The conditions under which dairy cows are raised are rightly criticized, and this and other problems can and should be dealt with. But abandoning pasteurization as a means to achieve this doesn't sound to me like a good idea. We do take risks in everything we do, but that doesn't mean we should abandon reasonable safety protocols that attempt to reduce such risks. Are seat belts 'fascist'?
By Walter Jeffries on July 24th, 2009 at 6:29 am
Seat belts aren't fascist. They're a safety device. I chose to use them. I have a friend who doesn't. If someone forces us to use them then that is wrong. People should have the choice to dash their head against the windshield. Choices have consequences. People should not be forced to fit anyone's idea of safety. Likewise if you choose not to use the safety devices then you run risks and shouldn't be able to sue for that hurdle. You should have the right to deselect yourself from the evolutionary process. Darwinism rules.
By Kara on July 24th, 2009 at 10:18 am
re: inoculated mind
I understand what you are saying about raw milk on a large scale. Ideally, someday I'd like to see more small-medium scale farms and have them serve the local population. This of course, requires huge shifts, not just in how we farm, but in how we set up cities, land, and how we view food, etc.
However, in a lot of states it is not legal to purchase raw milk from a small dairy farm...even from your next door neighbor. It's not always practical for everyone to have a cow, but if I wanted to buy raw milk, it would be illegal in my state, no matter how it was produced or how I was purchasing it or how fresh it was. I would at least like the option for me to buy milk the way I want it. In my opinion, either way, there is a risk. There may be a greater risk in drinking poorly taken care of raw milk, but pasteurized milk still has some element of risk, as it is food. Any food contains a risk and there are things we can do to minimize that risk. And I personally feel as though buying milk from my neighbor's farm that is taken care of and doesn't travel far, is less risky than buying milk from a mega-farm that I have no idea how it is cared for or what hormones are used. But, I don't legally have that option.
Anyway, regarding this post, I really appreciate it! I do think that if people want to drink raw milk, there needs to be truthful education about it. Of course, it is hard to sift through all the information because each side is sponsoring their own studies and such. But still, the raw milk side has a lot to loose if we aren't honest about the product.
I really appreciate that this site most often provides a balanced, practical opinion on this and isn't always alarmist about everything. It's easy to be idealist, but it is a lot harder to flesh out how this could practically work out in reality.
By Matt on July 24th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Rebecca T. is right that the real issue is of relative risks of raw milk to other socially accepted activities, behaviors, and practices. It's not about the relative risks of raw and pasteurized milk.
And perhaps seat belts aren't fascist, but as Inoculated Mind recognizes early on, they are paternalistic, and that's enough to be suspicious of them. For, as a general rule, the state has no interest in protecting me from myself, only from harm I may do to others.
Motorcycle helmet laws, perhaps in contrast to seat belt laws (though it's an empirical question), can be justified on the grounds that treating motorcycle riders who have been in accidents puts a burden on the state, because of the rate at which they crash, the seriousness of their injuries, and their frequent lack of insurance for covering the damage they do to themselves. But the laws can't be justified on the grounds that motorcycle riders need to be protected for their own sake.
Likewise with raw milk.
Things are slightly more complicated when the question is whether I should be allowed to give my children raw milk. But then the question reverts back to a more general one of what level of risk a guardian may impose on one in their care before the state regards the action as willful endangerment. And I bet the risks of raw milk would look pretty reasonable next to many many other things we think are just fine.
But no anti-raw milk folks talk about relative risk (to other activities, behaviors, etc.). Which is one reason one has to wonder, as Rebecca T. does, what's really driving this issue. As some of the regulators Amanda quotes imply, there are much better uses of limited public health and law enforcement funds than going after raw milk.
Which is not to say that I think it should be totally unregulated, just sensibly regulated. In fact, I think the herd shares in many states (like mine, MI) are a near-perfect solution -- I sign the contract, I take responsibility for my actions. No one can do this accidentally, and anyone thinking about it will very easily come across the information that tells them it's a bad idea. If they choose not to believe that information, or they think the conclusions of danger are overstated (as I do, precisely because we aren't given information about the sort of relative risk assessment we need), they can still sign the form. If they have doubts, they can choose not to.
- Matt
By mark mcafee on July 24th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Amanda,
I really enjoyed and appreciated your raw milk study. The data matched what we have found in our internal studies as well. You should continue to study this subject and publish your results.
especially interesting would be to determine the types of medical conditions that raw milk appears to make much better.
Mark McAfee
By Sylvie on July 25th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Eating raw chicken or raw pork may very well make you sick. Yet we can buy both. Why the ban on raw milk? I would like to be able to buy the food I want with the understanding of the risk attached with it. That's all. Truth in labeling.
By Inoculated Mind on July 25th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Wow, I was actually a little surprised that after a little while, several people came down against the requirement to wear seat belts. (I meant to ask, "Is the requirement to wear seat belts fascist? But everyone knew what I meant.) Kudos for being consistent on that one.
But let's take it to the next level. Parents have a responsibility to protect their children, but what if a parent decides to forego seat belts for their children? Should they be allowed to unnecessarily put their kids at that kind of risk? (In the car seat belt issue I believe they should not) Then by extension to the raw milk issue...?
I for one do not know how raw milk should be regulated, or whether it should be legal or not. But what I do know is that the people who are actively advocating its consumption and claim that it is safer than pasteurized milk seem to either have a vested financial or ideological interest, which leads them to make misleading claims. The Weston A. Price Foundation is a poor source of information compared to government food safety and health institutions.
For example, Hannah Wallace claims above that no E. coli O157:H7 was found in the Fresno dairy cows. This is not true, according to this document, they did in fact find O157:H7 in the cows, however they did not find the exact same strain as was in the outbreak. (The samples were collected on different dates which could explain the discrepancy.) These were grass-fed organic cows, just like the grass-fed cows that were one mile from the Spinach field in the Salinas Valley that harbored the exact outbreak strain that was on the spinach. These were cows that were 'cared for' in every sense, yet, they still carried pathogens that could get into the milk, and have.
The WAPF was actually fighting AB 1735, and gave false information in this press release, while accusing the California Department of Public Health of lying. They repeated the falsehood that no pathogens were found on the farm. I hope they take Bill Marler seriously, because this kind of stuff can land them in deep E. coli-tainted shit.
I didn't respond to FarmBoy's statement about emotion above, but I now feel I have to: "Why should my desire to drink raw milk trump the way that you feel for people who are hurt by the practice? I’m sorry, you’ll have to take responsibility for your emotions all by yourself."
I think people really need to think about whether their views of food safety regulations come from a selfish personal desire or from considering the consequences of how those regulations affect other people. (I am not saying that everyone here who is in support of raw milk is guilty of the former.) I think I am taking responsibility for my emotions by putting them out there for people to consider. Compassion is not a personal problem to be dealt with privately, by definition it is an outward emotion, which I as a liberal humanist cannot ignore.
By Amanda Rose on July 26th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
The safety belt and helmet law comparisons are interesting, but most of us likely see some value in belts and helmets and don’t see any particular good in avoiding them. I do know of one exception – a friend of mine thinks a car seat/belt is actually more dangerous than the lack of one (even those devices that are age-appropriate for his daughter). He does not belt her and risks a hefty ticket. I suppose he is somewhat comparable to a person buying raw milk as pet food in a state where even herd shares are explicitly outlawed, though in the pet food case I don’t know what legal ramifications there are for the consumer.
By mark mcafee on July 27th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Dear Innoculated Mind,
A more careful reading of the DHS investigational data reveals that three heifers not in the milking herd were found to have positive samples of ecoli 0157H7. These were heifers that were in organic transition and were not even in milk yet. These young cows had only been on the farm a short period of time.
When we tested ever cow on the farm again in 2008 (using the CDFA lab in LA ) we found zero positive samples of ecoli 0157h7.
This does not mean that it will never be found...it is just the data.
Ecoli 0157h7 has been found in wild range fed deer. So it is everywhere. This is all about what the concentrations are and what the conditions are that support this tough antibiotic resistsant bad bug.
Remember that ecoli 0157h7 did not exist prior to the late 1970s. It came out of gene engineering or antibiotic abuse....you pick...no one really knows which.
We do know that those that drink raw milk are exposed to very low levels of hundreds of different bacteria and many are related closely to ecoli 0157h7. Immunity is imparted by this exposure.
So if you drink raw milk often you will probably not even know it if you drink some with 0157h7.
That is the beauty of raw milk and its biodiversity. It is also important to note that not one sample of raw milk from Claravale or OPDC has ever tested positive for ecoli 0157h7 ever....inj 82 years of testing by the state of CA.
50,000 people per week drink raw milk in CA from 400 stores. They are very happy and getting healthier every day. A PBS documentary will cover the raw milk story.
Raw milk does not exist in a vacume....we unfortunately no longer live on a mother nature made and evolved earth.....our little earth has been crapped all over by Monsanto and bioenginneering GMO lovers and modern medical wastes and antibiotic residues. Us organic growers must deal with this in addition to mother nature. We have a real fight on our hands. There is a huge conflict on earth between the natural immunity systems and those that wish to use synthetics to kill everything....
This battle will define our futures in the next few years. Superbugs will win if we do not stop trying to kill everything. They are smarter than us all and they will morph to adapt to our attacks. Lets work with bacteria and in doing so...become stronger and one hell of a lot happier. Doctors in CA are saying this every day to their patients as they also realize that antibiotic use is futile and short sighted. Raw milk is being prescribed by medical professors at UCSF ( University of CA at San Fransico ). the paradigm is changing and I am proud to be part of it.
By the way....no where anywhere is it possible to be perfect or guarantee zero pathogens. That is some ones pipe dream. We can only try our best and in doing so approach perfect and build a more perfect immune system as we work on rebuilding what man has so badly destroyed and damaged.
All the best,
Mark MCAfee
Founder OPDC
By milkfan on July 27th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Mark,
"These were heifers that were in organic transition and were not even in milk yet. These young cows had only been on the farm a short period of time. "
I was curious about this explanation. Haven't you said in the past that your herd is "closed," meaning that replacement heifers are born and raised on your dairy?
By Jessica on July 28th, 2009 at 12:55 am
Thanks for the interesting article Amanda.
Gayle,
I completely agree with you. My father grew up on a 30+ acre farm with his three brothers, and they had one milking cow, and for 15 years they all drank raw milk without any repercussions or major illness. Granted, my grandparents only had the one cow and kept a very clean farm in which they grew alfalfa/hay for that ONE cow. My grandfather was an areo-space engineer, and so he subsidized the farm with his income. What the four boys didn't drink in the morning and night my grandma usually made into butter or cheese (the later would be given out for presents).
I think raw-milk can work on an extremely small scale; few cows on a lot of acres that are well maintained only to be available to consume by those who are in close proximity. Outside of that, it can become sketchy. Thus, pasteurization.
By Matt on July 28th, 2009 at 8:00 am
Mark McAfee writes: "We do know that those that drink raw milk are exposed to very low levels of hundreds of different bacteria and many are related closely to ecoli 0157h7. Immunity is imparted by this exposure.
So if you drink raw milk often you will probably not even know it if you drink some with 0157h7.
That is the beauty of raw milk and its biodiversity."
Is there a good, non-ideologically aligned source for information on this? As a raw milk drinker, I'd like it to be true, and, from what I understand about how our immune systems get built, it makes some intuitive sense, but I'd like to learn more. (And, as Inoculated Mind and Amanda indicate, WAP isn't necessarily a trustworthy source.)
_____
Amanda writes: "most of us likely see some value in belts and helmets and don’t see any particular good in avoiding them." Lots of motorcyclists don't see value in helmets and want the option to refuse to wear them. They may be crazy, but unless the harm that results is born by others (directly, or indirectly, as in the form of costs of treatment born by the states), I'm inclined to think they should be allowed to follow their own judgment, crazy as it may seem to me.
In that sense, raw milk is exactly analogous. Others may think I'm completely nuts for wanting to drink it, but unless I am harming someone besides myself, there is no compelling state interest in preventing me from consuming it.
