Want Serious Discussion About Raw Milk Safety? Better Be Careful

Nadine_BCCDC.jpg

Nadine IjazThe U.S. Food and Drug Administration has had no hesitancy about spending taxpayer dollars to promote its viewpoint that raw milk is a mortal  danger. A couple years back, I called the FDA on its practice, after it spent nearly $2,500 with a press release service to put out  single warning on a slow-news weekend about possible illnesses at a private food club from raw milk, long after any possible threat had passed. 

The hidden agenda behind the press release was clearly propaganda. It had nothing to do with safety or science. 

The people in the academic community who feed off the FDA’s largesse with grants and such understand what is going on in such cases, which is why it is vaguely amusing to see one of them genuflecting about  “PR stunts” in connection with a press release issued about the work of researcher Nadine Ijaz, which actually encourages serious discussion about the risks associated with raw milk. 

Ijaz made a well-received evidence review on unpasteurized milk at the British Columbia (Canada) Centre for Disease Control (BC CDC). Her research debunks raw milk health and safety claims across all sides of the debate. It was picked up by the Wall Street Journal thanks to a media release from the Weston A. Price Foundation.  This kind of exposure represents a wonderful opportunity for sincere scientific debate based on actual evidence…or so Ijaz thought. 

But, of course, discussion is the last thing some food safety professionals in the academic and government orbit seem to want. Anyone who advocates such a rational approach tends to be shot down, such as in this case, with terms like ‘astrology’ and ‘conspiracy theories’ and ‘scientifically-sounding garble.’ This arrogant academic said he decided to `leave it to others to comment on the uh, unique interpretations of risk assessment`.  So much for scientific rigour.

Ijaz is an independent researcher with expertise and training in the transdisciplinary analysis of integrative health care issues. She has taught at professional schools in her field since 2001, including courses in scientific research methods. She was previously staff nutritionist at Canada’s premiere integrative medical cancer care centre. Ijaz has pursued a scholarly interest in questions around unpasteurized milk and industrial dairying over the last fifteen years, and her current work represents a synthesis of this research. Her work on unpasteurized milk is currently under consideration for peer-review publication.  

What follows is Ijaz’s rebuttal to the academic’s post, offering accurate detail on the contents of the BC CDC presentation. 


By Nadine Ijaz

In my BC CDC Grand Rounds presentation of May 16, 2013 entitled Unpasteurized milk: myths and evidence, I reviewed a substantial number of peer-reviewed studies to deconstruct myths propagated on various sides of the raw milk debate. In that presentation, I employed evidence-based perspectives towards a balanced critique of raw milk consumer claims as well as those presented by North American public health bodies.  My goal is to begin depoliticizing the raw milk debate and to bring a higher standard of scientific rigour to this long-controversial subject.  

My evidence review concluded that while little evidence substantiates several common raw milk consumer claims, neither is raw milk as uniquely hazardous today as it was in the 1930s.  While acknowledging the ongoing value of pasteurization as a public health intervention, I systematically deconstructed what appears to be a fundamental and unprecedented bias against unpasteurized milk in the scientific literature and by public health bodies. I also critically examined recent evidence around the proposed protective effects of raw farm milk on the development of atopic conditions in young children, as well as evidence pertaining to industrial milk processing`s possible health impacts.

I received the invitation from the BC Centre for Disease Control to present Grand Rounds, after Dr. Tom Kosatsky attended a previous lecture I gave on similar subjects.As I disclosed in my presentation to the BC CDC, my research is independent and unfunded; although I do personally advocate for regulatory reform on this issue in Canada.  My advocacy on this issue is informed both by scientific evidence, as by my civil liberties concerns regarding Canada’s absolute prohibition on raw milk access for non-farmers, unique across G-8 nations. 

