Now that I’ve had some time to reflect, and to digest the comments on my previous post, I’d like to take another stab at answering the question I posed about what “the real message” of authorities was in the Stowers raid.
I suggested it may have had to do with concerns about the growth of herdshares, co-ops, buying clubs, and other such approaches consumers are devising to gain access to nutrient-dense foods, and I still do think that’s part of it. But I also think it’s likely bigger than that.
I was struck by a comment in the podcast from the Buckeye Institute (which, along with the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, is providing legal representation to the Stowers and Manna Storehouse), in which Maurice Thompson of the Buckeye Institute explains the legal and circumstantial background of the case. He says in the interview that he spoke briefly with a Lorain County health official who said he “didn’t like the tone” of a letter the Stowers family had written to health officials a year earlier, requesting further information on why the Manna Storehouse should be considered a retail establishment.
Back before the Civil Right movement of the 1960s, Southern law enforcement officials would frequently use that same excuse for arresting and prosecuting blacks—they weren’t “respectful enough” or were “acting uppity.”
I also remembered something the California regulator I reported on last month had said: “’The scientific evidence on the health benefits (of raw milk) are not accepted by the scientific community,’ she said. So its attitude is, ‘Why can’t you just pasteurize raw milk?’” The frustration in the comment was obvious.
It’s almost as if these exasperated officials are telling us: After all we do for you, making sure all food dealers are licensed, and making sure your milk is pasteurized, and inspecting meat plants to be sure your meat is safe, this is the appreciation you show? It’s like something a parent sometimes says to a disrespectful teenager—We give you this car and new clothes and send you to private school, and this is how you pay us back?
I sense a good deal of that going on in Washington to cope with the financial crisis. Congress rejected a bailout of the auto industry a couple weeks ago, so President Bush, the supreme regulator, stepped in and gave the industry its bailout money anyway. “Hey, I know Mom wouldn’t give you the money, son, but sometimes her judgment is a little off, so here’s $17 billion, go have a good time.”
And then last week, the Federal Reserve, the regulators of our money supply, lowered the interest rate to nearly zero, as if to say, “You silly consumers and business owners think you don’t want to borrow, that maybe you want to be more responsible and save some money? Well, let us tell you, you’re going to borrow, because… because… how could you not want to borrow when we’re making it so attractive, and besides, you’re just going to because…because…we know it’s the best thing for all of us.”
There’s an excellent article in today’s Wall Street Journal by money expert James Grant, which says in part: “The public has been slow to anger in this costliest and scariest of post World War II financial crises…But pointing fingers rarely find the Federal Reserve, whose low, low interest rates helped to set house prices levitating in the first place.”
Okay, enough philosophizing. How do you deal with regulators who are so full of their self importance and omnipotence that they will wave guns at women and children? Mark McAfee has an excellent suggestion about farmers and food co-op directors having video cameras at the ready. I also think, as several people make clear following my previous post, there is a need for a more organized response.
Maybe a way to get started is to begin viewing herdshares and food co-ops and food buying clubs not just as access vehicles to food, but as political organizations. They require financial support, and a political orientation. The latter may include preparedness training for government raids and regulatory actions–in addition to having the video cameras ready, providing instant text messages to members to assemble and protest during police raids, rehearsing how to handle harassing regulatory inspections, and organizing followup demonstrations at the offices of regulators who have conducted raids. It’s time to begin turning the tables on our wardens.
You might find that dinging around within change.org will provide you with a geo-sampling of what is on the minds of some people. Some good, some scary and some, well, downright frightening.
Hope you will go vote. The Stop NAIS cause is first in the agriculture division, with 558 votes. Sad, huh? There should be 5,000 votes. The raw milk cause is 13th place in health care with 148 votes. Maybe by posting it here the number will jump. The whole deal is over on 31 Dec.
Sharon
Your curious, reasonable and increasingly politicized blog has been the best journalism I’ve read this year. Never has the like happened. Much Thanks, praise and love.
You bring us to the same conclusion as FTCLDF and many others – organize, take part in our government, and systematically challenge and change it.
To quote an Arlo Guthrie song; "Inch by inch, row by row, got to help this garden grow…
(I love this song – lyrics here : http://www.metrolyrics.com/garden-song-lyrics-arlo-guthrie.html ) It’s my freedom song.
The Weston A. Price Foundation is doing this. FTCLDF is doing it. Vermont has it. Massachusetts has it. Florida is doing it. Colorado is too. California recently started doing it. IT is farmers and consumers organizing together.