This is, I think, *the* crucial issue in the "debate." Science does not tell us whether or not raw milk or anything else should be legal. Science may help us quantify the risks involved in various activities, and we each ought to seek out the best information as we decide how to act, but the legal permissibility of an activity has (or ought to have) everything to do with who is put at risk by it and to what extent. If the potential for harm is only to oneself, and the risk to others is at a level that we as a society generally agree is acceptable (and we can't eliminate risks to others, so it's always a threshold question), then the activity should be legal.
- Matt
By Gayle on July 28th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
I realize that this article is US-based, but wanted to point out that there are more than simple consumer risks for milk-from-farm sales in Canada. We run a quota-based system here that, while not perfect, does help with sustainability and mitigating overproduction. Milk-from-farm sales work outside of the system, unjustly penalizing farmers who pay for quota to produce as well as bypassing testing procedures.
By Farmboy on July 29th, 2009 at 7:56 am
This has been a good thread, although like the Raw Milk Conundrum conference itself it has been diminished by a shortage of folks truly knowledgeable about raw milk. I'm certainly no expert on the subject myself - my passion for raw milk is ground in my experience drinking it and reading from qualified sources. I cannot let the allegation that the Weston Price Foundation is an "untrustworthy" source of information go undisputed. Please, if this subject is of interest to you, review the Price website for yourself, attend a chapter meeting or, best of all participate in the upcoming annual conference in Chicago this fall.
Here's a nutshell version of the USDA's dietary guidelines: Eat loads of refined carbohydrates and minimal amounts of low- and n0-fat animal protein. Supplement with fruits and vegetables. Also, all sources of a specific food are equivalent - doesn't matter how the food was raised or processed. This is precisely the game plan that has led to the worst human health crisis in our country's history. It's regrettable that the common sense methodology of Weston Price - study the dietary practices that kept human communities physically and emotionally fit for millennia - is today so readily trumped by the proprietary interests of corporate agribusiness and their governmental hand maidens. We have moved in the direction of a sterile, patented and trade marked food supply cordoned off by get big or get out regulatory requirements. Good news is that people are awakening and demanding unfettered access to whole, natural foods - the foods that Price established were the foundation of human health across all peoples on the planet. Please don't passively resign yourself to eating what the corporations and the government tell you is safe - think and act for yourselves.
By Inoculated Mind on July 29th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Wow, the founder of Organic Pastures is addressing my comments specifically.
Let me respond to a few of them:
"Remember that ecoli 0157h7 did not exist prior to the late 1970s. It came out of gene engineering or antibiotic abuse….you pick…no one really knows which."
Where did you get this information? I think you are perpetuating cultural mythology here. Can you point me to the peer-reviewed research paper that establishes the origin of E.coli O157:H7, and pins down the date as you have?
Last I checked this shigella-toxin producing bacterium acquired its virulence from natural horizontal gene transfer, not genetic engineering. And antibiotics have nothing to do with it. (Except that if you are infected with it you shouldn't take antibiotics because it releases the toxin.)
"Ecoli 0157h7 has been found in wild range fed deer. So it is everywhere."
That seems to argue against the recent artificial origin hypothesis you put forward.
"Raw milk does not exist in a vacume….we unfortunately no longer live on a mother nature made and evolved earth…"
A bacterial pathogen that acquired its shiga toxin through natural horizontal gene transfer is perfectly compatible with an 'evolved Earth,' in fact, it is to be expected. However, the pseudo-religious "Mother Nature Made" part of your statement does not fit with this information. I see this point of view as being little different from a creationist perspective on reality. To assume that the Universe has your well being in mind is not a reasonable assumption. You might want to take a look at a book called "Naturally Dangerous" by James Collman.
You argue that people's immune systems are weakened here, and on your site you say that that is why they get infected with pathogens. Allow me to quote your site and critique a critical passage:
"It is possible, but highly unlikely, that pathogens may be transmitted in raw milk just as they may be transmitted in all other foods. OPDC has demonstrated that even when high levels of pathogens were introduced into raw milk, they die off and do not grow (BSK tests). In fact, pathogen killing safety systems are hard at work, keeping raw milk safe even if it has been contaminated. OPDC products are highly pathogen resistant. Because OPDC can not predict the future and know what is yet to come, it is possible that someday a pathogen may be detected in OPDC raw milk. If you are a healthy OPDC consumer this should have no noticeable effect. Your immune system will deal with it and you will probably not even know that a pathogen was in your raw dairy product." (emphasis added)
As this very post describes, the other bacteria in raw milk DO NOT kill pathogenic bacteria, so like the Weston Price Foundation you are providing false information on your website. You are also overstepping your authority to make epidemiological claims about what effect pathogens in your milk will have on your customers. Please provide an explanation and a factual source for this information, or please let us all know that you have removed the false, un-sourced, and questionable information from your website. (As the post suggests, you might be sued.... again).
I will be the first to admit that I am not an expert on pathogenic bacteria, my expertise is in plant genetics. But I also know how to read an understand scientific papers in a variety of topics. Could you please point me to the information about where specifically those three O157:H7-carrying cows were, and answer Milkfan's question about where these three cows came from? Is your herd closed or not?
Also, when I was reading about the outbreak back in 2006, I pulled a document about not being able to guarrantee that milk has arrived unsoured. Has Organic Pastures ever issued a statement to their customers that they will be unable to guarrantee (with reimbursement or replacement) that raw milk will arrive to their customers unsoured?
I agree with you that we should not strive to eliminate every last pathogen, because it leads us into the absurdity of sterility. But this doesn't mean that the opposite should be the case. Your dairy is unique in that you published the ongoing tests of your milk products, however, you are making questionable factual claims about raw milk, and in essence, blaming any problem on the 'military-agri-industrial complex', or the immune systems of your customers. You would do well to heed the warnings of the post that started this excellent thread.
By Inoculated Mind on July 29th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
*err, shiga-toxin, third paragraph. I thought I edited that mistake already.
By mother of a raw milk victim on July 29th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Farmboy, I think you missed the point about WAPF and raw milk. WAPF has a wide variety of nutritional education information, raw milk being one aspect of a healthy, traditional diet. The point is that raw milk can harbor and transmit deadly pathogens. Feeding cows a grass only diet does not change this fact. There have been multiple raw milk outbreaks since 2005, the majority involving the bacteria E.coli 0157:H7 and the victims being children.
If an organization is going to promote a food as “healthy and healing” that can harbor pathogenic bacteria, they need to present this information openly and honestly, not down play it as a remote possibility. Informed choice means just that—informed. WAPF encourages the use of raw milk, writes endless documents about the positive aspects of drinking raw milk, but does nothing to educate people about the real dangers that could happen if the milk was contaminated.
A person can “think and act for themselves” when they are presented with accurate information. The survey results Amanda Rose presented at the AVMA conference demonstrates that raw milk drinkers believe false information about raw milk and this false information turns into false beliefs (which they think are true beliefs) which influences people’s choices for consuming raw milk.
I think raw milk drinkers would appreciate accurate information from the leaders in the raw milk movement. All Sally Fallon has to do is create a page that lists all the possible pathogens that can be found in raw milk, along with the illnesses they cause. Now people can make an informed decision when choosing raw milk for their families.
By Eric Reuter on July 30th, 2009 at 5:21 am
Several items not fully considered on this and most discussions about raw milk:
1) Raw milk is also an ingredient, not just a drink. Many folks use it (or would like to) for home production of cheese and/or yogurt, which process renders it safe because the temperatures involved are higher than pasteurization. This would include us; we do not drink our goat milk raw, but make it into products for home use, because the results are of higher quality and cheaper than anything we can buy. Most grocery store milk is not suitable for this purpose because of the level to which it has been homogenized. Thus, unless you have a nearby direct-market pasteurized dairy, raw milk from a small farm may be your only choice for this enjoyable and economical hobby. We have multiple people who have asked to buy raw goat's milk from us for home cheesemaking, whom we have refused because of the legal and practical issues.
2) We already have a clear precedent in this country for allowing consumers to purchase hazardous food products and consume/use at their own risk, as long as warnings are provided. Raw meat is the most obvious; we can purchase the stuff at a store with no guarantee that we don't wolf it down as is, and we can order a nearly rare burger or steak at any restaurant as long as the menu carries the appropriate government warning that the results are our problem, not anyone else's. Even more relevent is the sale of sushi/sashimi in restaurants and stores; last month I ate at a small restaurant offering sashimi with the same government warning on the menu. I fail to see how raw fish shipped through the global food system and prepared in a kitchen inspected a couple times a year by an overworked city agency is "safe" for human consumption when raw milk purchased from a known farm and farmer is "unsafe", particularly if it is to be treated like meat, as an ingredient rather than a drink.
3) Why can't we simply apply a strong government label to any raw milk stating that "The surgeon general has determined that consumption of raw milk is hazardous to human health and should only be undertaken by adults; heat all milk to 160F before using". There, everyone's butt is covered, and people who want to take chances with raw industrial fish or raw local milk or tobacco or what have you can do it without increasing the tort burden on everyone else. What is the problem here?
By Kelly in Ohio on July 30th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Inoculated Mind,
I think Mark is confusing the first recognition of human illnesses from E. coli O157:H7 with the evolutionary process that lead to the emergence of the strain, which was complex and not recent (see references below). Doctors and public health officials first described E. coli O157:H7 as a cause of human illness in the late 70's or early 80's (depending on which reference you look at). The discovery of this emerging pathogen happened because doctors started to notice HUS in children with bloody diarrhrea, health officials were documenting unusual outbreaks (linked to eating undercooked ground beef), and laboratories developed diagnostic assays to detect E. coli O157:H7 in patient stools that didn't exist prior to the 1980's. Obviously, this does not translate into the bacterial strain itself being new.
More information on the evolution of E. coli O157:H7
Evolution of Genomic Content in the Stepwise Emergence of Escherichia coli O157:H7
http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/187/5/1783
Escherichia coli O157:H7 Shiga Toxin-Encoding Bacteriophages: Integrations, Excisions, Truncations, and Evolutionary Implications
http://jb.asm.org/cgi/reprint/185/12/3596
Genome evolution in major Escherichia coli O157:H7 lineages
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/8/121
By Andrew on July 30th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Regardless of what the naysayers think (and say...), I have never been healthier from drinking raw milk. Pasteurized milk destroys my stomach because all of the enzymes, including the lactase that breaks down lactose, are eliminated from the heat. I always wondered in my teenage years why I had stomach problems and finally came to the realization that it was from pasteurized milk. I have never gotten sick from raw milk and, regardless, there is no scientific or logical reason why it should be banned for everyone. If you must, put a warning label on it, but nobody has the right to tell me what I can and cannot drink. By thy way, I got salmonella as a small child from the largest outbreak of salmonella ever...and it was from pasteurized milk in Chicago. Over 250,000 people, I believe, became ill from it. The outbreaks from pasteurized milk far outweigh the (alleged) outbreaks from unpasteurized. In fact, many of the cases of raw milk "outbreaks" are never even legitimately verified as the true source. Once case I am aware of were some Mexicans who brought home raw milk from a filthy, factory dairy farm - the type of raw milk you would NOT want to drink. The point is, there is a bias to the whole thing that protects industrial dairies whose practices put out of business the small, family dairies and make themselves a fortune. The homogenization allows them to skim most of the cream even off "whole" milk just to squeeze by the government's minimum content requirements. It is all a scam and the scares over raw milk are way overblown. More people become ill from lunchmeat than they do from raw milk but we don't see raw milk banned. Only the rationally inept believe that raw milk should be banned or that people should not have the choice to use their own brains in choosing their own personal food options. Get over your degrees and scientific "pedigree" and stop telling people what to do.
By Andrew on July 30th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Correction: "More people become ill from lunch meat than they do from raw milk but we don't see LUNCH MEAT banned."
By Amanda Rose on August 2nd, 2009 at 8:55 am
Hi everyone. I've had some technical problems here and unsuccessfully tried to post a couple of responses. Thanks everyone for a great discussion! "Mother of a raw milk victim" cited my survey and I wanted to clarify that there will be a paper (hopefully soon). It is on the information environment and will be interesting in light of this Marler threat.
