Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy Co.
Is raw milk a scalable business? In other words, can a single dairy keep increasing production to meet growing demand, without limits?
As a number of people have argued here, it could well be that the E.coli O157:H7 problem that, yet again, reared its ugly head at OPDC, is the result of exceeding the natural limits of raw milk production.
The more I think about OPDC’s current problems, the less comfortable I am. Its current legal problems, which Mark McAfee alluded to in a recent comment following my previous post, are apart from the matter of scalability. If you have people getting sick from pathogens in your milk, you run a significant risk of encountering legal problems, whether you have a scalability problem or some other problem.
On the matter of scalability, I’d like to think that simply adhering to a strict set of safety guidelines, such as developed by the Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI), can ensure unlimited production. Unfortunately, OPDC has, over the years, experienced enough pathogen findings, recalls, and now, more illnesses, to create uncertainty.
This isn’t the first time a large California raw milk producer has run up against scalability problems. Alta Deena, an operation of several thousand cows and the major raw milk supplier for California and the country in the 1970s and 1980s, encountered any number of state-ordered shutdowns because of illnesses traced to the dairy.
It’s admirable that Mark McAfee of OPDC is assuming responsibility for the latest illnesses, and not engaging in denial. But the hypothesis that the E.coli pathogens in the current outbreak found their way into OPDC milk via a new route, directly from within one or more shedding cows, is difficult to accept.
Credible literature on dairy cow pathogens suggests that, while the E.coli O157:H7 may have come from a particular cow’s udder, the source was likely an udder infection caused by the surrounding environment. This overview of “environmental mastitis” says that “sources of environmental pathogens include manure, bedding, feedstuffs, dust, dirt, mud and water. Bedding materials are a significant source of teat end exposure to environmental pathogens. The number of bacteria in bedding fluctuates depending on contamination (and therefore availability of nutrients), available moisture and temperature.”
McAfee in my previous post allowed that the very wet December in California may have played a role in creating conditions for E.coli O157:H7.
Why does it matter? For one thing, suggesting that the E.coli O157:H7 got into OPDC milk spontaneously from the cow, and for the first time known to science created an outbreak, creates a new source of anxiety for producers and consumers about raw milk—that there is a potentially unpredictable means of spreading serious illness. Such a theory also deflects concerns about the likelihood that OPDC has simply exceeded the limitations of scale for raw milk production.
The ongoing problems at OPDC also give ammunition to the raw milk abolitionists. Just read a few of the comments following a recent Food Safety News article about the OPDC illnesses, and you’ll appreciate the growing focus on Mark McAfee, and the personalization of the argument that is increasingly taking place.
I don’t want this to come across as an anti-OPDC/Mark McAfee piece. Mark has done immeasurable good for the raw milk movement via OPDC and RAWMI. But he is dealing with an inherent conflict of interest, on several levels. By virtue of trying to extend the scalability of his dairy, he is putting at increased risk the credibility of the entire raw milk industry.
Separately we saw late last year the inherent conflict of interest at work when the California Department of Food and Agriculture issued new regulations requiring all raw milk producers to have dairy milk permits.
This action amounted to the possible launch of an enforcement campaign against hundreds of California herdshares that have sprung up over the last half dozen years or so, and which have operated in a regulatory gray area. McAfee commented here that the herdshares had brought this new and questionable state regulation down on themselves by failing to come to agreement with the CDFA during several years of discussions about possible regulation of herdshares. Because it’s in McAfee’s business interests to limit competition from herdshares, his comments were automatically going to be suspect, almost no matter what he said.
Take the whole line of thinking further, and it’s clear there’s an inherent conflict of interest in having the owner of the largest raw dairy in the country running a nascent raw milk safety standards organization. As long as there are no illnesses from a RAWMI member, everything is fine. But once there are illnesses, and they are caused by the dairy owned by RAWMI’s leader, the conflict of interest becomes painfully obvious.
Reducing and eliminating these conflicts of interest is doable, if difficult. There are other ways for OPDC to continue growing aside from adding more and more cows. It could be that RAWMI needs to be led by someone without ownership of a raw dairy.
I think RAWMI would be best advised to work to further the interests of small raw milk dairies that want to learn how to produce a safe and nutritious product, rather than expending so much effort on furthering the interests of a few large dairies. Let’s focus on a model that works to produce safe milk, an improved environment, and community economic benefits, to name just a few.
The whole matter, analyzed using the science of statistical process control will (likely) answer some of these questions that you are posing, Mr. Gumpert.
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
Statistics should start with looking at illness and outbreak rates for each dairy based on production volumes for that dairy. We’d still find that OPDC produces FAR fewer outbreaks per specific volume of product (let’s choose a measure) than producers who lack specific training in producing milk for direct consumption. For all the farms, how about we look at illness rates per average monthly or annual output? How about we start tracking this for raw milk farms?
This is why cowshares will have to be around for a long time. While we are sorting through issues on a larger scale, cowshares allows for demand to be met directly, locally, even if with less choice in product.
IF the issue is that large scale viability has a ceiling, then having small, medium and large operations given equal importance and attention, is part of the permanent solution.
Another point: diversity of product and service will provide larger scaled farms less risk of the contamination issues. If they are doing more than providing raw milk, but actually USING the raw milk to make different products on site, or delivering raw milk to a local product producer, then there is increased monitoring without extra cost of monitoring, and less time and opportunity for contamination.
I think it comes down to producing locally for local demand, and resulting products that store well can be marketed everywhere, not only locally.
Here is another tack on the same topic, then.
The greatest essay I’ve every read is also the shortest I think.
Consider what is touched on and see if it is not relevant to our needs and our concerns.
The very great G. K. Chesterton’s “Cheese”:
http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/cheese.html
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
We could debate the conflict of interest question, but at the end of the day, regardless of a conflict of interest or not, there would be no RAWMI if not for Mark McAfee and the resources and knowledge that come with running a large-scale raw milk dairy.
In my view, those who have benefitted most for the education and support of RAWMI are actually small raw milk farms. The wide majority of the RAWMI listed are not just small, but MICRO operations. And there are countless others who although not listed have gleaned from the consciousness shift towards risk reduction and good practices that RAWMI has promoted.
Whether are not Mark is the right person to run RAWMI is somewhat of an irrelevant question. He’s the ONLY person who has been willing and able to fill that role, and for that he has my very deep gratitude. There is not exactly a line of qualified people begging to lead RAWMI. It is a thankless job, highly consuming of time and resources, that pays zero, and generates universal criticism from raw milk supporters and opponents alike.
Excellent points, Shawna. As I said in the post, I didn’t intend to be critical of Mark’s motives or sincerity or accomplishments. My concern is that the built-in conflicts of interest inevitably crop up to pose serious problems, as with the current situation with illnesses caused by OPDC. These problems have the effect of diverting interest from the issues around raw milk safety and availability, and onto Mark as a lightning rod.
I think there might be very qualified people available to run RAWMI, if Mark decided that was the right thing to do. No one wants to challenge him in his determination to be the man in charge. I say this without knowing about specific individuals, but rather just appreciating the dynamic at work in such situations.
Shawna Barr,
That is a perfect use of the word ‘gleaned.’
Provision for the lesser in society’s rough-and-tumble is wrapped up in that word.
The get-big-or-get-out world, the legal microbes (as it were) (going about their pedestrian tasks) world, the unaccountable administrative law stranglers-of-freedom-and-liberty world, instead of provisioning, crush the lesser.
Understand how this is true by reviewing Professor Vallicella’s entry here:
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/03/trotskys-faith.html
“There is also the moral and practical absurdity of a social programme that employs present evil, oppression, and violence in order to extirpate future evil, oppression, and violence.”
Have a wonderful Sunday, all you producers of food!
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
I second this to the max
OP is owned and controlled by two hedge fund managers, Marc’s brothers. Haven’t we had enough of Wall St.’s follies?
The number of people willing to do a difficult, thankless job that pays zero will always be limited.
If the services RAWMI provides are worth having, its worth paying for.
As to the universal criticism, no one is criticizing Mark because he is out there educating raw milk producers. That comes from his self-aggrandizing, absolutist, politicking online. If both your enemies and your allies criticize you, that should tell you something.
Shawna. I agree with of your points but one. And while you did not say it, there is an underlying preclusion in an organizational model of a unitary CEO type of leadership. Which one then is left to conclude that someone, such as Mark, is best to run it.
Or, that such a model need not mitigate “conflict of interest issues” so long as the “only person for the job” is working just fine.