In my BC CDC presentation, I certainly did not use evidence to promote raw milk consumption per se as implied in a recent BarfBlog post; I regard this as a matter of personal choice.  The only ‘cause’ I scientifically advocated in my presentation is evidence-informed public health policy, as should be clear to those who view the online Grand Rounds video from May 16th, 2013. The evidence I reviewed suggests that Canada’s absolute prohibition on raw milk sales and distribution is no longer supported by a substantive body of recent, high-quality, peer-reviewed science.  I did additionally cite a single non-peer-reviewed paper in the presentation – my own, very recent (2013) working paper analysing U.S. outbreak data for raw milk – for which I am currently awaiting consideration for peer-review publication.  

The Barfblog post further reports that while the BC CDC found my talk to be ‘fairly presented,’ its policy on unpasteurized milk remains constant.  Given how recently the agency has become aware of the evidence I presented, and how significantly this evidence challenges existing Canadian public health perspectives, one would not expect any rapid changes to policy.  

Evidence-based public health policy recommendations must be carefully considered, scientifically consistent, and rigorously evidenced – and certainly not skewed towards an ideological bias.  I sought to employ the highest standards of research and analysis in my recent evidence review.   I sincerely invite those working across relevant fields to examine my work and the conclusions I draw, for errors, omissions and inconsistencies; and to bring these to the light of day so we might honestly discuss them in an environment of scientific integrity.  I urge BarfBlog, and others – whether ‘for’ or ‘against’ raw milk being accessible for those who prefer it – to commit to a respectful, dignified tone for such future discussions.  

I assure you that we share a common vision of a safe, healthy, accessible, delicious and sustainable food supply. 

**

As long as we’re discussing the nature of criticism being leveled on food rights, I’ll take the opportunity to note a couple of reviews of my book.It’s always strange, as an author, to see your book reviewed–it’s your baby, after all. Even more difficult is to know whether or how to respond…but I’ll give it a shot…  These new reviews are in addition to those noted on the Amazon site from places like Kirkus and Publishers Weekly. 

In my judgment, food rights lawyer Amy Salberg captures well the book’s efforts at historical and political interpretation. She also raises the fundamental question, “Why is small food such a big threat?”

Another review, by food blogger and writer Jill Richardson, is critical about some of my choices about people to focus on (too many weirdos, in her judgment) and some of the things I say about them (like food safety lawyer Bill Marler). I disagree with her assessments on these and a few other things, but appreciate these are legitimate points of discussion. What bothers me is when reviewers are inaccurate–for example, the Publishers Weekly review quoted at the Amazon site says I didn’t provide the food-safety side of the debate, when in fact I quoted at length from at least half a dozen food safety professionals, via their writings and testimony in various cases–that tells me the reviewer didn’t read very carefully. 

One of my goals with the book has been to get discussion and debate going on an issue that many in positions of power would just as soon ignore, keep secret. So, stellar or less than stellar, I’m glad to see the reviews happening. (And here’s a tip: Chelsea Green has the book available right now at the lowest price I have seen anywhere.) 

 

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Leave a Reply

133 Comments on "Want Serious Discussion About Raw Milk Safety? Better Be Careful"

Notify of
avatar

Mary McGonigle-Martin
Mary McGonigle-Martin
June 20, 2013 9:43 pm
This is what she wrote, “Nothing could be worse than watching your seven-year-old lying in a hospital bed fighting for his life after being diagnosed with hemolytic uremic syndrome. Unfortunately, Mary McGonigle-Martin experienced it first hand as her son, Chris, fought for his life after being poisoned by E. coli 0157:H7 found in contaminated raw milk. Like many mothers, Mary was coerced into believing the inaccurate “facts” given to her by the farm she purchased raw milk from. Too often across the US, parents are given incorrect information about the safety of the milk they drink and unfortunately, it is often children that pay the price.” This is what I wrote in the story posted on FSN, “I was finally convinced after visiting the Organic Pastures website. I found pleasing claims describing their cows, how they were fed, how their milk was regularly tested and how they had never found a pathogen in all the years they had been in business. Their website also stated that if cows consumed grass they wouldn’t harbor pathogens. OPDC cows were advertised as being 100 percent pasture fed. They even posted all of their test results on their website and based upon this information… Read more »
Deborah - Pacifica
Deborah - Pacifica
June 20, 2013 3:08 am