I agree with you, Andrew, on our right to choose.
Amanda
By Jason M on August 2nd, 2009 at 11:32 am
Lets wake up to reality, there is no such thing as a completely safe food, and just because a food is supposed to be inhereintly health (i.e. raw milk, liver, etc.) does not mean that you can never get sick from it.
While in no way am I trying to diminish the sickness of the child, or the hell that the mother went through after she claims contaminated raw milk sickened her child, it could have easily happen to the baby from drinking pastuerized milk. I find it a little weird for her to go around from conference to conference, and trying to demonize farm fresh milk because she had a terrible experience...would she have done that if her son became sick from a vegetable? Go around and demonize some lettuce. I think now.
I personally have never gotten sick from drinking farm fresh milk, but I know that there is always a chance that I could. The healthier your immunse system and body, mind, spirit, the less likely it will kill you or cause permanent damage. I try to include more whole, fresh foods, that are high in fat and nutrient dense to support my immune system.
Bill Marler is a little bit of a shark. Food safety lawyer? There is no need to go after small family farmers, unless there is an obvious negligence on their behalf. I would rather get a little sick from food that I got from a small family farm that can be traced and corrected, then from a tv dinner. You have to offer some trust in this world, and who better than to find a reliable source of food from a small family farm.
By Jason M on August 2nd, 2009 at 11:40 am
mother of a raw milk victim,
Pasteurized milk can harbor many pathonegic strains of bacteria, yet there is no labelling on pasteurized products that are seen everywhere, not to mention things like Cheez Wiz, etc. that sit on store shelves unrefrigerated. Do you think there should be labelling on any product that you buy containing milk?
What about 'milk ingredients' or 'modified milk ingredients' that are shipped over from China and other countries? There is no labelling for these. Companies can still label cream on the ingredients, even if it is made of 'milk ingredients' and gums and fillers. Cream should have one ingredient, CREAM.
I think what needs to come back in effect full swing is FOOD IMITATION laws. The majority of the food that you buy from a supermarket would be classified as 'imitation food'. If it wasn't for synethic vitamins and 'fortification' brough in by the food industry, most modern industrially processed 'food' would never have existed or gone as far spread due to the past food imitation laws in the states and elsewhere.
And, I definately agree that the WAPF information on raw milk, etc needs to be updated to convey possible risks, but they should and can also mentiont he risks of pasteurized milk products, and well, pre-made salads too!
By Chark on August 2nd, 2009 at 11:48 am
It seems to me homogenization is more of a concern than to pasteurize or not. At least pasteurization is concerned with a health issue. Homogenization is done only to "improve" taste, and for me has the opposite effect - what a pity un-homogenized milk is so hard to purchase.
By Inoculated Mind on August 2nd, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Re: Kelly in Ohio,
My point exactly. Mark McAfee seems to think that the discovery of E. coli 0157:H7 is the same thing as its origin. I've seen those papers about its origin in passing, but I think Mark would benefit a great deal by at least reading the abstracts and understanding something about microbiology before opining on the subject. Thanks for posting it!
Re: Andrew: Yes, more people in numbers have gotten sick from pasteurized milk, however, they also make up the vast majority of people who drink milk. The per-capita rates, however, don't look so good. Mark McAfee said that 50,000 people drink raw milk in California per week, and given that there are 36 million people in California, most of them who consume milk and milk products each week, if you do the math the present rate of outbreaks in raw milk would become huge if ramped up in scale. (This was discussed earlier in the comments, and by ramping up in scale I mean more raw milk producing dairies not larger raw milk producing dairies).
Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that 25,000,000 people drink pastuerized milk in CA, and that Mark's figure of 50,000 is correct. So there are 500 times more people drinking pasteurized milk than raw milk each week. So for every one person who gets sick off of raw milk at current rates of production/consumption, 500 people would be sick if everyone in the state drank raw milk. So you can't just count up the number, you have to extrapolate. Similarly, the relative risks of raw vs. pastuerized milk have to be weighed against the number of people who drink it.
"Only the rationally inept believe that raw milk should be banned or that people should not have the choice to use their own brains in choosing their own personal food options. Get over your degrees and scientific “pedigree” and stop telling people what to do."
As I said earlier, I don't know how raw milk should be regulated, if it is to be legal in stores. But I find your statement rife with anti-intellectualism - 'damn the facts and the people who make you read them!' Degrees do not mean someone is right - that takes evidence. Do you therefore disagree that the government should regulate food safety, and if necessary, impose certain food safety practices on vulnerable parts of the food system.
I wonder how you feel about other kinds of regulations - do you agree that there should be no seat belt laws? As for deli meats - a lot of people eat them, do you have some figures that show that the rate of sickness per person that eats them is higher than that of raw milk?
I'd also like to mention that there's a difference between "farm fresh" raw milk and raw milk bottled and shipped to stores that sit around. Mark McAfee can chime in about his company's 'we can no longer guarantee unsoured milk' memo anytime...
By mother of a raw milk victim on August 2nd, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Jason, let me express that I could have chosen to post under any name with my comment, but I specifically posted with “mother of a raw milk victim”. I wanted to see how long it would take for someone to make a personal attack. This is what I have learned about some advocates of raw milk, they make personal attacks instead of sticking to the facts. If you didn’t like my statement, then disagree with it. You don’t have to stoop to attacking me personally.
Here is what you stated, “I find it a little weird for her to go around from conference to conference, and trying to demonize farm fresh milk because she had a terrible experience…would she have done that if her son became sick from a vegetable? Go around and demonize some lettuce. I think now.”
Why did you assume I was at the conference? Here’s where Amanda Rose’s survey information can be found http://www.thecompletepatient.com/storage/ARsurvey.pdf .
I think it is a little weird that you would assume I attend all raw milk conferences and while at them demonize raw milk. If something is to be demonized, it is pathogens. Regardless of the food source, they can make a person extremely ill, even kill them. As for your reference to vegetables, I don’t support the sale of pre-washed, bagged lettuce or spinach. If people really knew how vulnerable they were for pathogen contamination, they would never purchase the product in this manner.
By Jason M on August 2nd, 2009 at 4:30 pm
I actually did not make a personal attack on you. I have come across the same name several times. While, I think it it definately important to address risks (of any food!) to the public, they should not be made to merely fear the food, as most people have been. If you look through FDA and other government information it is clearly more marketing and advertising than any actual information, and they NEVER reference pasteurized milk product outbreaks. Never have I seen one time. I did a huge presentation on a cheese course I took on the subject.
Believe me I came across it daily as I worked in a cheese store. I would see expectant mothers fearful of all things raw milk. You would swear they thought if they physically touched it at all, that there baby would instantly die, yet more than half of them at the same time were consuming processed crap from stores around the area (that was full of margarine, enriched white flour, deep fried in vegetable oils, etc.). I mean c'mon. They were completely un-educated on anything to do with pasteurization. Plus, I would let them know that cheese from pasteurized milk could be contaminated as well, they would always give me this dumb expression. Like, how can you put things in your mouth without not education yourself at least a little bit, beyond a simple headline.
If you look at most outbreaks in Europe (where raw milk cheese is consumed much more), the pasteurized cheese has MUCH higher potential to be contaminated. You should see the bacterial counts that pre-pasteurized milk is allowed to have.
Anyone that thinks that dairies should be in control of multi-national corporations and factory farms is an idiot! Pure and simple. (This was NOT directed at you, I am saying this as a general statement). I would feel a lot better getting sick from a local milk, then getting sick from and industrial product. I think the way that I eat helps my immune system a lot, and I do not fear food.
By Blake on August 2nd, 2009 at 11:04 pm
All food, no matter it's source, no matter what has been done to it, represents some sort of risk. There is no avoiding it. Without intending to minimize anyone's suffering, I think the risks of raw milk have been vastly overblown. First off, I think the number of raw milk consumers is a very difficult number to produce. In many states raw milk sales are banned either completely or in part, yet people find ways to get around these laws. Secondly, I recently consulted a chart put together by Cornell of all the outbrakes of disease that have been linked to milk, pasteurized and unpasteurized, since 1973. Of all the outbreaks atributed to raw milk, I found several where in which it was linked to consumting milk, but when the milk was traced back to the farm, no trace of the organism could be found anywhere, including on the bottling equipment, in any of the other milk, or even in the cow's manure. Furthermore, if the problem truly was with the milk, it would be likely to be in more than a single bottle, and therefore you would probably see more than a single person, single family, or other single consumer unit getting sick. I have a suspicion that raw milk tends to get fingered because when people get sick, the milk is always something that they list as having consumed, since there is such a good deal of propaganda against it. Most of the time, when this is being investigated, it is days after, and there are not direct samples of the product in question. Or, if there are, they stand a large chance of being contaminated. Another thing I spotted was people getting sick from unpasturized milk mistakenly marked as pasturized, or from pasturized milk contaminated with raw milk. Milk meant for pasturization is allowed by law in most states to have an extremely high pathogen content (50,000 colony forming organizims/ ml, I think, compared the the FDA's recomended of 20,000 post pasturization, and california's 15,000 for both raw and pasturized for sale- some farms that test thier raw milk end up as low as less than a thousand). No one I think, is advocating drinking milk from a conventional dairy raw- that really would be suicidal. I'm not saying than nobody has ever gotten sick from raw milk, but I think it's safe to say that your chances of getting anything from it are extremely low. Like any food, you simply have to be aware of how it was produced, how clean the farm is, what the animals eat, etc. I think we need to be concerning ourselves with a lot of other truly dangerous products, like feedlot beef, and industrial scale veggies before we start worrying about a relatively benign product.
To adress a couple of other things mentioned; I've found that the raw milk I get keeps longer than the milk I used to buy from the store. It keeps about 3 weeks in the fridge, only just starting to sour at that point. I actually like it sour, though, so I'm even thinking on starting to leave it out on the counter overnight when I first want to drink a gallon to give it just a hint of sourness. As far as raw milk in stores, I think it's once again a question of scale. Once you start to scale your production up to meet the demands of regional distribution and the like, you start to sacrafice food safety, product quality, and enviornmental impact. So, my primary problem with raw dairy in stores, is how close it the dairy to the store it is supplying, and how large is the operation.
Another point (last one tonight: promise) is that I think raw milk can aptly be comared to sushi. Most people who eat it are extremely careful about where they get it from, and people can (and do) get sick from improperly prepaired sushi. Cleanliness, freshness, and purity of the product in sushi are paramount. But I don't see anyone worrying about sushi in the grocery store.
By mark mcafee on August 3rd, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Dear Everyone....
There have been so many comments and questions. I will not be able to address them all. I am in hurry to get to a presentation on raw fresh milk and I do not want to be late.
As far as the no guarantee of raw milk souring is concerned....you are correct. OPDC does not gurantee the freshness of raw milk when it is shipped to your home via UPS in a cold box. We instead counsel customers to make Kefir with any milk that may arrive sour. We do guarantee freshness and taste to all stores and consumers that buy from stores. We will give you a new product just by returning it to the store for another product.
Remember that sour milk is not unsafe milk. It is teaming with beneficial bacteria much like Yogurt. It makes a great smoothie especially when cultured out.
As for the BSK test conclusions....you can see from the graph that the end point bacteria counts never exceeded the levels of the original innoculum. That is why BSK concluded that raw milk does not support the growth of pathogens very well. This was their conclusion not mine. If raw milk supported pathogen growth, you would have seen an increase in their levels. This was not seen in the BSK test as it was designed.
Lastly.....Strategic Diagnostics Incorporated ( SDI )Ecoli 0157H7 testing is an on farm test for Ecoli 0157H7. Not sure who said it is not...but it is an approved test. Not many people use it but it is an approved test. We also test our milk several times per week at an official lab ( Sierra Dairy Labs ). We have yet to find an Ecoli pathogen in any of our raw milk products in 9 years of testing.