An organization of “risk mitigation” should practice risk mitigation, even if that means a few extra steps.
It is entirely warranted that such an organization as RAWMI adopt common ethical practices. RAWMI exists in the public domain the moment any part of its activities operate within the public, such as providing third party instruction for raw milk production destined for public use. And being of a public and there for “common interest”, it is warranted that “conflicts of interests” be addressed. Independent of whether the options are limited and what have you.
It may be that the “everything raw milk” institution model or practice is intrinsicly flawed toward “conflicts of interest”, and that some kind of refinement may be helpful toward clarifying function and distinction, and what processes are best adopted to achieve them.
Such questions, do not interfere with any relevance of RAWMI, take anything away from its existence, or deny an appreciation of the work it takes for something to come together.
Not all collective efforts come to such a stage where it become warranted for its refinement in such ways. it’s an achievement .
The question is this. Will there be certified organic raw milk products in stores or not? Consumers in down town LA and any big CA city simply can not drive to northern CA to find a cow share every few days.
Stores require insurance policies in order to provide food on their shelves to the public. Insurance is nearly impossible to get if you are small and impossible to get if you are not certified by the state.
I would not jump to too many conclusions about OPDC. We do not have legal problems at all.
We are discovering new and better sampling techniques that will allow detection of target pathogens prior to them reaching the market place. Criticism is easy… Action to do something positive is not as easy.
As far as RAWMI is concerned, I would love someone to step forward and offer themselves to manage RAWMI. I disagree that there is anyone interested.
It pays zero, has no budget, is all volunteer, takes extra time, and is a target from all angles. RAWMI is powered by a humanitarian vision for health….that’s it.
The RAWMI community embraces all sizes of producers, we learn from each other constantly.
Mark, I guess the proof of the RAWMI conflict-of-interest concern I expressed would be if you handled the latest OPDC illness outbreak according to RAWMI procedures. What do RAWMI’s standards provide in the event of an illness outbreak? I would presume there would be some kind of outside investigation (perhaps including other RAWMI members) to determine what might have gone wrong with, say, compliance with RAMP provisions. It would need to be an outside investigation to guard against the temptation to paper over violations of RAWMI processes. I would also presume there is some process to enable other RAWMI members to learn from what went wrong at OPDC.
And what if that investigation concludes that OPDC is just too big. Or it isn’t properly managing all the moving parts of the controls in place because of scalability problems?
My point is that there is an unavoidable conflict of interest for you, as the owner of OPDC and the head of RAWMI, to be overseeing the due diligence essential to determining exactly what went wrong at OPDC. It was admirable of you to take ownership of the illnesses. But really, RAWMI needs to do more than that, and you’d have to be something of a saint to allow an impartial investigation into what went wrong, and then to openly share the results, especially since those results could be negative for OPDC.
As a founding board of director, veterinary epidemiologist and former food safety inspector I would like to comment on David Gumpert’s post.
I would like to point to the fact that RAWMI is primarily serving micro dairies and that we have developed to the whole rawmi safety protocols on farm-based risk assessment and management. There are no conflict on interest between RAWMI and OPDC. Honestly, OPDC does not need RAWMI to sell raw milk or produce safe raw milk. I am leading much of the scientific work behind our advice and controls, and I would stop any board member from introducing bias towards one dairy or another. This is harder said than done, since many dairies have very firm believes regarding their systems, and sometimes show reluctance to embrace some production and hygiene measures that we deem necessary for safe production of raw milk. We have brought in a new director, Dr. Ton Baars, from the Netherlands, who has huge experience of raw milk production from Europe, and there is not a single decision taken by RAWMI that does not go through our weekly board meetings.
There are always going to be risks that there will be potential pathogens in raw milk, and even with the best protocols and hygiene routines bacteria can come into the milk. This is a risk that every raw milk producer and consumer must take…. otherwise they can drink pasteurized milk. The risk is not proportional to the size of the dairy, and sometimes not even in direct correlation with the operation standards. Risks are stochastic in nature and may sometimes cluster in space and time. I would assume that there is going to be more risk events in larger dairies due to the quantity of milk produced. These larger dairies have, based on Ed Shank, the Family Cow, taken extra measures such as ‘test and hold’. This is because of the quantity of milk they are producing and the range that milk is transported requires extra measures. These dairies are operating to very high standards. But even they can not prevent a bird to fly over their dairy, heavy rain falls, extreme draughts, or other risk factors that might introduce potential pathogens. In order to determine if these large dairies have reached some upper limit where the safety of the milk can no longer be guaranteed, you have to do a risk analysis of the quantity of milk produced and the number of potentially contaminated servings of milk. This indeed can be done. What level of security do you want from a raw product David? 99% security, 99.5% security 99.999% security? Maybe you should just consider drinking ultra-pasteurized milk then, but beware for post-pasteurization contamination.
I would be very happy to look into such an analysis, but can not do it at this point due to lack of funding. RAWMI is serving the small dairies, even though they are unable to provide much financial support for RAWMI. We spend countless hours working for free. I do not even dare count up how much time I spend on raw milk (because then my husband would be upset about how much time I am donating).
Kind regards,
Cat. Director of RAWMI
Cat and others,
You perceive certain microbes as pathogens in raw milk/food as “risks” that are harmful to our health; albeit as you are well aware only a small percentage of those who are expose. I see them, as “opportunities” for our immune system to grow and therefore experience good health as it is meant to be. Indeed, there will always be risks and those risks will continue to grow if we fail to address the crux of the problem… namely, those toxic methods and procedures that are used to “unnaturally” disrupt the microbes terrain and designated task both within and outside of it’s host.
If we truly want to mitigate risk and promote good health in our lives, I highly recommend the following film/documentary entitled, “That Vitamin Movie”, available for free viewing until February 26, 2016.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/02/20/vitamins-healing-potential.aspx?e_cid=20160220Z1_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20160220Z1&et_cid=DM98145&et_rid=1366343113
You have not read my comment correctly, and indeed I am well aware of that only a small percentage is pathogenic to humans and that only a few humans will actually get sick from those potential pathogens. Truelly I say that some pathogens in raw milk will make some people sick… but that is the risk that we take because we know that other bacteria in the raw milk enhance our immune system.
Catharina,
Does OPDC still sponsor your cycling?
Amanda
Cat, I am realizing now, I should have included you in the response I posted to Mark and Michael. I am not looking for a particular percentage of security. I am looking for RAWMI and OPDC to explain what went wrong in its processes, or RAWMI-suggested processes, that led to four or six people getting sick last month from OPDC milk….the idea being to use the lessons to guide dairies ongoing. I don’t think we have had a deep enough investigation thus far.
“There are no conflict on interest between RAWMI and OPDC. Honestly, OPDC does not need RAWMI to sell raw milk or produce safe raw milk.”
You are wrong, Cat. Maybe this isn’t the standard in Europe, but most North Americans would see that there is blatant conflict of interest here. “RAWMI listing” gives OPDC credibility in the marketplace. In the public eye, this “listing” brands OPDC milk as being safer than milk from “non-listed” farms. With Mark also on the RAWMI board and as he has a vested financial interest in seeing OPDC increase its sales, how isn’t this blatant?? How can the RAWMI board make any type of unbiased decision about OPDC?
Mark’s involvement in helping create RAWMI and guide it through its formative years is acknowledged by all to have been important. BUT, RAWMI is now established and into the next stage. RAWMI has been created. It’s now – what – 5 years old? Now it needs to become an independent body following generally-accepted standards that enable it to steer clear of these ethical gray-zones. There should be NO listed producers on the RAWMI board, nor their family, or anyone with a financial interest in a raw milk production company. Period.
Put out a call for volunteers, and you will get them.
Having raw milk regulations run by someone that does not have a raw milk dairy is like saying let a person with no children writing a parenting book.
Marcie, are you calling me incompetent?
Cat, I believe Marcie was encouraging Mark McAfee as head of RAWMI, and suggesting that it should be headed by the owner of a raw dairy, since such individuals understand best the daily challenges of producing safe milk. The regulations she refers to are America’s state regulations, which vary widely among the 50 states.
What raw milk regulations are you referrring to? There are very few raw milk regulations in North America. Are you referring to government regulations?
RAWMI has no regulations. RAWMI has board of directors that own dairies, as well as those that have dedicated their lives to working with various dairies and various challenges that the dairies encounter. Your comment is unspecific and uninformative.
I think this is an over simplification. That its run primarily by only one such person is the issue. On various accounts.