You are absolutely correct, Sylvia. I can’t tell you how sick to my stomach I was when I read that. The word ‘coerced’ means that the person was forced against their will to do something. Now Mary comes on here and states that she used the word ‘lulled’. But, the damage has already been done, this report will be read by lots of people who will take it at face value. This report also gives the false impression that the raw milk was bought at the farm when it in fact was purchased at the local natural food store far away from the dairy. Again, giving inaccurate information out to the public at large. I am sure this report had been shared with Mary prior to it being released…how could she in good conscious allow the author to use such statements that are very much false. I am sorry, but she now has lost ALL credibility in my eyes. What a shame!

Sylvia Gibson
Sylvia Gibson
June 20, 2013 2:21 am

Deborah,

How can a person be “coerced” into believing anything? Does she have a learning disability? Guess that person just didn’t do their own due diligence and has a need to blame whomever is convenient. Perhaps it is her own self guilt eating at her? Manipulating the facts only makes their lies more prominent and they loose what little credibility they had.

nadineijaz
nadineijaz
June 19, 2013 10:58 pm
nadineijaz
nadineijaz
June 19, 2013 10:57 pm

Thank you for this clarification. It’s good to keep it accurate. – Nadine

Mary McGonigle-Martin
Mary McGonigle-Martin
June 19, 2013 8:28 pm

OPDC has a website. Since 2006, Mark changed information. Pro raw milk people who blog here encouraged him to do so. They felt some of the information was misleading. I commend Mark for making the change.

I agree. Coerced is a strong word. I used the word lulled into a false sense of safety.

Mary McGonigle-Martin
Mary McGonigle-Martin
June 19, 2013 8:24 pm

Come on Mark. You know this is BS about the video. Years ago (5) on this blog David corrected this information. He had a copy of the video tape with all the dates. Nothing was edited. The dates are all correct.

Why do you have to keep telling lies?

Deborah - Pacifica
Deborah - Pacifica
June 19, 2013 8:13 pm

Oh my gosh, you are not going to believe what I just read in this report…or perhaps you will believe it!!! Anyways, read this for yourself at this site: http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2013/06/18/student-guest-post-a-push-for-pasteurization/#comment-30826
What got my blood boiling was the claim that she ” was coerced into believing the inaccurate “facts” given to her by the farm she purchased raw milk from”. She never bought the raw milk from the farm, she bought it from her local natural foods store!!! Now this is more evidence of how they change, manipulate, exaggerate and even out right lie about the facts!!!

dwschaffner
dwschaffner
June 19, 2013 6:46 pm

Three small points.
1. FDA (sadly) does not fund much food safety research.
2. Most food safety researchers get federal grants from USDA, but not the part that regulates meat and poultry safety.
3. Anyone that knows Doug, knows that he genuflects to no one, be they industry, regulators or academics. Doug speaks his mind. That’s why people love him or hate him.

Russ
Russ
June 20, 2013 7:28 am
So much elitism in the movement, which is part of why we’re having such a hard time: “Vonderplanitz in particular generally thinks that he’s got a better understanding of the law than most lawyers, so he’s got no fear in, well… he doesn’t see it as breaking the law” Lawyers, of course, do nothing but endlessly and fiercely argue about what the law means, so it would seem no one understands it less than they do. In fact they understand well that “the law” is a might-makes-right farce, and all their disputing is meant to impress gullible laymen into disbelieving in their own reason and common sense. And of course for the lawyers’ own wealth and power interest. “Gumpert shies away from explaining why these contraband foods are safe, healthy, and should be legal. In this book, he sticks to focusing on whether or not we have a right to eat what we want, period. Nevermind how and why. I think the how and why are important and worth delving into to help people understand why it is that the government’s being unjust.” I agree that we need to explain how and why the government’s being unjust, but not in… Read more »
Russ
Russ
June 20, 2013 8:14 am
“Anyone that knows Doug, knows that he genuflects to no one, be they industry, regulators or academics. Doug speaks his mind. That’s why people love him or hate him.” Is that why he writes technocratic cant like this: “The scientific fringe craves the credibility – the impateur — of the scientific mainstream. It fuels conspiracy theories, drains public health resources, and unnecessarily worries a lot of folks; it’s a recycled tactic often used in the politics of genetically engineered food.” (I’ll assume that strange string of letters is supposed to be “imprimatur”.) If Powell’s even minimally informed*, he’s telling a premeditated lie about genetically engineered food, since he knows that such products were never safety tested before being commercialized, but were instead ideologically dogmatized to be “substantially equivalent” to real crops, and therefore didn’t need such testing. This genuflection before the corporate ideology is the level of Doug Powell’s version of “science”, which is typical of scientistic hacks like him. And one need only skim the pieces on Barfblog to see its typical kick-down agenda on “food safety”. One focuses, ah hoc tabloid-style, on individual examples, preferably among lone restaurants and such, precisely in order to misdirect attention from the… Read more »
mark mcafee
June 20, 2013 3:25 pm