As far as immunity from Pathogens is concerned there is a published University study that found that raw milk drinkers were immune to campylobacter when those that did not drink raw milk became sick from it. See JAMA Vol. 257 #1, January 2, 1987 pages 43-46 ( Martin Blaser ) http://www.jama.ama-assn.org . Clearly the students that drank raw milk created an immunity to Campy and did not get sick when exposed to it...others became ill because they had no immunity. This can be said of nearly all pathogens.
Why do you think we are all supposed to be exposed to pathogens ( as in vaccinations ).... to gain immunity from them. I will let this stand data and rationale on its own.
As far as raw milk freedom is concerned. If you do not want to drink it....then please do not. Just leave those of us that find tremendous value in it alone to appreciate its value. The idea that anyone will tell me what I can eat....is a position that is deeply concerning to me. This is a free country....raw milk is not perfect....no food is perfect. I challenge anyone to try and come to OPDC and take raw milk from my hand when I am taking a drink. After I call the media and the police I will create a very uncomfortable feeling inside of you that you never ever forget. You will become headline news...guaranteed. I will defend our constituion even if you do not. If my raw milk is taken from me that means nothing is safe for any of us.
Perfectly pastuerized milk in MA killed three in 2007. Spinach, tomatoes, cookie dough, peanuts and hamburger have killed many people in the last several years.
50,000 people a week in CA enjoy tested and safe ( as we can get it ) raw milk with no lactose intolerance. More and more people are making this choice. The 1800 conventional dairies in CA are going bankrupt...they can not sell milk when it causes gas pains and diarrhea. This is a tragic consequence of not listening to real consumers and not matching the needs of the consumers physiology with the food you intend to sell to them. After a while....the GOT MILK commercials just can not do enough to cover the lie. The gas cramps and diarrhea still happen.
Pastuerized milk sales drop....thats a simple fact.
Economics will change market dynamics by the guiding hand of capitalism...regardless of how many millions of dollars are spent on failed GOT MILK commercials. My advice to CA diarymen, try making more cheese and yogurt...at least they have some living bacteria and people can eat it.
All the best,
Mark McAfee
Founder OPDC
By michele reynolds / KMK Farms on August 3rd, 2009 at 10:13 pm
I was raised on raw milk, I am so thankful to be able to get this product again! We get it at the Vineyard Farmers Market in Fresno. We are blessed to have Mark fight the fight to keep bring us raw milk. Thank you for all your doing!
By mark mcafee on August 4th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Love you too Michele....
....you have the very best and freshest produce all year long.
That takes lots of work and I deeply respect what you do to provide your great veggies for us all!!
Mark McAfee
By Hillori Hansen on August 5th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Amen Michele!!!  Mark, I am an extremely happy and satisfied consumer of your raw milk products and will continue to drink them and support your diary and your mission to feed people healthy food. I'm very thankful, that I can actually buy it from the Farmer's Market here in Fresno, along with Michele's fabulous organic fruits and vegetables.  I've also bought Mark's raw milk at Whole Foods in Fresno &  New Leaf in Santa Cruz and it's always been delicous (never sour), although I would never be worried about sour milk, as I know that I can make kefir and feed my family lots of probiotics and "good" bacteria. Mark has a genuine concern for his customer's and his customer's love his products. Don't ask me, just visit the Vineyard farmer's market and check out the long line of people waiting with full size coolers to get their raw milk for the week. Hillori Hansen
By Amanda Rose on August 10th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Speaking of the awesome Fresno Farmers Market, has that fig festival happened yet? I went three years ago and loved it. I was probably on the verge of a diabetic coma, but hey, that's the price of ripe figs.
By michele reynolds / KMK Farms on August 10th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
You just missed it! The fig fest was last weekend. They moved it to Fresno State last year because it was getting so big there was not enough parking. Vatche from the Cracked Pepper Bistro held the dinner at his restaurant in the Mission Village Shopping Center in Fresno, but everything else took place at Fresno State. Sorry you missed it!
By Joanne on August 11th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
I for one would greatly appreciate having as much accurate information available as possible.
I'm part of a team working on creating a software/legal resource for people who want to herdshare farm animals. http://herdshare.com. We realize that herdsharing helps people gain access to produce by sharing ownership and thus the right to consume fresh from the farm as well as sharing the responsibilities that farmers usually shoulder alone. This includes the responsibility to produce safe food. However, if farmers and herdshareholder don't have access to adequate information, how can they do so?
There are two other issue I find intriguing:
1. Since children aren't legally able to be party to herdshare contracts, their parents are, in effect, taking full responsibility for feeding them raw milk products from their herd. There is absolutely no litigious pathway for them if their child does suffer illness from the produce. And perhaps government child advocacy departments have grounds to charge these parents..
2. A point no one has discussed so far. How can we explain only a few people getting ill from a herd? Is there a difference in their immune response? Why are some people more succeptible? Is their succeptibility related to their diet/lifestyle before consuming the milk? If so, how much responsibility can they take for their own illness? Could they have taken more responsibility by educating themselves on how to build a strong and vital colony of beneficial gut flora etc? And my next question, obviously, is, "How much responsibility does WAPF (and herdshare.com) take for such education?"
By Jo Douglas on August 11th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Please remember that milk is no longer milk! It is heavily processed, many more times that it was 40 or so years ago and large numbers of people are lactose intolerant because of it. The evidence for this is the increasing numbers of lactose intolerance showing up in all our communities. At the very least we need to be saying that this should stop and return to non homogeonised organic pasture fed milk. At best, lets return to raw milk so we can include the beneficial bacteria's and enyzymes from the milk in our diet as our modern diets are so badly lacking in beneficial bacteria. As well as using it to make fermented products with all their additional goodness such as Kefir milk.
Pasturisation is a modern intervention and a stop gap measure to address poor quality milk from poorly raised animals. Raw milk (and ideally certified high quality organic biodynamic pasture based) has been around for thousands of years and should not be stopped because of poor animal husbandry, cheap and easy processing and dairy boards that are now v big industries. Many many many people have experienced increased health and the ceasation of milk related allergies by switching to raw milk - as yes I have seen a ton of testimonals as well as my own experience and those I know first hand. The health benefits are phenomal and I believe conversations about raw milk should not be about whether to make it availble or not but instead, should be around certifying the farming, handling and transportation processes to ensure the milk stays in its best condition possible.
By Amanda Rose on August 11th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Joanne,
Those are really great questions. There really does need to be more explicit examination of the relationship between the share owner and the animal manager. Producers think they are covered and then they get sued. I think that's tragic. There are some truly tragic cases out there of the hell some small producers have gone through in an outbreak. Obviously, the people sickened went through hell too, but it is easy as a consumer to forget the toll on producers.
Perhaps Bill Marler will offer advice, but based on his presentation, it's clear that if the herd share itself is an illegal entity, that the agreement not to hold the farmer liable would not apply. In illegal cases then, the farmer could be sued. There are a lot of shades of gray out there for herd shares, at least in the U.S.. I don't know where those would fall. The other thing he said is that parents cannot sign away the rights of a child and so even if the herd share is legal, there may be a window for farmers to be sued when a child is sick. I don't know if there can be language limiting who is to consume it under the agreement. That is, there might be the possibility that a farmer could cover himself or herself further by engaging in a boarding agreement only with adults who are consuming their milk. This could perhaps be a conservative path.
Good question #2. I doubt that there is a clear answer which is precisely what muddies all of the waters. Clearly, even with a massive outbreak like a million pounds of beef, there aren't *that many* illnesses.
In terms of the responsibility of herdshare educating, the legal reference in this article is about an organization that puts itself out there as a go-to organization on the safety of a particular product. If herdshare.com isn't making safety claims, then its own liability is limited (and probably limited to next-to-nothing). I should add I am a political scientist by training, not a lawyer, so take that with a grain of salt. But read the link on that case and then look at some of the materials online related to it. I think you'll see what I mean.
Take care, Joanne!
By Amanda Rose on August 11th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Michele -- My waistline says "thank goodness." My heart says, "Oh no!"
By Amanda Rose on August 11th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
I got so caught up in herdshares and figs, I forgot to post a link. In response to this discussion about competitive exclusion, I offer a paper on the topic for a small fee. It includes some great data visualizations:
http://www.rawmilkwhitepapers.com
By Amanda Rose on August 12th, 2009 at 7:57 am
WAPF President Sally Fallon has commented on this post on an unrelated post at David Gumpert's blog The Complete Patient. Scroll down in the comments to read it. I have responded to her there.
http://bit.ly/15nGm4
By Ruffin on August 13th, 2009 at 4:56 am
Sorry to come to the party late -- If I use raw milk when baking bread, it's my understanding that I'm going to bake the risk out of it. Is that accurate?
By Inoculated Mind on August 13th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Re: Marl McAfee:
Your website says:
"OPDC has demonstrated that even when high levels of pathogens were introduced into raw milk, they die off and do not grow"
Apparently you are not very good at reading, as the post indicates above, research has shown that pathogens do grow in the raw milk. Indeed, what other conclusion can you reach when the pathogen levels increased from day 4 to day 7? I wonder what the pathogen levels would have been at day 10? Also, as a private study that you funded, it bears little weight next to the independent peer reviewed literature on the topic. Try this recent one on for size:
Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment for Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus Enterotoxin A in Raw Milk
A quantitative microbial risk assessment was constructed to determine consumer risk from Staphylococcus aureus and staphylococcal enterotoxin in raw milk. A Monte Carlo simulation model was developed to assess the risk from raw milk consumption using data on levels of S. aureus in milk collected by the University of California-Davis Dairy Food Safety Laboratory from 2,336 California dairies from 2005 to 2008 and using U.S. milk consumption data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey of 2003 and 2004. Four modules were constructed to simulate pathogen growth and staphylococcal enterotoxin A production scenarios to quantify consumer risk levels under various time and temperature storage conditions. The three growth modules predicted that S. aureus levels could surpass the 105 CFU/ml level of concern at the 99.9th or 99.99th percentile of servings and therefore may represent a potential consumer risk. Results obtained from the staphylococcal enterotoxin A production module predicted that exposure at the 99.99th percentile could represent a dose capable of eliciting staphylococcal enterotoxin intoxication in all consumer age groups. This study illustrates the utility of quantitative microbial risk assessments for identifying potential food safety issues.
"I challenge anyone to try and come to OPDC and take raw milk from my hand when I am taking a drink. After I call the media and the police I will create a very uncomfortable feeling inside of you that you never ever forget. You will become headline news…guaranteed."
This is a very strange thing for you to say. No one has suggested that raw milk be taken from your hands, being the person who owns the cows and is in every way responsible for your own health. You have an interesting raw milk showdown fantasy, but the veiled threat is very telling.
Anyone notice a similarity between Mark McAfee and Charlton Heston? "From my cold, dead hands"
By AmyG on August 16th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Do the pathogens die off approaching day 4 (obviously not entirely, but some)?
What was the selection criteria for Heidinger's study? Did she lump together data from all dairies---large, small, organic, nonorganic?
What were the various time and temperature conditions that could surpass levels of concern? Are those time and temperature conditions likely?
Four modules were constructed; three were used for results. What was the fourth one about?
Why is their level of concern of CFU at 105/g or mL when I find it is 1,000,000 to 100,000,000 CFU/g or mL as sufficient levels for poisoning in similar studies? See
Johnson, E. A., J. H. Nelson, and M. Johnson. 1990. Microbiological safety of cheese made from heat-treated milk. Part II. Microbiology. J. Food Prot. 53:519-540.
The part of the article quoted is an abstract. The full article is not available without payment. It is impossible to accept the content of an abstract without being able to critically examine the research for biases of selection, methodology, statistical analysis, etc., and to ensure that the study findings support the conclusion. In academic research, such considerations are critical.
By AmyG on August 16th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
One methodological bias I'd like to check in Heidinger's work referenced by the abstract: did they also measure beneficial bacteria counts that would mitigate against an infection caused by S. aureus in vivo?
As for McAfee's private research, is there anyone else who wants to fund it besides him? I'm sure he'd be happy to let someone else foot the bill. What matters most is if the research was sound.