And there is an initiative started on change.org – to legalize raw milk.
It doesn’t have very many votes yet – need another 500 to make it into the 2nd round. But those that make the top 10 will have a real chance of being implemented. And if it doesn’t, well, we’ll have planted more seeds of change….and gardeners know about seeds.
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/legalize_milk
-Blair
Officials must maintain control of us using carrots when they work and the stick when all else fails.They need to maintain control or they lose their position in the society.
When we refuse to produce for the commercial market,we threaten their way of life and their access to food.Can we have a mutually beneficial relationship with these officials or is our gain necessarily their loss?
David, I think you have some insight here. But, doubt that the officials are terribly "exasperated" over raw milk; despite the dynamic exchange on this blog, raw milk and local herdshare/co-op arrangements are a very small slice of the food safety frustration pie. However, your point highlights an interesting catch 22…in general, if an outbreak occurs from any food product (including everything from "big ag" to raw milk, custom slaughter meat, etc.), the public and media are quick to accuse the officials of failing to protect them. Headlines read…the investigation was too slow, the regulations are too weak or not enforced well enough, why wasn’t the public warned sooner, and on and on.
In the debate on your intriguing blog, the criticism swings the other way….investigators are too quick to name raw milk as the source and tell the public, the regulations are too strict and should not apply in these situations, enforcing the laws/regulations that are on the books is equivalent to harassment [if applied to raw milk or local herdshare/co-op arrangements?], publishing warnings about raw milk is unfair and biased, and on and on.
Hmm.
I think there is a little more going on here than people just expecting exceptional treatment in following the laws/regulations, and I think if you don’t know that, you’ve got blinders on. Most of us live outside of those blinders, but if you want to follow where the reins are telling you to go, that is entirely your issue.
This has clearly gone way beyond health regulations. It is now an issue of food supply. It isn’t tea either. In the land of plenty, people don’t feel they have access to "real" food. Now, why do you think that is? The alternative media? Surely, it can’t be true what all these people think. So it must be, they want exceptional treatment, and the regulating agencies should not tolerate this because THEY will get the public blame if something bad happens to a few people. That makes so much sense to me, that I think the regulating agencies need reconstructed.
Gwen
I’m not defending regulators here who invent newer and harsher versions of laws that aren’t written on the books. These are ideological – and illegal – actions, and such personal interpretation is not the regulator’s job either.
One of the biggest problems with current food laws – including the laws on raw milk and other raw dairy – is that they are based on large-scale or expensive technology models which are exclusionary and discriminatory in their effect. This bias goes all the way back to Sinclair’s The Jungle, which large-scale food processors welcomed since it brought order into the chaos they had created. Not incidentally, the regulatory scheme also brought legal certainty since manufacturers could argue, in defense when Bad Things Happened, that they had met all regulatory requirements. And as Observer points out, people have become used-to asking, "Where the hell were the regulators," when something goes wrong, whether it’s in the supermarket or (now, finally) on Wall Street.
I don’t have all the answers here, but my gut tells me that the groundswell is building so that, as David suggests, concerted action will become more and more possible, and thereby more and more effective. Clearing the air by obtaining meaningful, unambiguous exemptions from the Model Food Code and the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance and, in the case of the FDA Interstate ban on raw milk (21 CFR 1240.61) by getting rid of it, would go a long way to letting small farmers and their customers do what they want to do, and by the way, letting regulators quit wasting their time and adrenalin. Changes in this area would do much, as well, to strengthen the family farm, localize food supply, reward a more environmentally responsible and sustainable system and improve health than many other "simple" changes for problems all of which seem to have huge dollars signs attached to them.
A couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to work on the issue of farm-to-consumer egg sales in Michigan. In the case of eggs, at least in Michigan, there are both state and federal laws which exempt farm-to-consumer sales of eggs. Under the federal law (designed to combat the most common egg pathogen, salmonella), even non-consumer sales from flocks of less than 3000 hens are exempt. It’s simple. They are exempt. The law is unambiguous.
The civil rights movement finally got to the point where the unthinkable happened when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Think of it, having laws which actually let freedom – and the rights (and responsibilities) attendant to freedom – fly uncaged.
Finally, when going down this path we also must realize the maxim – be careful what you wish for, since you might live to get it. With freedom comes responsibility, and some risk. I think most reading this blog are willing to trade the perceived small risks attendant to raw foods from which they as consumers are not "protected" by burdensome regulation. The reasons, of course, are the very real benefits, both real and perceived, in eating more wholesome foods of our own choice. This is a shared risk, both for the consumer and the producer. The elephant in the room, of course, is litigation. The pro’s and con’s of how risk is to be shared for the inevitable Bad Thing when it Happens will also need a full and frank discussion.