The article says that ecoli was found in the raw milk!!

Correction…..Ecoli was ever found in any of our raw milk since forever….not one test has ever found an ecoli 0157H7 pathogen in any of our fluid raw milk products!! Secondly…ecoli 0157H7 was never found in Chris Martin either. Lastly…the product was bought from a store and not the farm. The farmer never spoke to the Martines prior to them purchasing the raw milk.

Totally missleading bunch of biased yellow journalism.

This article is nothing short of food bio-terrorism and internet libel. The safety of raw milk has been shown in EU QMRAs and retail approved raw milk standards. It is among the low risk or very low risk categories of foods. Why not talk about killer cantaloup??? 34 dead people should be something to talk about!!

Instead the FDA instigates FOOD INC yellow speech to gain points when they are loosing on all fronts against raw milk. What a crock of crap!!

Deborah - Pacifica
Deborah - Pacifica
June 20, 2013 8:33 pm
No Mary – I did not make “some huge assumptions”, there you go again exaggerating the issue. Clicking on your name in that article is immaterial and has nothing to do with what the author of that paper wrote…the author clearly wrote “Mary was coerced into believing the inaccurate “facts” given to her by the farm she purchased raw milk from”…this is the statement that I have a major problem with on so many levels! You claim that you never spoke with the author of the report, yet in one on your posts here you said that you used the word “lulled”…what does that mean? Do you mean that you did speak with the author and used the word “lulled” to the author or are you saying that the author got her information only from the article that is linked to your name? And, by the way, no where in that article linked to your name is there any such wording that remotely comes close to the author’s statement. So the question naturally comes to mind on where did this author get this information? If the author truly did not, at any time what-so-ever, talk to you, then there is… Read more »
Mary McGonigle-Martin
Mary McGonigle-Martin
June 20, 2013 6:33 pm

1. He drank raw milk for 2 1/2 weeks.
2. He drank about 1/2 to a cup a day. I bought quart each week and it he finished a bottle in a week.
3. September of this year, it will be 7 years since he has consumed raw milk.
4. The last time he had diarrhea was when he was in the hospital 7 years ago. Prior to becoming ill, he never had any bowel issues.
5. We were healthy before raw milk and healthy after raw milk.
6. We have always taken supplements, including probiotics.
7. I have juiced on and off my whole life. Chris will not eat vegetables. He has always been a very picky eater. We started juicing for him about 4 or 5 years ago.
8. We eat a very healthy diet of whole, unprocessed food. We consume no diary in our diets.
9. Health does not boil down to the single variable of consuming raw milk.

Mary McGonigle-Martin
Mary McGonigle-Martin
June 20, 2013 6:18 pm

Yes, it has been 7 years since Chris became ill. Since that time there have been 18 more children who have developed HUS after drinking contaminated raw milk. This is not about Chris, but you haven’t figured that out yet. It is about all the parents who are told raw milk is healthy and not a risk for children to drink. It is BS. I guess you really don’t care that your milk has caused 5 children kidney damage?