By AmyG on August 16th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Dear Innoculated Mind,
You stated that research shows that pathogens grow in raw milk. Firstly, the research you give to support that does not apply to OPDC's milk; the research did not exclusively use OPDC's milk, which is different that the milk studied. You cannot make generalizations about raw milk and then expect them to apply to every individual raw milk on the market. This is a question of internal validity versus external validity in this type of research.
Secondly, the testing done on OPDC's milk involved pathogens introduced into the milk for the purpose of study, for a "what if" scenario. The OPDC milk does not have these pathogens in it to begin with.
Thirdly, to answer your question, what would happen on day 10 to OPDC milk? The answer is in the report: salmonella continued to decline, E. coli and lysteria were competing with each other (the 3 would not likely be present together in a real milk sample---this was an innoculation remember). Actually, the answer to that question is irrelevant, because the tests were conducted for shelf life and not beyond. Any food that is beyond fresh will be overcome with pathogenic influences and is not fit for human consumption, raw dairy or otherwise.
Do not confuse me for a raw milk enthusiast. I question things like you do. I would like to see what would happen if each pathogen were independently introduced to the milk. I would also like to see what would happen if the milk was not kept at refrigerated temperatures for various periods of time. That information would be useful from each raw dairy farmer I am interested in, but would have to be repeated each time the herd changed its diet, etc.
By Amanda Rose on August 17th, 2009 at 7:57 am
Dear Amy,
OPDC cows do have pathogens, just like all other cows, maybe fewer, maybe the same (I have no idea on the relative volume). O157:H7 was found in non-milking heifers during the 2006 investigation and an outbreak strain of campy was found in milk cows in the late 2007 campy outbreak. The cream was recalled for campy in 2008. These are real-life cows on a real-life dairy. Expecting a zero pathogen situation is not realistic.
On the fresh milk issue -- "Any food that is beyond fresh will be overcome with pathogenic influences" -- it really depends on the pathogen. Campy probably wouldn't survive that long but it may depend on the strain.
The BSK study and a study being conducted now by a researcher at UC Davis does use OPDC milk. Most studies do focus on one pathogen at a time (in fact all that I am aware of besides the BSK study). There are also studies that examine the effect of temperature on pathogen survival. I reference these sorts of studies and provide visual displays so that you can see the change in pathogen counts in the paper available here for a small fee:
http://www.rawmilkwhitepapers.com
Amanda
By AmyG on August 17th, 2009 at 8:56 am
I intended to put off unfair attacks against OPDC by Innoculated Mind, not portray OPDC as perfect. I would never expect zero pathogens. I never believed OPDC or any milk could ever be totally free of pathogens, nor do I aspire to such a standard. I worked in a microbiology lab.
I am very familiar with the findings following the 2006 investigation presented by the prosecutor, and I am sympathetic to the conclusions drawn by the doctors, as well as the parents, but I am not against raw milk per se, and I am most sympathetic to farmers like McAfee whom I equate with health care workers. If a doctor uses best practices in western medicine, there will still be things we cannot control for and lives risked or lost, but we do not eliminate western medicine because of that. I would never want to eliminate raw milk practices either. Sometimes western medicine is not the best choice for a patient's health; likewise for raw milk. It's not black and white. We have to think.
To me it's about which pathogens are present and in what quantities, and finding best practices to reduce risk, and then examining risk/reward ratios for each individual in each context of their lives. . . and then accepting the fact that we cannot control for everything, and so the way to solve problems when they occur is not to point fingers or single out individual farmers but better understand the system, what can and what cannot be done.
Amanda, thank you for the work you did on your paper.
By Rachel on August 19th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
This is interesting. However, why do you not discuss/ mention the diseases/ infections, etc caused by processed milk & dairy products? I do not believe that more people become sick from raw milk products than from processed milk products. It may be a traditional practice to boil raw milk prior to consuming, but the way that milk is processed, pasteurized, homogenized, etc these days is much more involved than boiling, and turns it into a virtual non food substance w/ little nutritional value. Again, I would like to see comparisons between sicknesses caused by raw milk vs processed milk. Raw milk is not the evil here... there are risks with everything we do, and everything we choose to put in our bodies.
By Sandy on September 5th, 2009 at 11:52 am
I think the lactose-intolerance argument ought to be separated from the raw-vs-pasteurized milk argument - aren't we seeing increased lactose intolerance among adults because milk used to be a kids' drink, and more adults are drinking milk now? Cow's milk is designed (or formulated, if you prefer) to feed young cows, not humans.
Disclaimer: I haven't liked to drink milk for years, altho I still enjoy yogurt and some cheese. So all I can say in the current argument is, if organic/natural foods are to continue to be available, their growers and proponents MUST be open and truthful and conduct the most honest scientific research possible, avoiding at all costs the sort of misinformation of which we accuse Big Agra.
By Amanda Rose on September 15th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Rachel,
Sorry it has taken me so long to respond. Raw milk isn't an evil.
As for comparing risk of consumption of raw and pasteurized milk, pasteurized milk has sickened more people but more people drink it, so the rate of consumption needs to be considered. Last I looked, there were something like 10 times more illnesses reported from pasteurized milk. If 10% of the public consumed raw milk, then the illness rates would be about equal. What we don't know is how many people consume raw milk. I've seen estimated from 0.5% to 5%.
There is actually some interesting data coming out from the CDC that describes not just what the outbreak numbers are but what pathogen is linked in the outbreak. If memory serves (from the Seattle symposium), norovirus was the biggest issue for pasteurized milk and was basically not an issue with raw milk.
Amanda
By Amanda Rose on September 15th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Just over a month ago, I offered a "raw milk white paper" for sale on raw milk's ability to kill pathogens. It is here:
http://www.rawmilkwhitepapers.com
In the fall 2009 issue of the WAPF journal, Ted Beals has written a response. A link to his response is displayed on the RealMilk.com website along with a response to the FDA and Bill Marler on their respective raw milk materials. Never in my wildest dreams would I have expected to be grouped with anti-raw milk people. I got heckled by anti-raw milk types when I presented at the symposium. Apparently the world is pretty black-and-white for a lot of people.
You can find Beals' response to my paper here:
http://realmilk.com/documents/PathogensinRawMilk.pdf
In the next week or so I will post a response on the Rebuild blog. In the meantime, you might want to check out what Beals has written.
Amanda
By No Food for Thought on September 20th, 2009 at 2:18 am
I felt compelled to respond to the seatbelt analogy. The difference there is a legal one. Operating a motor vehicle is a privilege granted by the State, NOT a right protected by the US Constitution. And before somebody attempts to relate purchasing raw milk to a privilege, I would like to approach the understanding from a different angle.
Let me start by saying that I have never, to my knowledge, consumed raw milk. So I assure you I am not speaking from some misplaced passion or controlling motivation of tradition or taste. In fact, since I was very young I have been known to go through an entire gallon of pasteurized milk in a single week by myself. Also, I enjoy skim, whole and everything in between (though I have mostly had skim). That being said, I have been researching for quite some time, and fully intend to try raw milk and would have already if it were more convenient to do so. Yet still, I approached my research with no bias and if there was a possibility for any subconscious bias, it would have been in favor of pasteurized milk considering it has always been my favorite food.
I do not contend that raw milk is all-safe, because frankly, what is? I also don’t feel any need to assert raw milk has health benefits that pasteurized milk does not, or that pasteurized milk is more harmful in less obvious ways than raw milk. The point is not that there can only be one milk in this country, and everyone has to fight for their personal preference. Rather, the point is that our constitution makes clear that we as citizens of the US have certain rights and that the Federal and State Governments have limits to their control. Now, in an attempt to figure out what you think those rights include and where you think that limit lies, I offer the following hypothetical scenarios.
1) Our country obviously has a problem with obesity and other health issues related to diet, so in the interest of the safety of the American people, regulation passed requiring a specific meal plan or diet be followed by all citizens.
-Alright, I figure most people would say the government doesn’t have the right. And if you wouldn’t, make sure you’re thinking in terms of what the founding fathers intended rather than your personal views. If you eat meat think of the required meals including no meat, if you don’t eat meat, think of it requiring you to eat meat everyday. Are we all on the same page now? It’s insane! So how do you personally distinguish this from regulating the milk people get? And you have to answer it in a legal sense. Is there a right that this violates that wouldn’t apply to raw milk? The state interest is the same for both, isn’t it? Well I think one could argue that there’s a bit of a distinction between banning things that are making people sick and requiring a person to eat certain things. I will concede to that point and alleviate that issue with the next hypo, but before I do, consider if all foods perceived to be unhealthy were banned only leaving available 3 individual food items. Still seems like too much, right? The next hypo will not be extreme in that sense either.
2) I’m no expert—does anyone purport refined sugar to be healthy? It’s obviously been accused of the opposite, contributing to obesity, diabetes, overall malnutrition etc. So let’s say the government food agency doesn’t have any evidence that Splenda (sucralose) is bad, and it’s “derived from table sugar through a patented, multi-step process”. So everyone is still getting their sweetener, just an altered “healthy” version of it that doesn’t make people sick like refined sugar does. As a result, regulation is passed by States banning refined sugar in some, and making it different degrees of difficult to obtain in others.
-Now we’re banning a food rather than requiring people eat certain things, and we’re only talking about one individual food. Even if you don’t eat sugar yourself because you believe it to be extremely unhealthy, do you really think it should be banned? I mean, people eat stuff that isn’t good for them all the time, why single out refined sugar? If you’re okay with this, ask yourself if you eat anything unhealthy, because by your reasoning, the government can ban any of those things. You don’t? Hm, by whose standards? Different people have different views of what’s healthy, and our Federal Agencies that give guidelines have changed their recommendations drastically throughout the years. Just think about the different stances on red meat or eggs. But really I think most people can agree that extending this regulation would limit freedom. Even though many of us try to stay away from certain foods, sometimes completely eliminating, we still appreciate the freedom to choose for ourselves.
-So distinguish this one from milk. Sugar’s not as bad for you as milk? The effects are not e-coli contamination but just general lack of health. Okay, then we’ll look at another hypo. But, before we do I want to address a couple of other issues. First, e-coli infections are potentially contagious between humans only through contact with feces and vomit of a person who is infected. Oh, and that contact has to lead to ingestion; I just used “contact” because you can get it on your hands and then bring your hands to your mouth. Now, if you’re making the argument that drinking raw milk is putting other people in harm’s way, you’re basically saying that you’re concerned about coming in contact with their vomit and/or feces. Now, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there are a LOAD of illnesses you can contract in this manner including but not even near limited to Meningitis, Worms, Giardiasis, Hepatitis A, Thrush, AIDs(HIV) etc. etc. etc. So, please, avoid vomit and feces. I know, I know, if someone doesn’t wash their hands or it can be in public restrooms etc. etc. Well, if that’s the argument, then you’re arguing that raw milk legislation is constitutional because IF people get sick they HAVE POTENTIAL of being contagious. By that reasoning, it would also be legal to prevent people with any of those illnesses from using public restrooms. That can’t be right…
-Second, some people have been advocating regulation on raw milk for the children, saying that they shouldn’t be subjected to their parents’ “bad decisions” that lead to them being ill. Now the flaw in this argument is a common flaw in the understanding of the “risk” of raw milk. I only put risk in quotations because when one reads it in a sentence with raw milk it has a bit of a different connotation than when read in a sentence regarding buying raw chicken to cook for dinner. With the chicken it’s a risk we’re aware of and we deal with appropriately. The misconception is that many people seem to think raw milk is inherently dangerous rather than a risk of these dangers. Just as with raw milk, the danger requires improperly handling the raw food through inappropriate exposure or cooling methods and other “handling” mistakes--same darn thing for chicken. If you speak of banning milk because “bad” parents can’t be trusted to take the right precautions handling their children’s food, then we should ban the sale of raw chicken as well. I mean, assuming you get the chicken and milk and put them in the fridge, which are you more likely to mishandle? The milk which you take out of the refrigerator just to pour a glass and the put back, or the chicken which you take out, cut somewhere and prepare? I think about one of my roommates from college that would cook raw chicken then wipe up the surfaces she remembered it touching with a paper towel. I would have to come in and do a real cleaning as well as take care of the dish she had the raw chicken sitting in that was now just sitting in the sink, raw juices still inside. As much as I’d like to think she was one of a kind, I’ve since learned that there are many people with similar practices, even those with kids. But with raw chicken there’s a warning of the risk including suggestion for safe-handling and cooking, and that’s sufficient. I say do the same for raw milk. (also require farms to meet certain regulations—I don’t want raw milk from ill-nourished cows)
Oh yeah, and those of you who don’t want your kids going over to someone’s house and having them drink raw milk, just inform them of what they need to ask. Be involved in your kid’s life and if they’re young enough to where they might not understand the issue, then talk to the parents! As someone else mentioned, if your kid was allergic to peanut butter you would talk to anyone who was taking care of him/her until they were at an age where they were old enough to avoid it themselves. Anyway, third hypo.