Thank all of you involved in RAWMI for your efforts. May your work be fruitful.
Production + transportation carries the matter up to the customer’s possession of the raw milk product.
I promote no reduction in the pedal-to-the-medal efforts of RAWMI when I ask about two other areas that are worthy of study: customers, and protocols. (By “study” I mean (for lack of a better description) pro-raw milk studies. In contrast to Ostrich-based studies.)
Are there customers that never have a problem?
Are there customers likely to have a problem?
Are there customers most likely to have a problem?
(Don’t forget about the new-born twin boys that grew up on a ‘formula’ of well-water, honey, and raw cow milk (dilution was involved as I recall the telling). The twins, it was reported, absolutely thrived on that formula.)
Can we study the deal-with-the-problem protocols (protocols) when there is a problem?
Those protocols that do not involve M.D.s?
Those protocols that do involve the M.D.’s?
All the best to all,
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
p.s. ramble:
1. If you want to acquaint yourself with a tragedy that led (unnecessarily) to mental retardation in infants, a tragedy 100% caused by multiple fails in the M.D./Insurance/Hospital world, look at the chapter on new-born infants’ routine jaundice in the book “Making a Difference: Stories of Vision and Courage from America’s Leaders” by Sullenberger (the airline pilot who safely landed US Airlines Flight 1549 in the Hudson River in January 2009). (my only source on this topic)
2. For 2 ½ minutes of laughter you might look at Mitchell and Webb’s Homeopathic ER skit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0
3. I think RAWMI is fantastic.
4. I think that the very concept of Insurance is noble.
Let me jump into this discussion in regards to the possible conflict of interest dilemma.
Almost at the same time Mark spearheaded RAWMI and I initiated Cow Share Canada with a group of farmers interested in standards and safety protocols. In Canada as in the US a bombardement of criticism was coming down on both of us almost simultaniously accusing us of many things, amongst them the conflict issue and the control issue. Both would have been and still are valid concerns if one does not look at the structure of the arganisation at hand.
There are no doubt growing pains like in any other organization. There are competence issues and there are incompetence issues. How do we expect such a new venture as RAWMI or COW SHARE CANADA to function flawlessly when everyone is struggling daily with their own incompetence.
Mark is spearheading RAWMI because he had the vision to get some common sense standards into the greatly divided raw milk movement of liberterians, cow share farmers, safety concerned consumers and litigation sharks who are ready to attack at any opportunity. It is a war out there.
Spearheading RAWMI or COW SHARE CANADA has been mostly a sacrifice by a few despite relentless accusations of those who keep attacking.
I can speak for both organisations because Mark and I discussed in details the need of a review board independent from the chair person. I think RAWMI has excellent or rather outstanding experts reviewing protocols and independently advise of possible flaws in the individual farm safety protocol or RAMP program.
In Canada we have an independent accredited dairy inspector visiting the farms annually on behalf of RAWMI and providing RAWMI with the necessary reports to demonstrate commitment to raw milk safety based on individual safety programs with the same end results as shown in the monthly test results.
I do agree that the optics can be problematic when there are reports of illnesses. Quickly the table turns against those who tried hard to become the face of safe raw milk.
I think Catharina Berge pointed it out very clearly how the RAWMI board tries to uphold procedures of “independent evaluation” by raw milk experts to mitigate risks common to any food including pasteurized milk.
DONT SHOOT THE MESSANGER.
Mark is out there promoting a balanced approach to raw milk safety avoiding the two streams of raw milk extremes: Let freedom reign without accountability
Let’s sue the bastards who challenge the validity of kill the germ at any cost
There has always been the tendency in society ,”lets chop off the heads who stick out”
Does anyone have a better idea if so come forward ,I have seen nothing so far.
Cheers Michael
PS: we and four other couragous Canadian farmers voluntarily signed up with RAWMI and are proud of it.
Thanks Mark
Exactly the kind of politics that RAWMI should be looking to avoid. For someone that actually met with an NGO consultant, where this very issue was addressed, and turn around here and make it as though it never happened is sadly nothing new. You know full well that the concerns are valid, the plot thickens and further concerns are raised when presented with such potential of collusion.
Michael,
Mark came under heavy criticism because he came out claiming RAWMI was the ONLY way to produce raw milk safely and that all these small dairies were producing dirty milk.
Which fits considering the one HUGE conflict of interest you miss: RAWMI is positioned perfectly to become the raw milk equivalent of the AMA doctor licensing boards.
Which is all the more worrisome considering OPDC continues to grow, continues to make people sick, and has turned its back on producing probiotic milk for a hyper-clean dead milk approach.
That is likely true to the experience 5 years ago. And he persevered through all of it to bring RAWMI to a greater degree of legitimacy. And it no doubt took a lot or work and dedication.
And now the situation is different from back then. And that is an achievement in itself. That the organization has gotten to the point where there is a broader call to address issue of conflict of interest is an achievement. It should not be viewed as a personal attack.
‘the plot thickens’, alright = your anonymous insinuations of wrongdoing are along the line of noises emanating from inside a burqa… telling us as much as we need to know about what you’re doing on this forum OSotS…. By now, though, Michael Schmidt and Mark McAffee know only too well that the slings and arrows of reproach just come with the territory. No doubt, the OtherSide of your Pie Hole is wedged-in at some govt. trough.
http://youtu.be/YjtfsnEV0Bc
Focus on the good. The really good.
When a producer provides about a million gallons of delicious raw milk to hundreds of thousands of healthy people each year and builds a market, the Risk vs Benefit must be provided some rational balance. The greater vision of positive impact must be considered. As Dr Cat said, consider the measure of safety on a per serving basis. When considering millions of gallons of raw milk… Safety becomes very very safe. Consider all the Asthma, colds, ear infections, improvements and recovery from Crohns!!
Our vision for OPDC is to bring delicious organic raw milk to everyone that wants that choice. We believe that raw milk should not be a hidden secret only known by health insiders that must buy a cow to gain access to raw milk. Our world deserves to have access to safe delicious healing raw milk. As a pioneer, we will make discoveries and that means a rare mistake or stumble across new science. Like a ecoli coming from inside a clean healthy test canal or udder.
RAWMI does not regard the legal status of raw milk. It is focused on safety and education only. RAWMI is mostly small micro dairies. But we serve all dairy sizes. Small, medium and large alike. RAWMI is not Mark Mcafee. RAWMI is an international community of farmers that care deeply about safety and their consumers more than anything and will do most anything to provide safe raw milk to them. RAWMI is blessed to have serving as board members and thinkers some of the best and most ethical PHDs in the world at our service.
When the first person was injured in a car accident when wearing a seatbelt, were seatbelts banned? Of course not… Raw milk is not perfect, we have never ever made that claim. But, as responsible producers we are rapidly evolving to
“improve on good in our vision of ever improving safety”.
Consider a world where no one was working hard to bring back safe raw milk? Think about all the kids that are hammered by anti biotics and are very sick as a result.
The USA reality is based on blame. Huge money is made on blame. Liability lawyers dominate and exacerbate this culture. Sterility will kill off humans as a species on earth. Only those with strong immunity were ever intended to thrive. We live in culture in complete conflict with natural anything.
David, the greater story is the brick wall, we as a society, are speeding towards. Judging RAWMI and the community of RAWMI producers is counter productive.
Raise your head to see the train wreck that is coming and happening right now. The video above says it all. Drugs verses whole food. Your intestines ripped out or raw milk.
As a pioneer I do not get distracted by near sighted observers. I
Support safe raw milk in what ever form it takes. In CA we have laws that allow store access. In other states cow shares must be the access route. Some of my dearest friends are cow share operators. Even right here in CA. If you think there is bias… Ask a CA Listed Cow Share. See what they have to say. There are three of them.
By the way, Claravale shared with me that they are settling a hand full of lawsuits from last springs campy issue. That issue came from campy inside of a clean cows udder. When you judge one producer… You blame and judge all responsible producers. Claravale is one of the best. They have been arroind for 90 years !!
If you are going to produce raw milk… You are going to have to deal with liability and embrace your consumers closely. The closer the better. Hopefully, anyone with illness will come to you first and not file suit as a first reaction.
Raw milk producers must have huge hearts. They also must have tough skin and a clear vision for the greater good as they perfect their food safety systems. If not, exit the endeavor.
David, we love you, but I think you missed the mark on this one. Spend your talents and capital on teaching about progress and avoiding that bigger than life brick wall of sterilized immunity we are hitting in this generation…starting with our kids first. That’s the vision
RAWMI is not the raw milk police.