Here’s the thing Mark, all the people who have children with milk issues, they can just have their children stop drinking milk altogether and give them a reliable brand of probiotics. The majority of children in the world do not consume cow’s milk.

And I’m laughing about the payment part. Who do you think is paying me? It is ludicrous. I have never received any money from anyone to speak out against giving children raw milk.

Mary McGonigle-Martin
Mary McGonigle-Martin
June 20, 2013 6:07 pm

Deborah, you really made some huge assumptions. Go back to the article and read the 1st paragraph again. See where my name is highlighted blue, click on it. This is where the person that wrote the article got her information. I have never spoken to her and did not know about the article until I read it like you did. Everyone interprets information differently. She interpreted what I wrote as coerced. David is experiencing that right now with his book and what he wrote about Bill Marler. People read it and come away with different interpretations.

rawmilkmike
rawmilkmike
June 20, 2013 4:12 pm

Mary, how long was your son on raw milk before he got sick and how much did he drink per day. How long has he been off raw milk and how often does he get diarrhoea now. How healthy are you and your son without raw milk. Are you juicing and taking supplements instead?

rawmilkmike
rawmilkmike
June 20, 2013 3:59 pm

Does anyone know who said DATCP had given exemptions from regulation to other businesses in the past so why couldn’t they exempt Vernon Hershberger?

Pete
Pete
June 20, 2013 3:50 pm

Hey, thanks mike for the information and for your humbleness. Its appreciated.

It is rather interesting how the authorities view human raw milk as good and safe and necessary but raw cows milk as a dangerous evil straight from the pit of hell.

mark mcafee
June 20, 2013 3:40 pm

Yah….you should never give raw cows milk to children….tell that to the Hundus.

&w=634&h=421&ei=ECLDUdKQMqzWiAKAj4Bg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=271&vpy=131&dur=2391&hovh=183&hovw=276&tx=159&ty=136&page=1&tbnh=141&tbnw=206&start=0&ndsp=17&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0,i:87

mark mcafee
June 20, 2013 3:35 pm

When Mary Martin shows up in the Nevada legislature to assist the FDA in killing Nevada raw milk legislation so Nevada moms can feed their families and not drive 400 miles to get raw milk over state lines….you know what is going on here. It is sick and it is pathetic. Most of all it shows a lack of ability to let it go. Just like all paychecks….you do not ever let go if you continue to get paid for it!!

It has been seven years Mary…let it go. Tens of thousands of people have discovered that clean safe raw milk is on a shelf down the street in a CA store and it makes their asthma and excema get better and their Crohns resolve. Raw Milk improves and saves lives!!! There are no other pharma treatments that do this!! All others have huge side effects including death and lots of death.

Raw milk CDC score still zero deaths since 1972.
Pasteurized milk CDC deaths at least 70 since 1972.
Pasteurized milk is the MOST ALLERGENIC food in America with at least 8 dead kids since 1998.

rawmilkmike
rawmilkmike
June 20, 2013 3:26 pm
Pete, it looks like a lot of websites quote the AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS(AAP) as saying you should never give cows milk to infants but each website seems to give it’s own explanation for why you should never give cows milk to infants. I appreciate you calling me on this hyperbole. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. When I look at the AAP anti-raw milk stuff I find that it is nothing like their other information. It is often contradictory and gives no names or references of any kind, you know like: “A 2001 meta-analysis of 12 prospective studies that met pre-established criteria found that…”. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. I did find some other good stuff though. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. http://www.aap.org/en-us/professional-resources/Research/Pages/Research.aspx#ResearchFindings http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/collection/committee_on_nutrition ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/115/2/496.full AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk Vol. 115 No. 2 February 1, 2005 Extensive research using improved epidemiologic methods and modern laboratory techniques documents diverse and compelling advantages for infants, mothers, families, and society from breastfeeding and use of human milk for infant feeding. These advantages include health, nutritional, immunologic, developmental, psychologic, social, economic, and environmental benefits. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Child Health Benefits Human milk is species-specific, and all substitute feeding preparations differ markedly from it, making human milk uniquely superior for infant… Read more »
rawmilkmike
rawmilkmike
June 19, 2013 5:29 pm