3) This month alone (September 2009, it’s the early morning hours of the 20th) the FDA posted 5 food recalls as a result of potential health risk due to contamination with either Salmonella or Listeria. (http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/default.htm) As a result, let’s pretend State governments decide to apply the same regulation they have for raw milk. Say goodbye to spinach, parsley, chocolate-covered peanuts, tahini and Eggo Waffles. (Just be glad we didn’t include August otherwise we’d be out of red pepper, lemon meringue pie, iceless green onions, cantaloupe, a whole bunch of cheese products, several Adams Extract & Spice products, romaine lettuce, AND macaroni and cheese! I’d love to list all of them for the last 6 months, but you get the point and they’re available for you to search at the link I provided.)
-Weren’t we going to distinguish the milk regulations based on the specific health issues? Well, everything I listed was recalled for Salmonella or Listeria. So? What’s the difference? None of those products are banned, none of those companies are required to stop selling the product for good. So what is the legal distinction between this situation and that of the raw milk? Honestly, I can’t find a legal distinction. I can’t find a difference in rights. I really can’t figure out why people are so adamant about excluding raw milk and only raw milk, and find it so easy to ignore the broad application of their reasoning. Actually that last sentence isn’t completely true: we are taught to rely on the FDA, CDC etc. and if we can’t do that, how are we supposed to know what is good for us and what isn’t? It’s a lot easier to trust an obviously biased or flawed authority than it is to accept that there is no authority on which we can rely. But easier isn’t always better, right?
Back to the whole equal application thing, who hasn’t gotten food poisoning? People still go to McDonalds, Wendy’s, Taco Bell… and those are just the major examples where you don’t expect much if any care to be put in your food, so you’d think some of the disgusting awful stories you’ve read about from those places would have shut some of them down by now. I guess they’re on the other end of the whole money influence thing though, go figure. Now, the small farmer getting regulated to the point of failure to the big industry’s benefit is slightly suspect, but not enough to convince me until I have exhausted all other lines of reasoning. Are we exhausted yet? We’ll get there.
People who are against raw milk have to understand that those who support it are speaking from experience which to them seems ABSOLUTELY more truthful and accurate than any potentially influenced agency or any potentially flawed study. Wouldn’t you trust your own experience above what ANYONE said? Especially when it came to your health… I’ve been on medications before and had my doctor tell me it was not causing the symptoms I was experiencing. Lo and behold, within a week of going off the medication (and that was the only change) my symptoms disappeared and never returned. No one will ever convince me that the medication was not the cause, not matter how many studies show it and how many intelligent people tell me otherwise. So of course raw milk advocates will be passionate and sure of their convictions without needing studies or numbers to back them up.
However, those against raw milk, why so passionate? Have you consumed it and gotten sick? I Googled “I got sick from raw milk” and went through 5 pages of links without finding one single person commenting that claim they personally experienced something bad from drinking raw milk. I then Googled “raw milk made me sick” with the same result. Links came up where articles talked about people getting sick and the like, but not ONE SINGLE personal comment to that effect. I don’t care how much I loved raw milk, if it made me sick I’d turn on it in the blink of an eye. That goes for anything. Doesn’t it seem like if raw milk is as bad as it would have to be to make the regulations just, that ANYONE who experienced the reasons for the regulation would turn on raw milk? If it were you or your child, wouldn’t you be getting on every single one of these forums to make your case against raw milk? I’m not saying that means there aren’t any people, just that you’d think there would be more. (Try Googling “I got sick from peanut butter”). So somebody please explain how raw milk can be so clearly awful and yet those who are passionately speaking in opposition to raw milk don’t have any real reason to be?
Given the lack of legal distinction, the inconsistency in application of regulation, the lack of personal testimonials for bad health effects, the abundance of testimonials supporting great health benefits, and the reliance on the FDA/CDC etc by those speaking against raw milk, I find it much more likely that raw milk is getting unjustly singled out as a result of large industry influence rather than that raw milk is uniquely worse than the other food items that have been known to be contaminated with the same bacteria and the supporters who drink it regularly are reckless and ignorant in regards to their health.
Sorry I wrote so much, I was more interested in expressing a line of reasoning than merely stating an opinion.
By Amanda Rose on September 20th, 2009 at 9:22 am
No Food for Thought,
Thank you for the detailed discussion. Raw milk advocates claim that raw milk is "uniquely safe" and argue that the government singles it out (as you are arguing) and treat it as "uniquely dangerous." I don't see it as either.
For now I would like to say that I would love to see at one of these raw milk symposiums, an expert on rights from political science or philosophy provide some sort of framework for understanding this issue. I totally agree that the seat belt and helmet comparisons are not on-target examples.
The whole rights and liberties issue gets complicated too -- "liberties" are freedoms we have the require the government keeping its hands off in order to ensure them. Speech is generally seen as one. "Rights" the government usually needs to protect -- right to enter a space when you are in a minority group and the majority wants to keep you out. I have a "right" as a breastfeeding mother in California to feed my child in public anywhere I am otherwise allowed access. CA has a law to protect that right and to keep me from getting harassed.
Most of us raw milk drinkers see access to raw milk as a liberty (govt should stay away to guarantee it). What then allows the government to regulate it? I would really like to see an expert examine this question.
Amanda
By Tom Galloway on September 20th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
By Zeus’ beard where am I? I was looking for a food site and fell into a den of modern liberal frothing rant.
NO Food For Thought and Amanda are so confused about the Constitution, rights & privileges
It boggles my mind. (Traveling is a right.)
Eric, at least, came close to what matters with his item 1. To comment on item 2 there are some places now that you cannot get your steak rare or even medium rare. Then he fell into the government must protect me mindset, with item 3, along with the rest of you.
I am certain you all consider yourselves to be educated and enlightened. But you know nothing of freedom and personal responsibility.
The government is not your friend! Follow the money. Big business pays the lobbyist to bribe the congress-critter to squeeze out the little guys. This is how DuPont got hemp outlawed when they found a way to make paper using wood pulp. The THC was a distraction from the real issue.
I do not drink liquid cow’s milk as I am not a calf. If you say “it’s for the children” I will rip your eye balls out and serve them as sushi.
When I saw the thread for this conversation I was thinking about something else. I had a very brief moment of expectation that the federal government had lifted the ban on imported cheese made from raw milk. As an epicurean that is a right that should not be thought by anyone as a privilege!
By Amanda Rose on September 21st, 2009 at 6:26 am
Tom,
From your usage, I am guessing you do not ascribe to the classic political science distinction between "rights" and "liberties"? LOL. If you did, I am guessing that you would not say traveling and cheese-eating are rights but rather liberties.
Anyway, I like Tom and think these discussions would be far more interesting if we had more libertarians serving us our eyeballs like sushi.
Question for Tom: If government were to get its hands off raw milk, what then would be the role and responsibility of advocates in terms of educating consumers? Personal responsibility is important, but if you turn to an opinion leader who you deem credible and that opinion leader tells you that raw milk kills pathogens within 24 hours and you believe it and end up with a bad batch and sick, is it just your tough luck? Do people who place themselves as opinion leaders have any responsibility in your framework? Is there a consequence for them? Eyes as sushi?
I'm going to go feed my 9-mo-old some milk now -- I make it myself. :)
Amanda
By Inoculated Mind on September 23rd, 2009 at 10:46 am
Re: AmyG
"The part of the article quoted is an abstract. The full article is not available without payment. It is impossible to accept the content of an abstract without being able to critically examine the research for biases of selection, methodology, statistical analysis, etc., and to ensure that the study findings support the conclusion. In academic research, such considerations are critical. "
Feel free to email me at karl (AT) inoculatedmind [DOT] com and I will send you the PDF of the entire article.
"You stated that research shows that pathogens grow in raw milk. Firstly, the research you give to support that does not apply to OPDC’s milk; the research did not exclusively use OPDC’s milk, which is different that the milk studied. You cannot make generalizations about raw milk and then expect them to apply to every individual raw milk on the market."
In this statement, you have denied that any conclusions can be made about any raw milk out there if it did not have a pile of research studying that specific source of raw milk. You have just denied the possibility of applying any of the research, good or bad, to OPDC, including potential future research that could someday tell us that raw milk is the best thing in the world to drink. This is a two-edged sword, denying the applicability of existing research, especially when some of it has been conducted on OPDC milk.
"Secondly, the testing done on OPDC’s milk involved pathogens introduced into the milk for the purpose of study, for a “what if” scenario. The OPDC milk does not have these pathogens in it to begin with."
Tell that to the people who found campylobacter in some of OPDC's milk bottles, happy as can be living in the milk fat. One of the central claims of the raw milk advocates is that the milk has special properties that prevent pathogens from living in it. That does not appear to be the case.
"I intended to put off unfair attacks against OPDC by Innoculated Mind, not portray OPDC as perfect."
My attacks were not unfair. They were harsh and direct - and as you'll notice Mark McAfee disappeared after being challenged. He seems to like making grandiose claims of fact about nutrition and microbiology, yet can't seem to grasp the issues involved or back up his claims. What is particularly scary is that McAfee seems to deny that pathogens get in the milk, yet simultaneously agrees that pathogens get in the milk and that this is good - that it acts as a vaccine against future infections. Couple that with a blame-the-victim mentality that any infections that occur are due to the 'weak immune systems' of those victims. I would probably trust someone like McAfee to raise cows, but not to make judgements about the health of human beings.
Point of fact - OPDC's website states that no pathogens were ever found in the milk. But we know that campylobacter was found in their products. The slight-of-hand is that the campylobacter was found in the milkfat floating on the surface of the milk, but not the milk. It's still in the bottle, and would be all over the place is you shook it up (as you're supposed to), but OPDC misleads by making this distinction but not pointing out the distinction they are making.
You suggest that 10 days is past the shelf life of milk... that seems like an extraordinarily short shelf-life. And I'm glad that you agree that milk that does not stay cold is suspect - that was my point in bringing up OPDC's memo stating that they could not guarantee that their shipped milk arrives unsoured. What happens with e. coli gets in there, or there's a repeat of campylobacter?
And there's one N in 'inoculated,' by the way.
By Mary on September 24th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
By no food for thought,
Here are a few stories for you to read.
http://www.marlerblog.com/2009/03/articles/lawyer-oped/obama-on-food-safety-this-is-why-what-you-do-is-so-important/
http://www.marlerblog.com/2009/05/articles/legal-cases/the-alexandre-eco-farms-dairy-raw-milk-campylobacter-outbreak/
By No Food for Thought on September 29th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Oh boy Tom, you crack me up--I bet you write entertaining articles/blogs. I did not really intend for my post to reflect on my understanding of the Constitution so much as I wanted to give perspective on the issue of drawing the line for government intrusion. My intention was to reach the people who argue based on unwarranted fears, so I was speaking in layman's terms more than legal exactitudes. You are correct Amanda that milk would fall under civil liberties, which are also "rights" except when you are making the legal distinction between civil rights and civil liberties. Most people are not aware of the distinction, so I didn't bother. Oh, and Tom, you are correct that the government can't prohibit people from traveling public roads, but they can regulate it--the courts continue to uphold the States' rights to require license plates, drivers license etc. So, like I said, operating a motor vehicle is a privilege. I do appreciate wisdom whenever I can find it, no matter the source, so Tom if you truly feel I am "so confused about the Constitution, rights & privileges" please enlighten me.