RSWMI is a safe resource based on a community of producers that share to learn.
What was the first thing that I did after my initial investigation and notifying the state of our voluntary internal recall? I wrote a very open letter to the RAWMI community in order to expand learning and increase sharing and knowledge.
If RAWMI was an enforcement based organization, it would be nothing and go nowhere.
Producers in RAWMI are only as good as their own integrity. No enforcement needed. Consumers concerns and humanity are the enforcer.
David,
A couple of things:
The only self imposed regulations that each RAWMI producer has…is there own RAMP plan. There is no outside plan that comes down on their heads if something does not work perfectly.
What national detriment or conflict are you referring to? I have heard and or seen no conflict or detriment.
Lastly, the OPDC ramp plan worked exactly as designed. It caught a positive and stopped distribution of that positive before it reached 38 routes!! It also missed a positive on one test day. That experience exposed a limitation of our SOP. Since January, we have adjusted that SOP to strengthen it. Does that mean we are perfect? No it does not. Does it mean we are even better…yes it does udderd were perfectly clean. Coliforms were under control. Repeated testing showed that the pathogen came from inside of a very clean udder. That’s a fact. Repeated tests do not lie.
How does this in some way mean that OPDC has negatively effected the national raw milk movement?
Have you heard something none of us have? As far as I can tell, these activities strengthened the national raw milk movement. It is not the conduct on your best day that matters…. It is the conduct on your worst that matters. We did not run or hide, we shared openly our experience with the entire community and we immediately initiated an internal voluntary recall.
How is this somehow a bad example or something detrimental for raw milk.
If you are under the impression that raw milk is perfect, you are misinformed.
We have paid the medical expenses of the family that contacted us about their child that spent a couple of days in the hospital. My only regret is that one other child’s parents did not call us but instead called a lawyer instead. That is the culture that raw milk lives in.
We must rise above this culture and do two things better. Further improve raw milk safety and educate those that consume raw milk that although very rare, raw milk can cause illness and if it does, please call the farmer first. We should have at least a chance to try and make it right.
Mark and Michael,
I’m definitely not about the shoot the messenger(s). After all, I’ve been one of the messengers. But others definitely have their guns cocked. Take a look at this article in Food Safety News, in particular the recap of illnesses and recalls at OPDC since 2006. There are eight events listed there, including illnesses from E.coli O157:H7 and campylobacter associated with OPDC milk. (This article is in addition to the FSN article I linked to in my post.)
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/02/six-kids-sickened-in-outbreak-linked-to-organic-pastures-raw-milk/#.VspmaDZFK_w
Then, review the comments following the article. Lots of people are shooting away. If the recent outbreak from OPDC milk was a first-time event, or even a second-time event, I’d be entirely with you in your outrage at their accusations against Mark and OPDC. But this is #8. Much more difficult to defend.
What’s particularly notable, though, is that last month’s illnesses represent outbreak #1 for OPDC since 2012, and thus #1 since the formation of RAWMI. Remember, RAWMI was formed to make the case that not only is raw milk not inherently unsafe, but that the right processes and protocols can reduce the risk substantially over what it would be without RAWMI. All was fine, so long as there were no illnesses associated with RAWMI dairies. Of course, we all knew that the day would come when a RAWMI dairy would be associated with illnesses from raw milk. That would be the day RAWMI’s credibility would be on the line. It would be up to RAWMI to determine what went wrong at the member dairy. Was there some sort of screwup at the dairy? Or was the problem a weakness in the RAWMI standards? If the former, what was the dairy doing to fix the screwup? If the latter, how ere RAWMI standards being adjusted to fix the weakness?
But, now, several weeks after the illnesses and the reporting on them, what do we have? We have OPDC saying essentially that the illnesses resulted from neither a screwup at the dairy, nor a weakness in RAWMI standards. No, the problem was some kind of spontaneous shedding of E.coli O157:H7, never before recorded in the annals of science. We are told further that the problem, bad as it was, would have been much worse except for OPDC’s special hold-and-test protocol. Period, end of story. There’s no commitment to further investigation of this supposedly spontaneous event, which seems far-fetched to begin with. No commitment to explore possibly more down-to-earth explanations, like contaminated bedding or insufficient attention to sanitation, or the larger possibility that OPDC is up against the limits of scalability, that could explain the presence of a serious pathogen in widely distributed milk–the eighth serious safety-related event since 2006.
I’m sorry, but this whole scenario smells bad, smells of being papered over by obvious conflicts of interest.
I thought a big part of RAWMI’s purpose in life was to reassure public health regulators and policymakers that self regulation based on tight standards reduces raw milk risk. A big part of that reassurance depends on how you behave when the inevitable occurs, and a RAWMI dairy has a problem. Owning up to the illnesses is one part of the reassurance. But an even bigger part is owning up to the problems that led to the illnesses.
This is a seminal moment for RAWMI. It’s up to RAWMI to demonstrate that all the talk about strict safety standards and RAMP plans isn’t just a lot of talk, but is backed up by a commitment to determining what went wrong, and building in reassurances that the problem(s) have been solved. Otherwise, RAWMI runs the risk of being viewed as a paper tiger, unable to unearth the real causes of the illnesses either because raw milk is inherently unsafe, or because of inherent conflicts of interest.
If I were you Mark, I would drop the use of the word perfectly as in “a perfectly clean udder”. It paints an erroneous picture of reality that lends to our controlling nature and the notion that perfect cleanliness is actually attainable, which is ludicrous and counterproductive to say the least. We live in an imperfect world so how can we expect or claim perfection of anything?
If as a society we view the presence of one lone microbe in food as grounds for misconduct and litigation then we are headed to hell in a handbasket. Indeed, it reflects a level of extreme control that defies practical logic.
Thank you David for posting such a piece that in some ways brings forward the issues. Reading it through I don’t think it really brings forward the actual issues facing the credibility of a standards body when its being run by the person with the greatest stake in the industry.
Its not surprising that the initiative for such an organization has come from the Organic Pastures Dairy, for they have the most skin in the game. The problem actually becomes apparent, when such initiation fails to make plans to address the issues surrounding mixing personal motivation and political bias with the independent autonomy of a standards body. Albeit, it may be a lot easier to go it alone then seek and develop a broader approach.
In the development of Cow Share Canada, an entire day was spent with an NGO developmental consultant where this exact issue was the starting point. It was made explicitly clear that the value of a standards or quality assurance body is in its credibility, and, it should be distinctly separate from politics. That politics, or personal interests were important but clearly not appropriate for such an organization. It needed to be about science. And an entire plan was drawn up to make it so. Such details were made known to relevant parties at the time. Its been over 4 years since and much has happened but little has changed…
That OPD has had an outbreak is actually not really relevant to the issue of the conflict of interest. That is an easy thing to disprove and frankly easy way to falsely dispute the conflict of interest argument. The conflict of interest is intrinsic to the very nature of the multiple roles, that are far too difficult to manage or distinguish. Where I would suggest that some kind of mismanagement of position has taken place is not in the outbreak, but in much of the public commentary, most notably in the most recent comments about the finding 0157 in the udder of the cow. That information seems out of place considering its impact upon all non-batch-testing raw milk producers. Perhaps, it was simply not fully thought out, but in such a position of being the head of RAWMI and the biggest raw milk producer in the world, that happens to do batch testing, it suggest, that the only raw milk that is safe, is the raw milk that is batch tested. And even more so, as RAWMI is disputing the science with a new claim that 0157 can in fact come from the udder of the cow and not simply the associated environment.
That OPD may be facing law suit is problematic. More so because the standards body may likely be challenged on account of the clear conflict of interest. And in some ways failing to create greater independence of the organization from personal interests may be shooting oneself in the foot. In other wards, while controlling the standards body may be used to further personal interests, it may also be exploited to attack its credibility. And not just for OPD but for all other producers in North America as well.
And so, its in everyone’s interests that may be affected by the development of raw milk production standards that the organization adequately addresses any and all issues of conflict of interest that may arise, now and in the future.
The states report will read. A pathogen came from inside the udder of a cow. We gave them the test data. Uc Davis PhDs got the information four days after it happened.
Integrity is all I have. 8 events in ten years. Many of which have no illnesses.
Measure OPDC by its deeds. No one forces anyone to join rawmi.