The WSJ article states "rarely is the finger pointed at the Federal Reserve" [a privately owned banking system] and yet they have controlled US monetary policy since 1913. Some have reported that the purchasing power of the dollar has fallen 98% since 1913!
Also rarely is a finger pointed at the I word INSOLVENCY. The US reported national debt is $10.7 billion dollars inorder to even service this debt more debt must be created. If one must borrow money over and over to pay off existing debt are they not insolvent?
When will the US credit card be maxed out the day that it is no longer possible to place any more liens on future generations and all our national treasures are fiinally sold off?
We do not seem to have much hope to escape this monetary MADNESS1
————–
Probe results in arrest for sales of raw dairy goods
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/dec/21/probe-results-in-arrest-for-sales-of-raw-dairy/
cp
This, to me, presents an interesting idea, not an easy one mind you, but possible. What about creating a network of farmers and consumers via cell/email or whatever it takes? For example when these regulators come in, most times all communication/recording paraphernalia is confiscated and they are not permitted to contact anyone. How are they supposed to create a video or other means of documentation? What if we create our own networks where we can send out an SOS when something is about to occur? On a cell phone this could be done in a few clicks and would alert those nearby to get the cameras rolling as well as additional supportjust a thought here.
Industry is on their knees and doing all they can using fear to stop raw milk.
It is the feature article this month. It begs farmers to not allow people to buy raw milk from their dairies and even prompts the dairyman on what to say to the media if they call.
What is very interesting are the facts used to try and convince the dairyman to keep their raw milk away from the public. The arguments surround TB outbreaks 100 years ago.
I think we are making a difference and the dairy industry is feeling it. At a recent meeting of the Western United Dairymen in Modesto CA….the senior dairymen attending said….
"We have lost touch with our consumers and our products no longer match what they can eat or consume".
He is so very right…..So it looks like the "progressive dairymen" magazine is not so progressive. and the article is just a fear tactic to keep the sheep inline..the article was written by a lawyer. Maybe a friend of John Sheehan.
I made a short speech at this meeting and afterwards several dairymen came up to me and wanted to know how to do testing on raw milk because neighbors ask for raw milk all the time and they drink it themselves.
The big lie about bad bacteria and millions dying is starting to become more into focus. The bad bacteria are not so bad and are 99.99% good for you and they build immunity to those that are exposed to them and they rarely kill are cause illness. All they do is build immunity. The medical community tries to do this all the time….with weakened pathogens calling this a vaccination shot. They make fortunes on it. When raw milk does it orally and it works ….its very bad.
If I was not so happy from all the hugs and thanks from selling raw milk at yesterdays farmers market in Fresno…I would be pissed off. Instead I am so damn happy to be on the right side of history and health and wellness. Ignore industry and their corrupt handlers at the FDA…we have the people!!!
This is getting interesting.
Mark McAfee
I cut and pasted your comment into a folder. It is a keeper.
Happy holidays everyone!
Heres my question, in a state where it is legal to sell raw milk and raw milk products, why wouldnt the person involved obtain the necessary license to sell it legally? Is this a crackdown on raw milk or a crackdown on someone just not wanting to follow the rules?
CP, in Colorado, there are about 35-45 "legal" dairies that can sell herdshares. (And hundreds that are illegal.) Here’s what they have to do to be legal according to state statute (passed in 2005):
1. register with the health department, sending a written document stating "Raw milk is produced at this address"
2. Label their milk as "unpasteurized"
3. Inform their shareholders what their herd health & milk handling process is
4. Have on file a copy of the Bill of Sale and Boarding Contract for each shareholder.
5. Inform their shareholders of any tests performed and explain what they mean.
These aren’t very tough rules.
Illegal producers tell me they don’t want to be legal because they don’t want to register with the health department; they feel this would set them up for harassment. (As far as I know, there has been minor harassment, (confrontations about distribution, and storing raw milk with retail products, but no court action so far), but then again, there have been no outbreaks of illness attributed to raw milk in the past 2 years.) But there is a perception that the government is not here to help.