Mary, I appreciate the stories--really, I've had a lot of trouble finding some. Although I must say a personal injury lawyer's blog is not the most reliable source since his very job is to make a group of people believe the story of those he represents. We'll ignore that part of it for now.
Once I actually opened the first article I was a little disappointed... those two stories are the only stories with actual names and faces associated with them that I've been able to find. And even those stories have some holes. For example, the Lauren Herzog situation is very interesting:
-Lauren's father's girlfriend (her parents are divorced) put 1/3 cup of raw milk in a smoothie that was shared by Lauren, the girlfriend, and the girlfriend's 3 year old and 5 year old. Yet Lauren was the only one to get sick and the container was tested and no E. coli was found.
-Also mentioned was that she had a hamburger with her mother. How can we be so quick and sure of ourselves to accuse the milk when no one else that shared the same 1/3 cup of it (not to mention drank the rest of the bottle) got sick and there was no E. coli in the bottle? Why are we so quick to rule out the possibility that a hamburger was undercooked, or that someone preparing the hamburger contaminated the lettuce or bun or something without realizing it?
http://www.cheeseslave.com/2008/06/25/raw-milk-victory-in-california/ (the info comes from the comments below the article)
Also, just look at the Marler Clark homepage: "Since 1993, Marler Clark has represented thousands of clients in litigation against restaurants and food companies whose food was identified as the source of illness." Thousands, and yet you provided me with 3 due to raw milk. So, what about the others? What other food is banned? I mean surely some food has better representation than just 3 of thousands. If someone is arguing because they think raw milk is truly a health concern, I hope they're making the same fight to get rid of spinach, cookie dough and BBQ (just to name a few I glimpsed while on Marler Clark's website).
As I said before though, I don't contend that milk is all-safe. Any milk. Food poisoning is awful, but scarier than the possibility for food poisoning on occasion (which will always exist) is a country that begins to outlaw every source of food poisoning it finds. Those who want access to raw milk are not asking that all milk be raw, so it still surprises me that so many people are vocally against it without personal experience or really any personal interest to back it up.
By No Food for Thought on September 29th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
oh yeah, this is a good article w/comments as well:
http://www.listen2yourgut.com/blog/gut/is-raw-milk-safe/
By Amanda Rose on September 29th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
For anyone who wants to rehash the 2006 E. coli O157:H7 outbreak here in California, read the state report on the case (it's hosted on the Marler Blog, but it's a CA document):
http://www.marlerblog.com/rawmilk(1).pdf
Here is the dairy's argument:
http://www.listen2yourgut.com/blogimages/Sept2006OPrecall.pdf
Here is the Marler-Clark argument:
http://www.marlerblog.com/uploads/file/Organic%20Pastures%202006%20Outbreak.pdf
I want to highlight this notion of "My whole family had the milk and only one of us got sick, so it couldn't have been the milk." Not everyone who is exposed gets sick which is what makes all of these outbreak investigations complicated.
I should also point out to those who argue that the outbreak strain was never found in the milk cows -- not all cows involved were tested. The dairy was buying product from Horizon (produced at the time by the Vander Eyk Dairy). The Vander Eyk cows were never tested. You can't really hang your hat on the claim that the strain was never found when the state didn't know which animals to test. (When the state people wrote their report, they did not know about the outsourcing, so you will not find it there.)
Amanda
By Amanda Rose on October 1st, 2009 at 8:13 am
One of my concerns in the original post is that raw milk advocacy groups misrepresent the scientific literature on competitive exclusion. In response, I wrote a "white paper" on the topic. Ted Beals of the Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) wrote a review of the white paper in the fall 2009 issue of the WAPF's journal. His review is here (PDF):
http://realmilk.com/documents/PathogensinRawMilk.pdf
I have posted a response to his review on the Rebuild blog:
http://www.rebuild-from-depression.com/blog/2009/10/does_raw_milk_kill_pathogens_a.html
Does raw milk kill pathogens quickly enough and thoroughly enough to provide a consumer safety guarantee? What is the evidence? You will find diverse interpretations in those links.
Amanda
By Twwly on October 16th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
I'm all about informed consent. I don't see why the gov needs to criminalize something like raw milk when cigarettes and coca-cola are legal. Stick some information on the product about it's risks (should people DECIDE not to inform themselves on their own) and let people make their own decisions! I am sorry to hear you were heckled for providing a totally rational opinion.
My family drinks raw milk daily. I am more concerned about drinking chlorinated "town water" than I am about the risks of drinking raw milk. We cool it immediately, drink it quickly and have never had a problem with our own milk. We like it because of the taste, because we feel when handled properly it is better for us, and it makes better cheese in my opinion. (I make my own cheeses).
Like your friend I have once "puked my guts out" when I knowingly drank raw milk from an Amish neighbour over lunch that I knew had been sitting out too long. I knew it was questionable when I picked up the glass and sure enough I barfed later. I didn't give any of it to my kids and I will "go with my gut" in future and politely decline if it's summer and well, the Amish don't have a fridge! Anyway. I have no science background here, but I FEEL that we are more used to any potential "bad" bacteria in raw milk than my town friends who drink chlorinated water and eat irradiated food. And so I never, ever serve them raw milk in my house. While I am confident enough that my families tummies can handle it, and confident it got cold enough quick enough, I don't want to make anyone ill. I am not a large dairy with a contraption to quickly chill milk, I am a mother with some goats and a kitchen sink with ice cubes. Haha.
LOVE what you guys do here, btw.
By Bill Marler on October 18th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
I have been following the raw milk debate for some time on my blog. Here are some posts that you might find helpful:
http://www.marlerblog.com/2009/05/articles/legal-cases/the-alexandre-eco-farms-dairy-raw-milk-campylobacter-outbreak/
http://www.marlerblog.com/2008/06/articles/lawyer-oped/raw-milk-cons-review-of-the-peerreviewed-literature/
http://www.marlerblog.com/2008/06/articles/lawyer-oped/raw-milk-pros-review-of-the-peerreviewed-literature/
http://www.marlerblog.com/2009/10/articles/lawyer-oped/comparing-the-food-safety-record-of-pasteurized-and-raw-milk-products-part-3/
By kc on October 21st, 2009 at 8:26 am
I live in a state where it is illegal to buy raw milk from a local farm but I can go in any grocery store and buy diet drinks laced with neurotoxins. I could even feed them to my kids if I was so foolish as to wish to do so. The FDA decided that there is an "allowable amount" of lead in dinnerware, no warning label required for anti-freeze in ice cream, and leftover soy sludge in candy bars is just fine with them. According to the FDA, as a consumer I don't even merit the courtesy of knowing if my food is genetically modified.
As for some of the posts here, I am always suspicious when someone argues so vehemently that a natural product should not be allowed to even compete with Big Agra's version. None of the raw milk drinkers are vehemently arguing to make raw the only milk available under the law. It strikes me as exceedingly strange that a self-professed liberal humanist is arguing for total government control on any issue. As long as aspartame, caffeine, hydrolized soy protein, monosodium glutamate, hydrogenated vegetable oil, sucralose, propylene glycol and magnesium stearate are acceptable food ingredients according to the FDA, there is no logical arguement against the sale of raw milk. The only reason that raw milk is not legal is because the big money is behind the competition. Pasteurized dairy products should be one of the milk options, not the only game in town. With a little competition, maybe the commercial dairy industry would be motivated to improve their product so even pasteurized dairy consumers would benefit.
By Susan on November 24th, 2009 at 12:08 am
I guess I should be dead then... I know and understand the guidelines that are put forth in raw milk safety handbook, but I also certainly know that I was raised on raw milk and it was always ran through a separator. What I learned later was that... lol well, that separator was never really taken apart to be scrubbed down and sterilized, ever. Since it was the "self-washing" type my parents had no desire to "risk damaging the special gasket in there" since it was nearly impossible to replace. Even a "self-washing" unit needs to be taken apart regularly. So years upon years of use and no serious washing. I also learned that from time to time is was a goodly while before that milk made it through the separator (say 3+ hours after milking was finished.) Why do I relate this story? Mostly because I don't ever recall getting sick from our milk nor any of my siblings (of which there are 14). Our cows received supplemental grain and were dry lotted over night before morning milking otherwise they free-ranged. Do I produce my milk the way my parents did? Nope. Maybe this isn't beneficial to the discussion of this article as it is antecdotal rather than scientific... I just found it to be an extremely interesting story I learned rather recently myself. Do I believe that there is a possibility of getting sick from raw milk? Sure, there is that possiblity.
However, I get very weary about being told what I can and can't do, what I can and can't eat and that because people have died from things historically that we should ban it or alter it or some other absurd thing. Someone way up the line made a nice analogy to seat belts for example; I actually know a gentleman who CAN'T wear a seatbelt because if he did get in an accident it would kill him based on how the shoulder strap laid across him. Damned if you do.. Damned if you don't. How about that for having to make a decision on your own life? He was even stopped by an officer for it and he explained and the officer AGREED and told him what he needed to do to be legal with the whole affair without ticketing him. So why is it that people want to make it illegal for other people to make their own informed decisions in life? Rather, let's just sue. If you're going to sue, please make certain you're not just trying to capitalize on it. I've ran into far to many groups of late that just want to capitalize on the organic/local/sustainable movement rather than actually believing in the cause be it one side or the other. The only term that comes to mind is "amubulance chaser."
I appreciate knowing both sides and certainly appreciate your article Amanda Rose. I also have life experience... sometimes that outweighs scientific data for the occassional crazy lady like me.
By Amanda Rose on December 30th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Susan,
Thank you for your comment. If you are crazy, so are we all. Probably a good number of Ethicureans drink raw milk. I expect all would ardently agree that we should have the right to choose. My concern is over the content of consumer information. People like you and I who produce our own food tend to be plenty well informed.
Amanda
By Amanda Rose on December 30th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
I just noticed today that Sally Fallon added a comment to the "Is Raw Milk Safe for Babies?" article that I reference in the original article. She made a similar comment on The Complete Patient some time back, so it's not new information if you've been reading all these months.
Her article is here:
http://www.westonaprice.org/Is-Raw-Milk-Safe-for-Babies.html
In my article above I link to a journal article I found on PubMed. My point? It's awfully easy to find a California outbreak in the 80s and 90s and yet, the WAPF article suggests none ever happened. Fallon reviews the article I cited and argues that the particular outbreak cluster never happened. In the process she uses the "correlation does not prove causation" argument without addressing the actual statistical analysis of the research article. Outside of a laboratory, you don't do a whole lot better than "correlation." You can add statistical controls and other analytical methods to test your hypothesis, but you will never escape Fallon's criticism. As a result, there is no outbreak I can point to in which she could not make the same argument. Again, my only point was to suggest how easy it was to find an outbreak report for California in the 80s and 90s.
It would sure be nice if WAPF could hire some researchers to help with their analyses. Beals fell short in his response to my competitive exclusion paper.
I like raw milk. It's too bad we consumers can't find any reasonable analysis of it.
Amanda
By Michelle on January 7th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
I often loathe these endless blog comment debates but this one has been both fascinating and entertaining. My child is allergic to milk and a parenting consultant recently advised me to try raw milk, citing the alleged benefits with which you all are no doubt intimately familiar. Whenever someone advocates taking an action far outside the mainstream, no matter how expert I believe them to be or how interested I am in being countermajoritarian for its own sake, I generally try to do some independent research. Not to say that mainstream culture is an optimal source for vetting information (particularly with the influence of affluent corporate players and corrupt governmental bodies), but change is scary, and so we turn to Google.
While many arguments here are interesting, even profound, and sometimes flawed, I am not really seeing much actual data on actual illness. The studies cited are not useful to me - I would rather know what percentage of raw milk drinkers nationwide have become sick or died from consuming infected milk on average per year. I would want to know this data broken down by age. Furthermore, I would like to know the percentage of those deaths caused by improper handling and/or animal care. Finally, I would like a comparison (not an extrapolation) of per capita illnesses/deaths from raw milk consumption and pasteurized milk consumption. In addition to statistical information, I would like to know how far from a raw milk dairy one can safely live and what preventative practices (if any) the end-consumer can put into place to protect themselves and their children. Is there any way to tell from a sip that there are deadly pathogens in the milk? My guess would be there is not, so is there any other way to test the product at home? Or is there some consensus that city dwellers cannot safely feed raw milk to their children (without making it into another product like cheese or yogurt)?