Yes, it would seem most reasonable that OPD is the victim of industrial espionage, as it would be the only way to explain the findings. Your standards and processes should have nothing to do with your position as head of RAWMI. When different states and regulatory domains are exploring their own regulations and Herdshare associations are forming, it becomes more important that the head of RAWMI be free of any conflict of interest. Take for example the interchange that occurred at the symposium in Ontario. The anti raw milk scientist declared that how you do things he has no problem with. Meaning , he is ok with batch testing and not any alternative. I am willing to bet that as things progress , it will be operational standards such as yours that will be adopted by states . Eliminating small operations all together
David, you are not understanding the role of RAWMI, or the workings of RAWMI.
We are an advisory non-profit organization that are assisting raw milk dairies in developing their appropriate safety and hygiene measures to minimize the risk of raw milk associated disease. One raw milk associated outbreak does not put into question the whole of RAWMI. RAWMI does not have a police that runs out and intervenes and checks on dairies that they are doing the right thing.. and accuses dairies in case they are having some challenge.
Mark consulted with us within RAWMI (He phoned me in the middle of the night) at the first ‘potential positive’ in his test and hold program. I adviced on isolation of potential positive cows (which later was culled), and he worked directly with the laboratories, universities and local regulators to identify and isolate the source and do appropriate recalls. His RAMP was working fully. OPDC re-evaluated their test and hold program, and started a modified sampling system of their bulk tank milk. The regulatory authorities and scientists have no problems with the actions of OPDC… but evidently you do David. RAWMI has no supervisory function, no legal function, we are simply there as a resource. How can that become a conflict of interest?
RAWMI has had no critique of how the event took place. How can RAWMI critique OPDC for draught and wet winters.. those are a fact of life? Due to the size of the dairy and distribution, a test and hold program is appropriate. For micro dairies selling to a few local customers or herd shares, we do not recommend test and hold… However, some dairies to this, but it is not something we require in the RAMP plan in order to get RAWMI listed. The focus of raw milk safety is production methods and hygiene.
I do not see at all how this event or OPCD’s actions brings RAWMI into question.
Maybe you need to start another organization that has more legal power to enforce controls or checks? Do you think that is what our community need?
RAWMI will meanwhile keep working with our mission and vision, and look to reaching higher and higher safety of raw milk while maintaining a balance with the reality of life. We can not move the udder from the cow or the barn, and therefore as long as there is a cow associated with raw milk, we will always have some level of risk.
Kind regards,
Cat.
As stated, this event is a red herring in terms of insinuating conflict of interest. And, by all measures the appropriate measures were taken.
I think it is unfortunate that any criticism of the organization of such a kind is taken as a personal attack. It is not.
It is merely an opportunity to address a significant issue that reflects upon the important value of credibility. And to truly broaden the door of inclusion it is vital that organizational integrity is upheld.
What I would like to see is a third party consultant that specializes in such things be brought in, and for any such changes be implemented.
What is OPDC’s test and hold program? Its RAMP on the RAWMI website says that it tests finished products for pathogens multiple times per week but Mark has said here that they sold off their positive product to a processor. Did he un-bottle thousands of gallons to sell to a processor? If they test, hold, and then bottle, OPDC must have far more capacity to hold than I ever saw. It’s also strange that OPDC implies that they test and hold every batch but RAWMI only lists negative E. coli tests about 10 times a month. They milk 60 times a month.
Second, I really would like to hear more about this cow. Does OPDC have the technology to test the claim that it’s making? It’s hard to believe given that there is not even mention of the event in the literature. Mark claims that his dairy was closed for two days while they identified all of the problems but the testing required for the isolated cow and related claims would take longer than that. It simply doesn’t add up. It would have taken at least a day to get the Davis crew down there.
Finally, just to beat a dead horse a bit more, the OPDC RAMP does not address how it manages its outsourced product. OPDC has outsourced since 2006 by Mark’s own word. Mention of it ought to be in the safety plan, especially since outsourced product was involved in at least one outbreak and one recall (by Mark’s word). Frankly, the absence of this key point in its RAMP has always made me highly skeptical of anyone involved with RAWMI. Why is the outsourcing overlooked? Does OPDC get a pass on this too?
Amanda
Cat, your comments here are contrary to the way Mark has promoted RAWMI in the past. It was repeatedly touted as the ONLY way to produce safe milk; all other methods dirty and would make people sick.
And yet here you stand saying unsafe milk can’t be pinned on a failure of RAWMI? That the blame lies with ‘draught and wet winters’, something all farmers face?
Cat, I think we may just have somewhat different expectations of RAWMI. On its web site, about the organization, it says “the Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI) provides training and leadership through its common standards to safely guide the growing raw milk market. The process involves scientific research, farmer training, the publication of listed farmers’ test results, and continuous education.”
http://www.rawmilkinstitute.org/about-rawmi/
You say “RAWMI has had no critique of how the event took place” at OPDC. I guess I am expecting that RAWMI would want to investigate how a cow began shedding E.coli O157:H7 into its milk, leading to at least four potentially serious illnesses.
You suggest in your next sentence that the cause may have been the combination of “drought and wet winters.” But you pull back from trying to “critique” OPDC for these because “those are a fact of life”.
Yet those are extreme events that seem to stress dairy cows. Back in 2006, when OPDC’s milk was linked to six cases of E.coliO157:H7, was a time of extreme heat, which some thought might have triggered a similar shedding of the pathogen.
I know no one can say for certain what triggered any of these events, but certainly it seems as if they warrant further consideration and investigation, for an organization committed to “scientific research” and “continuous education.” The paper I linked to in my post raises concerns about excessive moisture in bedding creating conditions ripe for E.coliO157:H7.
Perhaps RAWMI simply needs to alert its dairies during times of extreme weather conditions to take extra precautions to reduce further the risk of E.coliO157:H7. Certainly America’s blame-oriented society demands that food producers be alert to special conditions that could lead to serious outbreaks of illness. I think that exploring such problems is difficult for Mark and OPDC, because it suggests assuming some sense of “blame,” to the potential detriment of brand image. That’s where the conflict of interest comes into play.
Dear David, at this point in time we do not have research facilities, funding or resources to perform scientific resaearch on E .coli O157:H7 shedding, if you find some further funding or information, please feel free to forward. The mission statement of RAWMI is found on the website, and indeed, no regulatory functions. We can indeed put criteria for listing and delist dairies, but we are no continuous police, and OPDC was acting in accordance with their SOP and RAMP. RAWMI can not become a metereological station for dairies all over North America. We have emphasized increased risk of shedding bacteria due to stress in cows in our educational webinars and workshops.
It looks like OPDC’s RAMP calls for cows sleeping on a dry mound in bad weather. That would not have been possible in the December rains. There is no provision in their RAMP for risk reduction during harsh weather. As David mentioned, weather was implicated in a previous illness outbreak. Given OPDC’s history, I wonder why this issue was also left out of the RAMP (as was outsourcing). Are all RAWMI listed dairies allowed to cherry-pick items to place in their RAMP?
The Dirt Cure
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/02/11/how-the-dirt-cure-can-make-for-healthier-families/?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=3
Dr. Maya Shetreat-Klein, a pediatric neurologist in New York and an instructor at New York Medical College states in a New York Times interview, “it’s not only a matter of exposure to microbes but exposure to a diverse variety of microbes that may be most important of all”.
‘We used to think that children who grew up on farms were healthier than children in urban environments because they were exposed to more microbes. But studies have found that the number of bacteria in urban environments and on farms is similar.
‘The difference is the diversity of the bacteria. Microbial diversity seems to have a very powerful impact. Children’s immune systems are very social: They like to meet and greet a lot of things.
‘It seems the more they meet and greet, the more likely they are to be in balance, and the less likely they are to let any one microorganism grow out of control, as occurs with infection.”
Edwin Shank’s article today, on The Family Cow website entitled “Double Agent” is required reading for grasping what we are contending-with in the Campaign for REAL MILK
it’s a perfect example of how wickedness – the directing minds of the Babylonian corporations = appropriate the very language of us who are sincerely pursuing Life. They know what they’re doing. America is ruled by people who hate us.
I agree, Gordon, and was actually thinking of c & p’ing the entire letter to my forum (because there is no link with the e-newsletter) but decided against it until I email them to ask if it’s ok to share it. But he definitely writes a good article regarding the detective work which needs to be done regarding anything labeled 100% grassfed. The article may be available at his regular web site @ The Family Cow. My browser is down just now but when I have access to it I will check that out and if it’s available, I’ll post a link here.