Illegal producers tell me they know their animals via intimate, daily washings, milkings and observation, ongoing education about herd health, alternative and early intervention of health issues, daily documentation of behavior, milk production, nutrition,offspring and soil management, and careful feed management, so they don’t need no stinkin milk tests or other outside monitoring. They know their teats; they check them twice a day. ( I should tell you that milk test results from legal dairies that test regularly tell me that sometimes, there are spikes in coliform counts and standard plate counts, but never has a pathogen been found. Not yet….)
Producers tell me it’s hard enough to break even without paying for monthly milk tests, and herd health tests, especially lately, with the high cost of alfalfa and grain.
Producers tell me they have customers who come to them because their children were sick and now are healthy, and isn’t that proof enough?
I hope this gives you some insight about why farmers don’t want to swallow government rules. When you have one hand on technology, and the other on science, it’s easy to lose your grip on vitality.
I’m not saying producers should rely solely on their self-perceived quality. I think the reason to test milk is to prove it doesn’t contain pathogens. If you can afford it, by all means test. We have to accommodate science and technology. But ultimately, science and technology are woefully behind sunshine and synergy.
The real trick is to find a farmer that gets that, and either has the income to test and prove it, or the customers that recognize shiny coats and bright eyes, healthy poop, devoted farmers, and fertile soil.. And if you do, pay them as if your health depended on it.
Regulation will never improve on sunshine and synergy. Freedom lets it happen. Government should always be more progressive than the population it serves. When it is fear-based, freedom suffocates.
-Blair
Your post reminded me of security cameras, hidden perhaps would work best, with a button or cell signal to turn on if needed. I would imagine the cost could be quite high, but would be proof of what occured when invaded. Then posting on the internet would show the masses what does occur.
When people read or hear about being invaded and held at gun point, behavior like that makes it hard to "work with" regulators. They loose any trust left.
People try to change laws all the time. It can take years and still not be successful. And in the meantime, those who want raw dairy (or whatever food) are prohibited or found underground. The underground worries me as that is where more unscrupulous people will prey on what the people want and not adhere to basic sanitation. And just like prohibition, those who want raw dairy will do without.
In answer to your question – why don’t they just get a license? Because when you get a license, you are conceding authority to them to regulate you. A license is permission from the government to do something you are not normally allowed to do. I reject the idea that I need the government’s ‘permission’ to engage in private, contractual commerce. If you really, honestly live in a free society, you don’t need anyone’s permission to do anything.
But we don’t live in a free society. Google "United States Corporation". The US is actually a corporate entity and holds title to you, your children, your car and your property. That’s why you need licenses and pay taxes. You need their permission to use what you believe is already yours.
A person can only have one master. Government, or God? If you’re a slave, it’s government, if you’re free, it’s God.
We are all responsible for the choices we make in life. If people choose to sell raw milk without the proper license, then negative consequences will occur when it is discovered they are not following the rules. Just my opinionif the raw milk movement wants to gain legitimacy, following the rules would be prudent.
As for the cost of producing raw milk, it appears that people are willing to pay for it. High cost does not seem to be a discouraging factor. If a farmer needs to make a profit, then charge more money.
Blair, there were three E.coli 0157:H7 raw milk outbreaks last year (Vermont, Connecticut and Missouri). Children became ill. I guess these farmers were not intimate with their cows. It appears that some of the tests being used to detect E.coli 0157:H7 in raw milk were designed for juice. Are these tests even valid when used for raw milk? Hopefully, Sally Fallon and Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund are looking into these small details when encouraging people to sell raw milk. Dead children will hurt business. If you would like to read stories about children who have died from E.coli 0157:H7, please view the victims stories on http://www.safetables.org/ .
Wild elk also can also host E.coli 0157:H7; so much for the theory that a natural diet can prevent these bacteria from growing in the intestines of animals. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/nov/11/evergreen-e-coli-outbreak-traced-elk-droppings/
Safety First needs to be the motto and the highest priority when children are consuming raw milk. If someone opposes regulation, then dont sell raw milk. Some in the raw milk movement want it both waysthey want the freedom to sell raw milk, but dont want to be regulated.
Or maybe some have been just fine with the underground raw milk market and are not interested with all the fanfare to make it legal. But in states where it is legal, the rules need to be followed.
cp
Have you ever heard of the Appleseed Project? Check them out at http://www.appleseedinfo.org. They work in the tradition of the American patriot, and considering your comments on the last article, you may appreciate what they’re doing.
Cheryl
Organic Dairy Farmer and Farmshare Operator, Wisconsin
If anyone finds this offensive, I apologize in advance. The issue is liberty, people! If you all want to go back to discussing whether or not raw milk is safe, I will leave you all alone, again.