Raw milk advocates should understand that anyone making the switch, regardless of how much research she puts into it, will be crucified by her mother if her little girl gets sick.
By Amanda Rose on January 8th, 2010 at 5:26 am
Michelle,
Thanks for the questions. This is really a problem with the raw milk decision -- answers are not available for most/all of your questions. We don't know how many people actually drink raw milk. Most illnesses are unreported (for all foods but unreporting may be higher among raw milk consumers).
As for the "what can a consumer do"? There are no in-home methods to test your milk. In fact there isn't even an on-farm test for E. coli O157:H7. The test used by farmers was developed for apple juice. Tasting and smelling won't tell you. The flavor may be "off" for other reasons; the milk may be sweet and contaminated. This uncertainty is why the "know your farmer" mantra has become popular because it's really all about the sanitation practices at the farm and even then it's possible for an accident to happen.
Amanda
By Mary on January 8th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
Michelle,
Here's a few videos you can watch. Drinking raw milk doesn't always have a positive outcome.
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2009/12/considering-drinking-raw-milk-read-this/
By Mary on January 8th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Michelle,  An alternative to pasteurized cowâs milk is pasteurized goatâs milk. My son experienced negative reactions to organic cowâs milk, but does fine on goatâs milk. Other alternatives are rice, almond or coconut milk. You donât have to make the leap to raw milk.  If you are looking to increase the healthy bacteria in your childâs intestinal tract, there are some excellent high probiotic supplements as well as pasteurized goatâs milk kefir and yogurt.   Mary
By Michelle on January 8th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
The videos are sad but anecdotal at best (inflammatory at worst), and while I feel bad for anyone or their child who has become ill from any source, I don't think this addresses my question. I also found the Marler articles on the subject unconvincing
My child is allergic to pasteurized dairy products and I have a lot of difficulty putting together a complete day's worth of nutrition which poses physiological as well as behavioral problems that could be solved with raw milk and raw milk products. My daughter is not autistic - I am not hoping to resolve a complex disease with a single food item. But I need to know how big the risk of deadly pathogens is - 1/100 bottles, 1/1000 bottles, 1/10,000 bottles, etc. And because raw milk is so demonized, I am having difficulty finding the farms and getting information on them.
And yes, we have tried all the alternatives - the only one that she will drink is soy milk and she won't drink much of it, plus all of its calcium and vitamins are artificially added which means they will not be absorbed well by the small intestine.
Here's a very pragmatic question - would an adult, with a presumably stronger immune system than a child, be able to have a small sample glass of the week's raw milk shipment and wait for a few hours to see if illness develops? Like the king's taster so to speak.
By Michelle on January 8th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
I've been doing some additional research and found this in an NYT article from last year:
"The center released a report in December that looked at 2005 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It said that raw dairy products accounted for 30 percent of dairy-related outbreaks of illnesses in the United States, including 70 percent of outbreaks from milk. It also showed that while food-borne illnesses overall declined in 2005, dairy outbreaks increased."
So there are some statistics that look pretty damning. I'm sure raw milk tastes great and does have health benefits but it's starting to look to me like the risks are great, particularly for children. I really hate industrial agriculture and all that, and am a vegetarian and animal advocate. So I'm definitely not on the side of big dairy. But I've had some really terrible bouts with food poisoning (I live in NYC after all) and I don't think I can stomach :) the risk to my child. I guess I'll have to continue struggling on with soy milk until she outgrows her allergy.
By Mary on January 9th, 2010 at 9:50 am
Michelle,
I’m happy you found the data you were looking for. I’m assuming when you say your child is allergic to pasteurized milk, you are referring the milk protein casein. There are anecdotal stories of children who are not able to digest casein after it has been pasteurized, but are able to digest it without reactions when the milk is raw.
This is the way I see it. Consuming raw milk is a crapshoot. If you don’t get a contaminated batch, the health benefits are positive. The problem is raw milk can harbor multiple pathogens: E.coli 0157:H7, Salmonella, Campylobacter, Listeria and TB. All of these pathogens have been implicated in raw milk or raw cheese outbreaks over the past ten years. Since 2005, Ecoli 0157:H7 has been the most prominent pathogen in raw milk outbreaks. It only takes a few cells of this bacterium to kill a child.
There has been much talk about raw milk’s capacity to kill pathogens. Scientific evidence indicates this is not true. I would like to see a research study conducted on raw kefir’s ability to kill pathogens. Are the lactic acid bacteria that powerful? Would this be a safe alternative to raw milk?
For what it is worth, the choice to give my son raw milk was biggest mistake of my life. If you are interested, you can read a detailed account of our son’s journey with E.coli 0157:H7 and HUS here http://www.marlerblog.com/2009/03/articles/lawyer-oped/obama-on-food-safety-this-is-why-what-you-do-is-so-important/ Click on my son’s picture.
I have had the opportunity to meet other families who have become ill from raw milk. A common variable is that everyone who became ill had consumed raw milk for the very first time or had been drinking it for a very short time.
Mary
By tslate on January 9th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
It is rather clear from this blog and others that no federal agency has the least interest in ensuring the safety of raw milk for mass production. And the endless diatribe about you prove to me, no you prove to me, the ad naseum pissing contest gets nowhere either.
Although regulations or not, people get sick and die from literally thousands of food products and approved FDA medicines every year, and most come from overly processed and sanitized methods, including the introduction of the endless supply of chemicals in the eco-system.
So simply do what we always do, slap warning labels on it and move on. If there was the slightest preponderence of evidence it would have been shut down a long time ago. So the obvious suspects such as the dairy industry is not such a stretch after-all, otherwise just shut it down.
It cannot legally be done. So if the fed is really interested in food safety of raw milk products they would provide enlightened and modern approaches to an old problem.
That said it is obvious the biggest threat is to weak individuals, children, sick and elderly. Have a person with a weak immnue system eat a quart of pasteurized ice-cream. They'll be sick as a dog and it's pure as the driven snow, right?
People have a right to decide what is best for them as long as the risks are clear. Slap a warning label on it, stop criminalizing individuals and move on.
I'm sick of listening to the un-informed preach to me about what they simply do not know themselves. Nor are willing to admit that the testing practices regarding so-called raw milk outbreaks are shadowy at best. Too much cloak and dagger. If it was reality, then open it up for all to examine.
As it is continually asked for peer reviewed "scientific" evidence, well then spend a few of our tax dollars and actually produce some that isn't backed by dairy industry scientists. Of course that is if you're really interested in truth.
The argument about raw milk is not about raw milk, it's about freedom of choice, freedom to even grow and consume our own food as we see fit, without persecution. Those that think this is about raw milk are seriously uninformed and delusional. It is simply about a huge conglomerate that is interested in their bottom-line. Nope not a conspiracy, simply facts.
Anyone who thinks ultra-pasteurized products are healthy deserves what they get, just don't expect me to consume a "fresh" product that no longer requires refrigeration. Oh yeah, didn't know that did you?! It's like the diet ice cream that was so popular in the 70's, sit it on the counter and well watch it stay hard by the time real ice cream melted into a puddle. Hmmm, which one should I eat, hmmm.
That's the problem today, those on the pasteurized side would actually need to figure out which ice cream is actually better for you.
By Amanda Rose on January 10th, 2010 at 7:18 am
Michelle,
I like your idea of having a "taster," but there have been cases of families who have all consumed a tainted food and not all have gotten sick. Having a taster would surely reduce the risk, but there would still be some risk.
tslate -- I don't follow the beginning of your argument but, in general, I am absolutely in favor of consumers having as much information as possible about their decision. There is a decent bit of scientific work on the safety of raw milk and as technology improves we may learn more. There is a definite lack of information about the benefits perhaps in part due to a researcher bias in wanting to highlight the risk. However perhaps a bigger barrier to research on benefits is the Human Subjects Review that a study has to pass at the design stage. Basically they want to know that participants agree to participate, know what's involved, and that there are no/minimal risks in participating. For my dissertation I had to pass human subjects and I can tell you mine design did not touch people in any way and it was still ridiculous. I can't imagine getting approval for an intervention like raw milk where there is a well known and long documented risk (albeit small) and an unknown benefit. I just don't think most people on a human subjects committee would have the vision for that sort of study. Short of that, we are left with studies like the survey in Europe that asked people about their behaviors and related them to various health outcomes.
tslate commented on the "cloak and dagger" nature of "outbreaks." I wonder if that's how most consumers feel. Back in the 2006 ecoli outbreak tied to raw milk here in California, it was frustrating at the time because we could get no real information from the state. However, six months later the state released a report with a good bit of detail. The problem was the report wasn't publicized so I didn't see it for another year. In the meantime, WAPF was making claims about the outbreak that simply were not true (like that no pathogens were found at the dairy -- O157:H7 was found but not a matching strain). I am sure there is a huge variation in how states handle these outbreaks.
Amanda
By Mary on January 10th, 2010 at 11:12 am
The idea of a “taster” for raw milk seems like a logical idea, however the incubation period for disease (the period from ingestion of the bacteria to the start of symptoms) is usually longer than a day or two. Salmonella is the only bacteria with a short incubation period.
Incubation cycle for foodborne pathogens:
Salmonella—typically 6-72 hours
Camplyobacter—typically 2-5 days
Ecoli 0157:H7—typically 3-9 days
Listeria—typically 1-8 weeks with the average being 31 days
By Mary on January 18th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Michelle,
Here's the video that was made about our son's illness.
http://www.marlerblog.com/2010/01/articles/legal-cases/2006-e-coli-o157h7-outbreak-linked-to-organic-pastures-raw-milk-one-victims-story/
Mary
By Taylor on February 28th, 2010 at 10:33 pm
Hi,
I just read this on the CDC's website:
Does pasteurization change milk’s nutritional benefits?
No. Many studies have shown that pasteurization does not significantly change the nutritional value of milk and dairy products. All of the nutritional benefits of drinking milk are available from pasteurized milk without the risk of disease that comes with drinking raw milk.
Completely disregarding the sickness question...isn't this statement untrue? Isn't it true that pasteurization kills a lot of beneficial things in milk, and then adds them back in...which in turn makes them less bio available? Is this just misinformation from WAP?
Thanks for any insight!
Taylor
By kc on March 1st, 2010 at 5:22 am
Actually, milking GMO corn-fed cows confined in concrete floored structures produces milk that is much lower in Vitamins A and D so all milk is fortified with vitamins A and D made in a lab. These vitamins are made using GMO corn and GMO corn is used as the "binder", too. Therefore, all milk that is not raw (even organic) contains GMO corn. As a corn allergic family that doesn't live in one of the states that allows raw milk sales, we do without milk, which is what everyone avoiding GMOs must do. By the way, this process applies to all fortified staples sold in America such as enriched wheat, rice and iodized salt. All vitamins are made using GMO corn and have been shown to reach (at their peak) a whopping 9% bioavailability.
All of this seems beside the point of pasteurized vs. raw milk but the issue is not that easy. As with every single food that this country has industrialized, factory milk is an inferior food. The GMO vitamins are only added to make up for the lack of green grass and sunshine factory dairy cows suffer. Most milk is even ultra-pasteurized these days and there is no way to twist that to sound as if it is for the good of the consumer. It is very good for the financial status of the factory dairies, though, allowing milk to have a MUCH longer shelf-life and even survive unrefrigerated. The one thing that all these delusional anti-raw milk people need to understand to bring all this into perspective: pasteurization, ultra-pasteurization, fortification....all these things are not done for the health and safety of the consumer. These practices were implemented so that dairies could have less than ideal conditions and still safely sell the milk. When the product of factory dairies is touted as superior to raw milk from healthy cows raised on sunshine and green grass, it only stresses the ignorance of the speaker. These practices are necessary only because the consumer can no longer visit the dairy and know the farmer, but they are in no way producing better milk.