The teachings of Edward Bernays is splattered all over that campaign from DOW.
What is the website, exactly, to which you refer us?
@ Ingvar: Well, I thought it wasThe Family Cow (dot) com – – – or you might try Your Family Farmer (dot) com. I could not locate it earlier today no matter what I tried. This seemed weird to me but as I mentioned earlier, my computer has been very wonky lately. However, as of this afternoon I was finally able to locate the link. Yippy skippy!
http://yourfamilyfarmer.com/fresh-thoughts/double-agent
Here is the link to the actual email: http://www.icontact-archive.com/NGPZGNZ0MsM61WcVJ3rpFj4Y4J6jrAcf?w=4
And here is a link to the website post: http://yourfamilyfarmer.com/fresh-thoughts/double-agent
The Double Agent article D. smith and Gordon are referring to is here Ingvar.
http://yourfamilyfarmer.com/fresh-thoughts/double-agent
Enjoy!
Thank you D. Smith, Shank, & Edwin. The internet ‘duck trails’ went everywhere for me. I know when lost is happening and I needed the help. Thanks again. (time is limited (always))
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
Gordon Watson..I was wondering when the accepted raw milk blog troll would show its head. As it’s clear you have nothing to actually add or comment on, as to my actual comments, you have repeatedly commented in this way, and have attacked me personally iwith insult. That this is permitted through moderation reflects upon the blog itself. I can only conclude , that so long as your trolling fits with the biases then it is permitted.
any day you can muster the integrity to identify you-little-ol’-self … Other-Side-of-the-Story … I’ll take you seriously. So far, all I’ve seen is = railing on the Elders of the Movement. ‘Til then > you’re just a kibitzer, squawking from the shadows of a Burqua
… daily, thousands / perhaps millions / of children are receiving our inheritance = milk and honey = because the do-ers in the Campaign for REAL MILK make the effort to prove the wisdom of the food laws of our God. Where does that leave you … part of the solution, or part of the Problem?
David , I did not view your article as an attack at all. I just referred to some of the usual anti RAWMI comments made by the usual crowd. I do believe you raised a point how big in fact can a dairy be before you encounter an accumulation of unpredictable circumstances.
In regards to what Mark said or not said or should not have said is at the moment a mute point. Establishing guidelines and standards are necessary.
As Mark pointed out the effort to get RAWMI off the ground was and is immense. The attempt to gather data and post those on the internet are a symbol of accountability.
Years ago I proposed a taskforce independent from any organisation to investigate the raw milk outbreaks because some of them have been suspicious and knowing corruption within these agencies planting pathogens is not a big deal in order to boost the statistics against raw milk.
I struggle with the political hogwash of some here on the blog, who just want to have Mark removed from RAWMI, without any constructive alternative or willingness to come forward and be exposed to constant critisicm.
We have one example on this blog of someone, who is a former disgruntled COW SHARE CANADA wannabe manager. He had pissed off almost every farmer who had joined Cow Share Canada, produces now milk himself, seems to market himself as “trained by Cow Share Canada” and peddles milk without knowing if his cows are healthy or sick. However he keeps trumping up his intellectual twisted analysis why Mark and I should not be involved. He talks about a NGO consultant who stressed the point of seperating leadership from the original founding body and uses that as his justification to keep soiling the milk pool.
He is also the one who pissed in his pants when Government agents showed up at his door on a different matter; ratted others out and became a crown witness for the Government in order to save his own skin. This guy just cannot get over it, that the cow share canada farmers did not wanted his intellectual hot air.
I mention this because I see a few of these personalities on this blog keep coming back to haunt and rehash old stuff with Mark.
Time to move on.
The only reason why I would like to see Mark to let go of RAWMI is to get him out as “THE” target for everything what is wrong. So if anyone has a solution for the leadership of RAWMI spell it out and lets work together.
No doubt it would help everyone involved to move forward
Michael
Michael, I agree with you about Mark being “THE” target, and that’s a big part of my concern. Mark is a target because he is, at once, the owner of North America’s largest raw dairy, and the head of RAWMI. It’s almost an impossible balancing act, even in a normal industry (to head the largest company AND the industry’s main trade association), but it’s many times more difficult doing the same thing in the industry that is raw milk.
I have been uncomfortable about it for the last few years, but have refrained from saying anything for fear of making life more difficult for not only OPDC, but other dairies. But the situation with the recent illnesses connected to OPDC brought the issue to a very public head. I fear that all the hard work in establishing RAWMI and Cow Share Canada could be negated.
One of the major accomplishments of both organizations has been to demonstrate a serious approach to improving raw milk safety. That approach has helped boost consumer confidence in raw milk, especially because it stands in contrast to the cavalier and obstructionist attitudes of the regulators and medical community. (I know that, from the trenches where you and Mark view life, it doesn’t always look that way.) I hate to see that progress placed in jeopardy by these inherent conflicts of interest.
Your idea of an independent task force makes great sense. Finding independent leadership is the difficult challenge. But I have to think it’s out there, and not all that far away.
I struggle with the political hogwash of some here on the blog, who just want to have Mark removed from RAWMI,
well, not sure who your referring to but its not me. removing Mark from from Rawmi is not the point. But a specific mode of conduct and means to manage the different roles and conflicts of interest is highly warranted.
without any constructive alternative or willingness to come forward and be exposed to constant critisicm.
Actually, your being critical right here
We have one example on this blog of someone, who is a former disgruntled COW SHARE CANADA wannabe manager.
wow, it was actually you who asked me to do the work, and I actually declined the title you proposed (director of cow share canada). But such personal appointment are exactly the kind of problems and usual tactics of those who wish to conceal and control.
as tHe had pissed off almost every farmer who had joined Cow Share Canada
Well, lets see I worked with one for 3 years while you were constantly pressuring them to stop, which they eventually did, and the other got pissed off when I posted on facebook your own notions about using Bulls as opposed to artificial insemination. Though there was some strong anti consumer sentiment that I was not comfortable with. Besides that, no others have been pissed off. but nice try.
produces now milk himself, seems to market himself as “trained by Cow Share Canada” and peddles milk without knowing if his cows are healthy or sick.
wow, got that one wrong as well. source?
However he keeps trumping up his intellectual twisted analysis why Mark and I should not be involved.
Of all the things you seem to do often is look to discredit those who ciritise you. Its sad really. Your reputation now precedes you. It does not require me to expose all the …stuff Cow Share Canada is dead. Sorry to inform you of this Michael. The few who felt kind of exposed by your side needed another body to fill that role. And to tell the truth I actually take credit for convincing some of them to go with RAWMI. But only as I knew some of the details that might make it less risky option.
He talks about a NGO consultant who stressed the point of seperating leadership from the original founding body and uses that as his justification to keep soiling the milk pool.
wrong, I speak about a specific meeting we had where it was made very clear that politics and the standard body we were looking to create needed to be kept separate. Your twisted notions of leadership were never part of the discussion.
He is also the one who pissed in his pants when Government agents showed up at his door on a different matter; ratted others out and became a crown witness for the Government in order to save his own skin. This guy just cannot get over it, that the cow share canada farmers did not wanted his intellectual hot air.
Oh you mean the 5 day stake out? Well I get your still trying to figure that one out too, but you still don’t got it right. I will give you a hint, its called impartiality. The next time you try to hang people out to dry with your garbage you can expect more of the same . And in due time I will be quite happy to make public all the details of that experience.
I mention this because I see a few of these personalities on this blog keep coming back to haunt and rehash old stuff with Mark.
with Mark? you mean with you, don’t you? Its kind of tragic, but i guess that is why you have changed your name so long ago. Perhaps to conquer the Dragon.
You actually just proved me right. Twisted beyond imagination.
Join the discussion My head hurts
@ theothersideofthestory: It would be so nice if a person could follow your posts, but most of the time you string a bunch of words together which make absolutely no sense to those of us who cannot follow this blog minute-by-minute. You don’t address your posts to anyone, so half the time when I read them I have no idea who you’re talking to. You use dysfunctional spelling and punctuation, making it hard to follow (especially when you’re quoting someone and then responding).
I’ve read the above post three times and finally gave up for the reasons stated above. It’s impossible to follow your train of thought, if there indeed is one.