Dave, what advice can I give my 7, 16, 18, & 20 year old on what to do when they grow up?

rawmilkmike
rawmilkmike
June 19, 2013 5:17 pm

Really great book review by Amy M. Salberg, The Real Food Lawyer. I think it says a lot about Amy.

rawmilkmike
rawmilkmike
June 18, 2013 10:33 pm

I agree Mark.

mark mcafee
June 18, 2013 9:47 pm
Raw Milk Mike, I had a very long and productive talk with Nadine when I was in Canada. She is very much a raw milk advocate, but she is also very politically astute. She knows that no one in the scientific arena will listen to a person that makes unfounded medical claims and over the top pronouncements about the glory of raw milk. Thats my job and I do it all the time. Cause its true. The research, the QMRA’s, the 80,000 consumers of raw milk in CA all support the glory of raw milk as one of the best immune system foods on earth!! Nadine would get no where if she followed this path. Instead Nadine has taken a slower and more methodical road to progress and we need her doing this. We haev Sally Fallon and WAP fighting their educational battles and teaching moms and saving kids, their is OPDC and other dairymen building commercial markets and creating a change thorn in the FDA’s side, there are cow shares feeding local communities, David is writing books, Kristen Kanty is making movies, we have FTCLDF sueing the bastards and protecting farmers. This battle rages on all fronts and every… Read more »
rawmilkmike
rawmilkmike
June 18, 2013 9:39 pm
rawmilkmike
rawmilkmike
June 18, 2013 9:17 pm

Well, I kind of assumed everyone knew this. Let’s see, this is a good link. http://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/faq/index.htm

Pete
Pete
June 18, 2013 6:06 pm

rawmilkmike,

“The American Academy of Pediatrics and WHO recommend…”

Do you have a citation for this?

rawmilkmike
rawmilkmike
June 18, 2013 3:05 pm
“My evidence review concluded that while little evidence substantiates several common raw milk consumer claims, neither is raw milk as uniquely hazardous today as it was in the 1930s.  While acknowledging the ongoing value of pasteurization as a public health intervention” I hope this is just her disclaimer. Common raw milk consumer claims are not substantiated by medical journals, daa. What is the ongoing value of pasteurization? By the 1930’s raw milk was certified. It was the pasteurized swill milk that was causing rickets and wide spread infant mortality. Doctors already knew this in 1909. Check the New York Times. From 1900 to 1950 mothers had no viable alternative to breast-milk. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. The American Academy of Pediatrics and WHO recommend that infants be fed raw breast milk over formula. Pasteurized milk is not recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics for children under 1 year old because it does not contain enough nutrients, vitamins and minerals to adequately and properly sustain an infant’s growth. Raw breast milk isn’t legal if I’m reading the Wisconsin statute correctly? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Governor Walker will veto the raw milk bill because it does not have “safeguards to protect public health and the integrity of the… Read more »
rawmilkmike
rawmilkmike
June 18, 2013 3:00 pm

Russ, I agree. Most people don’t seem to realise we are fighting a 5 billion dollar cheese industry and a 85 billion dollar medical industry. That’s twice the size of the military. Now I hear the medical industry may be up to 140 billion.

rawmilkmike
rawmilkmike
June 18, 2013 2:45 pm

Dave, I was thinking the same thing.

mark mcafee
June 17, 2013 11:45 pm

Russ,

Great advice…in fact it is exactly what we believe at OPDC. Feed the people and build the markets. The truth will flow from that process and evolution. The FDA will follow years later. I fact, history tells us that this is the model that the FDA has followed many times. Jack in the Box ecoli hamburger ecoli pathogen tolerance standards came from industry not the FDA. The FDA embraced industry standards years later.

So…feed and build those markets, teach those consumers. Be safe and do not let our weaknesses hurt us…instead make our weakness our strength. RAWMI LISTED farmers have done an excellent job of track record creation. A track record that scientists like Canadas Nadine can use to prove that our raw milk is just like the EU QMRA’s claim…in the low risk or very low risk category.