Your right, sorry about that I fixed it
Thank you D smith. I see that both on account of the way the comments are posted, my small phone, and failure to offer better direction for readers it can be confusing. I has responded to your comments by fixing my comment reply. I am still waiting to hear back from David Gumbert as to why he rejected it
OSOTS: I explained to you privately that I was about to pull your detailed response to Michael Schmidt yesterday, except Michael very quickly responded to it. So I let it stay. D. Smith then expressed confusion about it, so you essentially re-did it to try to clarify the comment, and I decided not to publish the second version. My problem with both comments is that you refer to “me” a number of times, except you never identify who you are. While I permit individuals to comment anonymously, this doesn’t extend to “he-said-she-said” accusations, where it’s not clear to readers who one of the commenting parties is. If you want to identify yourself by name, I will consider allowing further comments.
Well ok, if there is already the comment up, and in fact the only additions have been the additions of which part is M.S. And which part reply then your reasoning is curious. But as it is fairly easy to discern my identity but the details expressed it seems a moot point, but more in line with a general intent here of suppressing voices. It was a few weeks back where much of the commentary was solely about whether I would reveal my identity or not. It’s actually not very important at. And the only reason to not reveal it was to uphold the notion that the comment , the idea, is what is firstly of importance.
While some here that identify them selves feel that somehow they are at greater risk then others , I would argue that most of those same people are already in public view, and most of which is by choice. So whether they themselves commented as their public persona or not it would certainly make no difference to me. For instance, if someone were to suggest that things were different then what I understood them , I would once again make the same comment to differ. And so , ok, have your pie. I am Miro. But all relevant people here know that already ! Now, Will you please let me join your club ?
M.S.
I struggle with the political hogwash of some here on the blog, who just want to have Mark removed from RAWMI,
REPLY
well, not sure who your referring to but its not me. removing Mark from from Rawmi is not the point. But a specific mode of conduct and means to manage the different roles and conflicts of interest is highly warranted.
M.S.
without any constructive alternative or willingness to come forward and be exposed to constant critisicm.
REPLY
Actually, your being critical right here
M.S.
We have one example on this blog of someone, who is a former disgruntled COW SHARE CANADA wannabe manager.
REPLY
wow, it was actually you who asked me to do the work, and I actually declined the title you proposed (director of cow share canada). But such personal appointment are exactly the kind of problems and usual tactics of those who wish to conceal and control.
M.S.
as tHe had pissed off almost every farmer who had joined Cow Share Canada
REPLY
Well, lets see I worked with one for 3 years while you were constantly pressuring them to stop, which they eventually did, and the other got pissed off when I posted on facebook your own notions about using Bulls as opposed to artificial insemination. Though there was some strong anti consumer sentiment that I was not comfortable with. Besides that, no others have been pissed off. but nice try.
M.S.
produces now milk himself, seems to market himself as “trained by Cow Share Canada” and peddles milk without knowing if his cows are healthy or sick.
REPLY
wow, got that one wrong as well. source?
M.S.
However he keeps trumping up his intellectual twisted analysis why Mark and I should not be involved.
REPLY
Of all the things you seem to do often is look to discredit those who ciritise you. Its sad really. Your reputation now precedes you. It does not require me to expose all the …stuff Cow Share Canada is dead. Sorry to inform you of this Michael. The few who felt kind of exposed by your side needed another body to fill that role. And to tell the truth I actually take credit for convincing some of them to go with RAWMI. But only as I knew some of the details that might make it less risky option.
M.S.
He talks about a NGO consultant who stressed the point of seperating leadership from the original founding body and uses that as his justification to keep soiling the milk pool.
REPLY
wrong, I speak about a specific meeting we had where it was made very clear that politics and the standard body we were looking to create needed to be kept separate. Your twisted notions of leadership were never part of the discussion.
M.S.
He is also the one who pissed in his pants when Government agents showed up at his door on a different matter; ratted others out and became a crown witness for the Government in order to save his own skin. This guy just cannot get over it, that the cow share canada farmers did not wanted his intellectual hot air.
REPLY
Oh you mean the 5 day stake out? Well I get your still trying to figure that one out too, but you still don’t got it right. I will give you a hint, its called impartiality. The next time you try to hang people out to dry with your garbage you can expect more of the same . And in due time I will be quite happy to make public all the details of that experience.
M.S.
I mention this because I see a few of these personalities on this blog keep coming back to haunt and rehash old stuff with Mark.
REPLY
with Mark? you mean with you, don’t you? Its kind of tragic, but i guess that is why you have changed your name so long ago. Perhaps to conquer the Dragon.
ah, a little more forthcoming? are we … my sarc-asm must’ve bit right in. whereas you say : “And in due time I will be quite happy to make public all the details of that experience.” …
…. I did it back in ’67, so even if I have to hitchhike the 3000 miles to the trial, it’ll be worth it, to watch the cross-examination, as lawyer Shawn Buckley adduces out of your mouth, sordid details of the perversion of Justice committed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, in the sheep-napping tragi-comedy. Tell us now, Miraslave ? will you be asserting your Charter right to give evidence from deep within the cowl of your Burqua, that day?
Dear Amanda,
I have said this many many times. OPDC never purchases outside milk for bottling and never has.
Just to be clear, OPDC tests every batch of raw milk twice. That means 4 pathogen tests each day. Products are not released for sale until the negative results are received from the Fresno based outside lab. Hence….Test&Hold.
My UC Davis Phd friends have just sent me the articles that describe STEC pathogens coming from rare cases of mastitis. Not from manure. It is in the literature after all.
Inside of the RAWMI community there is a trust, safety and a confidence in sharing details that others can learn from. Unfortunately this blog community provides no safety or confidence.
It has been noted that RAWMI does not have an audit team to respond to emergencies. I take exception to this concept. The state of CA sent a whole team to “white glove our operations” and provide advice and additional testing. What did they find in all of the store product testing and massive product testing at the dairy…nothing. In fact, they found no basis for a recall and said as much. When a raw dairy operation is regulated, regulators provide that outside audit.
The toxicity of this blog is counter productive. Facts are ignorred and data is twisted and problems are imagined. I have provided the answers to all of your questions. My time and energy must be focused on the safety of our products for our dear consumers.
Except I think in regards to issues of conflict of interest.
The vast majority of commentary here has been about whether your safety protocols in this recent event were at all affected by your position in the RAWMI organization. While this could in some circumstance be an issue of conflict of interest, it certainly seems like a stretch to insinuate it as such. Which is why it seems like a red herring, a ploy to address conflict of interest in a narrow way as to demonstrate there is none, which is to suggest that issues and concerns of conflicts of interest do not exist otherwise and are not relevant.
Other issues have been avoided in attempt not create too much distance in relationships of various parties, with the hope that real discourse about organizational integrity could take place and the broader common interests can be strengthened and assured.
Without openly engaging in such discussion one has no assurance or confidence that self interests plays a significant role in the direction of this organization.
And that is a real pity, cause it really seems like it has be moving in a direction of social benefit.
Mark
If these STEC microbes are coming from a rare cases of mastitis in the udder, what triggered the mastitis to begin with? These cows with the rare form of mastitis were they under unusual stress as oppose to the rest of the herd? What was their temperament? Did they incur an injury to their udder or teats?
Would it be possible for you to provide a link to those articles?
High moisture conditions can exacerbate stray voltage problems and trigger mastitis in some cows. This something you might want to check into.
Mark — Why don’t you post the actual test you use twice a day. I am having a hard time imagining your program but maybe knowing the test will make it clear.
Amanda
I do see that you guys finally added an outsourcing reference to the FAQ on your website. That’s some progress. It took until December of 2015 but it has been on-going since at least 2006.
Mark, just for the record, are any of your cows GMO and can you prove it? People should know right?. This is not an accusation or attack and I honestly think you are other than David the most knowledgeable poster on here but I could be wrong since I don’t know personally everyone. Just saw the movie “Support your local sheriff” (hilarious, and I don’t mean Hillary US.) I think it would be great if someone produced a sister version of “Support your local raw milk producer.”
This fear of a teeny microbe has really got people in a flap chasing their tails around in circles and for what…some temporary, false sense of security? We’ve certainly created for ourselves a fine predicament with all the litigation, safety standards, and conflicts of interest!
I’m currently traveling around Europe. Yesterday I drank a whole gallon of raw milk – in 3 different farms, from 3 different cows. I feel great today. I love raw milk.
These two articles http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/myth-sterile-womb and https://kellybroganmd.com/microbes-in-the-womb/ show how a human fetus is surrounded and supported by several different bacterial communities, which reside in different organs of the mother, including the womb.
Research shows that human babies receive maternal bacteria via breastfeeding. I think this is relevant to the issue of whether a cow’s udder is truly sterile and gives credence to the idea that the udder itself can be the source of pathogenic bacteria. Obviously cows and humans have major differences in their milk production, but science keeps showing that the microbiome is pervasive throughout the total organism.
Exactly Lynn,
And as I previously stated, “A good thing to remember with respect to a cow’s udder is that it is a closed ecosystem, not a closed sterile environment. And another good thing to remember as Dave Milano stated, “cows are superstar performers, continually sampling the environment and adjusting their milk accordingly”
Your suggestion that the unsterile environment of the internal udder “gives credence to the idea that the udder itself can be the source of pathogenic bacteria”, is a reflection of an ongoing misleading belief with respect to the virulence of certain microbes that leaves us with many unanswered questions. What is it that makes certain bacteria virulent in some people, including plants and animals and yet for the most part not in others? How one answers this question will determine whether it is credible to focus and lay sole blame on a specific bacteria or to search for other solutions.
How does one propose to control the presence of these ubiquitous so-called pathogens without affecting the overall internal integrity of the udder and the quality of the milk that comes out of it? Many attempts have been made to do just that, using a vast array of antibiotics and antibacterials, yet, what have we achieved apart from causing considerable collateral damage and the disruption of raw milk’s life giving qualities?
Ken,
My apologies for using pathogenic bacteria as a shorthand expression. Indeed, I should have said so-called pathogenic bacteria.
The thinking I’ve seen expressed by some here, as an explanation for why a handful of people might get sick from a raw milk source that possibly hundreds others have drunk from without incidence, is that the “pathogens” are not evenly distributed throughout the bulk tank or whatever source. So it’s attributed to a Russian roulette process whether the sick few were unfortunate enough to have the “pathogen” wind up in their particular milk.
I wonder what the evidence is to support the notion that the “pathogens” are so vastly unevenly distributed throughout the bulk tank. Maybe the new multi-sampling technique that has been initiated at OPDC will provide some answers, but that would seem to presuppose that a “pathogen” is lurking in there somewhere.
No attention seems to be paid to the particular vulnerability of the individuals who get sick, other than if they’re children, elderly, or immunocompromised. HIPPA regulations seem to make it prohibitive to find out what an individual’s perhaps predisposing medical condition is. I think more attention should be paid to the particular individuals pre-exposure health status. Perhaps “blame the victim” is appropriate in these circumstances.
Lynn
You might find the following article informative: Lucy JA (2015) Raw Milk Consumption. Nutrition Today. 50: 189-193. It is available for free.
John
John, the only thing available for free is the abstract. From what I see in the abstract, it looks like an opinion piece touting the standard FDA line. Anybody who doesn’t make note of the filthy conditions over 100 years ago that led to the initiation of pasteurization and that presumes we still need it today because it was useful back then in those conditions is oversimplifying the complexities of the issue. He thinks any claims made on behalf of raw milk are a myth, and his review sounds like someone who thinks the evidence in support of raw milk is nonexistent because his paycheck as director for of the Center for Dairy Research at Univ. of Wisconsin depends on not seeing the benefits.
I persevered and found free access to the article John cites at http://journals.lww.com/nutritiontodayonline/Fulltext/2015/07000/Raw_Milk_Consumption__Risks_and_Benefits.10.aspx#.
After reading Lucey’s article, I find it just amazing that the 3.4% of the U.S. population that drinks raw milk (that’s almost 11 million people) isn’t filling up doctor’s offices, hospitals and mortuaries all over the country, given how dangerous this substance Lucey thinks it is.
And if we knew more about what makes particular people vulnerable, we could better advise who should not drink raw milk, or under what conditions raw milk should be avoided.
What Ken Conrad just said.
Lynn,
Where I stated in my last comment to you that the udder is a closed ecosystem is not entirely correct. It is actually, a partially closed or limited ecosystem. Bacteria and fungus regularly do gain access to the teat and udder cisterns. The presence of these microbes in the udder however, is managed via competitive exclusion, whereby the mammary gland’s existing flora works symbiotically to nurture balance.
With that in mind we should consider the implications of using an antibacterial and/or injecting and infusing an antibiotic into a cow or her udder in order to treat mastitis. In fact that goes for any drugs used, especially hormones and toxic pesticides.
Mastitis, is defined as an inflammation of tissue within the mammary gland, and can manifest itself as non-infectious and/or infectious; yet, if you ask someone what causes mastitis, most will say it’s due to a bacterial infection. Indeed much of the literature one reads suggest likewise. However, based on my personal experience (if that counts for anything), I believe that bacteria only play a secondary role and are rarely the primary instigator or cause of mastitis. The only way to know for certain what type of bacteria exist in the udder is to test for it and even this method, if specific bacteria are present, does not establish cause and effect.
SCC (Somatic Cell Count) is the standard tool used to determine whether a mastitis problem exists in a dairy herd or a specific cow. Yet it basically only tells us that there is inflammation in the udder, it does not tell us what is causing that inflammation. And there are a multitude of reasons why a sample of milk from a cow’s udder may indicate a high SCC.
“Ms. Fry states, “Raw milk advocates are passionate about their beliefs that pasteurization can reduce milk’s nutrition and health value. They espouse that raw milk can help cure or treat asthma, allergies and it has beneficial bacteria to enhance gastrointestinal health and build their immune system. Raw milk advocates like “A campaign for real milk” believe it’s their right to have universal access to raw milk, especially for pregnant and nursing mothers and for babies and growing children.
‘The science has clearly debunked these myths about the benefits of raw milk and confirmed the risks of foodborne illness that can affect children, teenagers and the elderly. The web site Real Raw Milk Facts provides families’ real life accounts of their unexpected health consequences when they unfortunately purchased raw milk that contained dangerous bacteria.”
http://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/news_home/Regulatory_News/2016/02/Halting_the_raw_milk_movement.aspx?ID=%7B79D73493-BB81-4C03-9BD0-75AE93B14D85%7D&cck=1
There you go folks; “the science” of pasteurization is irrefutable and our decision to consume raw milk and feed it to our children is reckless and irresponsible.
This article won’t be any great revelation to most people here, and features Sally Fallon Morell and Ken Conrad. Amazing that “The IDFA’s vice president for regulatory and scientific affairs, Cary Frye, defended her organization’s actions in a recent Food Business Newsstory under the headline, “Halting the raw milkmovement.” “Raw milk from cows, sheep or goats can have harmful bacteria that affect the health of anyone who drinks it or eats foods made from raw milk,” Frye said.
Where do they get their facts to back up the sensationalistic propaganda?
Anyways it would be funny if wasn’t propagated and infringed on public’s choice to be educated and have a right to make their own choices. Enjoy or laugh:
http://www.offthegridnews.com/current-events/food-industry-plots-how-to-ban-raw-milk/
If you haven’t seen the Food Business News article referred to you should, it’s a howl. Be sure to read the comments that’s where the educational part is.
Do you wonder why they don’t address pasteurized milk illnesses? They should speak to some of the experts in this field that are not corporate shills, such as David or Mark.
http://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/news_home/Regulatory_News/2016/02/Halting_the_raw_milk_movement.aspx?ID={79D73493-BB81-4C03-9BD0-75AE93B14D85}&cck=1
A link (one that works) to the article Bora Petski posted.
http://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/news_home/Regulatory_News/2016/02/Halting_the_raw_milk_movement.aspx
A quote from Elon Musk captures what the private sector faces when dealing with government regulators:
“There is a fundamental problem with regulators. If a regulator agrees to change a rule and something bad happens, they can easily lose their career. Whereas if they change a rule and something good happens, they don’t even get a reward. So, it’s very asymmetric. It’s then very easy to understand why regulators resist changing the rules. It’s because there’s a big punishment on one side and no reward on the other. How would any rational person behave in such a scenario?”
The story behind this quote is at https://www. uschamber.com/above-the-fold/elon-musk-knows-more-about-regulation-the-regulators.
The E.coli O157:H7 problem could be mitigated if all food given to the cows is not contaminated by any industrial feed or supplements. Why would this mutant bacterium even show up? Is a strong cleaning agent being used on the teats? Unfortunately you may end up producing more of this mutant bacterium now that the c.d.f.a. is permitting you because they may demand that you use certain chemicals in your feed or for cleaning purposes. I wonder if it’s just better that you abandon public commerce and start a massive statewide private club with your existing customer base. If at any point the C.D.F.A. posts an opening for a position on a “milk board” for someone at-large, I will try to fill it.