Ora Moose
Ora Moose
June 18, 2013 10:49 pm

Mark, I’d like to point out that the true cornerstone of this entire food freedom discussion is, generating enough educated public support to take down the corporatist governmental regulatory scheme and it’s various disguises and propaganda in the justice system. It worked for Vernon, and now can be the reinforcement for others to organize, stand up for truth and honesty in food production. Long live freedom of choice and good ethics.

As you say and I like to repeat, teach teach teach, and also learn learn learn. Thanks for your contributions and long may you prosper. Unfortunately I don’t have any goats or cows anymore but my chickens say hi and happy composting. Organic heritage veggies are right up there with raw milk for good health. Share.

Pete
Pete
June 19, 2013 1:00 am

“Stand up for truth and honesty in food production”

This is exactly the crux of the matter. We get the government we deserve and it will be much much harder to break free of the chains of oppression if raw milk producers do not stand for truth.

Unfortunately there are far too many craven marketers in the local food movement who don’t truly believe in what they’re selling, market around their deficiencies, or generally lie to their consumers about what their selling and how its produced.

Pete
Pete
June 19, 2013 1:02 am

cite: “Pasteurized milk is not recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics for children under 1 year old because it does not contain enough nutrients, vitamins and minerals to adequately and properly sustain an infant’s growth.”

I looked at their website and all the links you offered and could not find this. To the contrary of what you’re promoting, the Academy is against the consumption of raw milk.

rawmilkmike
rawmilkmike
June 19, 2013 4:56 pm

Mark, great stuff on Bill Marler. David, great reviews of your new book on Amazon.

mark mcafee
June 19, 2013 4:41 pm
Bill Marler was given a bit of a free ticket in Davids book. I have experienced Bill in all of his glory and it is not good or ethical. When he had his own staff create a video showing a kid in the ICU on a respirator, and created an artificial time sequence which missled the viewer and showed date stamps that were off and told a lie….that was not being lawyerly or ethical. How do I know this? I threatend a law suit and Bill hired a lawyer to protect himself and he took down the video!! It is my belief that Bill sees himself as above the law and above ethics. He creates evidence and champions the promotion and influence of public opinion. he sees himselve as wearing a Suit of Armor and riding a Great White Horse protected by high flying FDA Drone Aircraft. He can do no wrong becuase he is so good and so right…After all he has been paid the better part of a billion dollars as this Great White Horse Rider and protector of innocent immunity depressed children. What he fails to see and appreciate is that all this FDA protected legal activity… Read more »
rawmilkmike
rawmilkmike
June 19, 2013 9:50 am
Dave, I was reading Jill Richardson’s review of your new book. It seems the reviewer came away without realizing the bigger issue, that being; is raw milk really illegal and would the state have the authority to make it so. What is the stated purpose of government regulation and is banning a food really regulation? It seems to me that cow shares are really the states idea and are designed to confuse the issue and make us sound like the idiots trying to get around the law when it is really them trying to get around the law. They have us on the defensive when it should really be them. And who is it that we are fighting. Who is the anti-raw milk lobby? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… She says “First of all, why the hell is the government so intensely focused on a small minority of citizens who want to drink raw milk from farmers they know personally and often from farms they’ve visited themselves? Second, why do citizens need to go through such stupid legal gymnastics just to attempt to obtain healthful food? As we all know, there are real, big, widespread problems in our food supply. There are any number… Read more »
Pete
Pete
June 19, 2013 5:27 am

I don’t disagree. What I’m trying to find out is where the Academy says what you say they say about raw breast milk vs. pastuerized cow milk.

rawmilkmike
rawmilkmike
June 19, 2013 3:28 am

That’s why I bring up breast milk. When ever someone tries to say why cows milk should never be feed to infants they can only speculate because you and I know it’s really only because it’s pasteurized. And did you see some of what they say about breast milk? http://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/faq/index.htm and http://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/recommendations/other_mothers_milk.htm
What can happen if someone else’s breast milk is given to another child?
The risk of infection from a single bottle of breast milk, even if the mother is HIV positive, is extremely small. For women who do not have HIV or other serious infectious diseases, there is little risk to the child who receives her breast milk.

Chemicals present in breast milk act, together with time and cold temperatures, to destroy the HIV present in expressed breast milk
Transmission of HIV from single breast milk exposure has never been documented

ingvar
ingvar
June 19, 2013 3:09 am

I heard, I believe it was Sally Fallon Morell at the Skirball Center in Los Angeles a few years ago, say that the trans fats came in tri-, di-, and mono- forms (3’s, 2’s, and 1’s) and that the labeling law was configured on the definition of transfats to mean the tri- form only. Apparently it is a “piece of cake” to split one tri- into one di- plus one mono-. When that splitting is accomplished and the tri- forms are all converted the labeling can say “no transfats.” Did I get that right?

Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard

rawmilkmike
rawmilkmike
June 19, 2013 2:19 am

What I’m trying to do is use their own words against them. Yes, the Academy is against the consumption of raw milk but that is they say because it is more likely than pasteurised to contain bacteria that may cause minor diarrhoea in some people some of the time. They never say that raw milk isn’t healthier than pasteurised.

rawmilkmike
rawmilkmike
June 19, 2013 1:58 am

Maybe we could get a few more farmers on our side. They’ve got to know they’ve been cut out of the equation. DATCP doesn’t even consider them part of the 26 billion dollar Wisconsin dairy industry. Most of them have less than 100 cows. Which means anyone of them could go direct farm sales almost overnight. Even farmers that do not sell raw milk benefit from it’s sale because raw milk sales raise the price of milk. That’s why the cheese companies hate it. I think we have all found that there are a lot of silent raw milk supporter and a lot of people who don’t like an oppressive government. Has anyone notice that a lot of people turn us off because they are lactose intolerant and think raw milk is the same as pasteurised. You do know that’s 60% of American adults?

rawmilkmike
rawmilkmike
June 19, 2013 1:26 am

I think eventually we will have to convince the foot soldiers of the medical industry just how important food is to their families and that food freedom is in their own best interest because these people are not their friends and there is no honor amongst thieves. I don’t think there’s any way we can take on an organization that is three times the size of this nations military head on.

rawmilkmike
rawmilkmike
June 19, 2013 1:05 am
Dr. Oz just criticized the FDA on his show today. “The Zero Trans Fats Myth” By Eric Brandt, BS, 4th Year Medical Student at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Medical Researcher, The Dr. Oz Show… As I read more about the topic of trans fats on nutrition labels, I was astonished by what I found. I learned that there could be enough trans fats hiding in our food to exceed the suggested daily limit, which is 1 to 2 grams per day, increasing the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and even some cancers.  Specifically, I found out that if there is less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving, the food company could label it as having 0 grams of trans fat per serving. This means that there could be up to 0.49 grams in one serving of food and it can say 0 grams on the label. Knowing this, one can easily see how a few servings could cause you to exceed the daily suggested limit of industrial trans fat.  Decoding Nutrition Labels; So, where are these trans fats? They are hiding in the fine print of the ingredients label as “partially hydrogenated” and “hydrogenated” oils.… Read more »
Russ
Russ
June 17, 2013 9:56 pm

“My goal is to begin depoliticizing the raw milk debate…”

Why would anyone want to try to do something so impossible and undesirable? Raw milk, and food freedom in general, will stand or fall as a political movement, and in no other way.

But clearly there’s no lack of elitist technocrat types, even among those skeptical of some aspects of the system, who want to keep things in the hands of “experts” where they belong.

As we see with the response to this, and as everyone who tries to do real scientific work on GMOs finds out, or any kind of anti-system dissident, there’s no point trying to talk to the corporate media or the academic establishment. These will always have the same response – ignoring you, ridiculing you, slandering you, or representing you as a colorful weirdo. They’ll do this no matter what the substance of the message.

That’s why as a rule the only thing worth doing is talking directly to the people.

wpDiscuz