Working with the regulators is difficult, and will continue to be difficult… what am I saying, sometimes it looks like it’s downright impossible. It’s looking like a game of chicken to me. We have the regulators driving the truck of law and government and the raw dairies and faceless consumers in another oncoming truck. They push, we push back.
The danger I see comes when either party precieves themselves backed into a corner. If you’ve got nothing to lose you are very dangerous indeed.
I wrote in one of my first comments here that I didn’t think Raw Milk was the kind of thing that would bestir people out of their beds in the middle of the night, clutching tight to plastic bricks of civil disobedience, but the outcry over what has happened to the Stowers has perhaps given the lie to my first assumption.
This scares me. I’ll be honest, I do not like violence and the thought of needing to actually fight for what should be a right for all Americans has me appalled. I know freedoms must be fought for, but I never thought the freedom to choose what to eat would be one of them.
Here’s an example, a spring delicacy for myself and my husband are dandelions. I pick them wild and either fry them up in fritters or ferment them for use in the fall and winter. I’ve done my research, I know to pick dandelions from only my yard, my in-law’s yard, or my neighbor’s (they’ve generously donated me their dandelions). When driving down the road though I see, in the ditches, a carpet of cheerful yellow, but I don’t dare eat those buds. Runoff from the road and the surrounding monocrop agriculture has most likely rendered these little rounds of sunshine unhealthy.
My point is, I know where to get my dandelions, but if I wanted to pick from the sides of the road and eat them I could. There’s no law saying I can’t forage for wild foodstuffs. It’s not a widely socially accepted thing to do, but I’m not going to be tossed behind bars if I want to do that.
Why then, if I wanted to get to know a dairy farmer, should I be forbidden to buy milk from him (or her) in its raw, unadulterated state? I see regulations as a way to protect the consumer when they are so divorced from the food supply that they don’t know any better.
I would much rather buy from the farmer who described to me how, before he slaughters his chickens he tells them they are going to go to heaven, than from a faceless organics company based on the other side of the US. Both products are organic, they both have licenses and I know from research they’re processed in the same way, both chickens flash-frozen. I feel SAFER, however, buying from the farmer. Even if he wasn’t registered as organic, he stood there right in front of me and told me how he cared for his chickens, he even invited me to come visit! If I get sick from eating his food I’ve got his phone number, I can give him a call and let him know.
I know this kind of relationship with a farmer isn’t always possible, especially with the way distribution works right now. There’s pockets and communities inside cities, even suburbs full of people that live their whole lives without seeing anything beyond their own microcosm (I’ve met people like this). It’s just not possible for the individual farmer to network with all of his (or her) consumers right now. For most products federal regulation is necessary because citizen regulation is impossible.
What if there were more farmers though?
More small farms, selling locally. Instead of heading to the grocery store full of processed and questionably organic food spread out beneath the buzzing of halogen lamps, what about visiting a farmer’s market. Each farmer has a stall set up. Each farmer is offering a little of this, a little of that. Feeling the warm afternoon sun against your back your hands hover over a bin of onions as the farmer describes that the long, cool, wet spring resulted in a much sweeter crop than normal. She tells you that her onions are amazingly sweet and juicy this year, but if you’re looking for something a lot sharper you might want to try a few stalls down, he didn’t plant his onions until much later in the season and they have a much stronger bite.
I know people keep advocating farmer’s markets, but saying "Search out local food" doesn’t do it justice! It’s a market, not a store. Each onion, chicken, and bag of flour has a face and, by proxy, personal liability. I went back week after week and began to recognize faces.
That same onion grower asked me what I thought of the onions I’d bought. I had the joy of relating to her how succulent and delicious they were, of describing my surprise as I sliced into one and milk flowed out. She glowed as I talked, like my enjoyment of the fruits of her labor was the most precious of gifts.
That is what it means to buy local, and that is why I believe that local dairies and farm to consumer transactions do not need such a heavy hand. There has to be a happy medium somewhere, doesn’t there?
Whats great about America is everyone can have their view and voice their opinion. You express the view of the small dairy farmer (I assume raw) in America. I on the other hand, represent the voice of all mothers whose children have become ill from E.coli 0157:H7 after consuming raw milk. Both voices are imperative when discussing the safe consumption of raw milk and raw milk products.
I can read, appreciate and empathize with the plight of the family farmer in America. If you are unable to do the same for families and children who have become ill after drinking raw milk, please pass over my comments.
Also, I am fully aware of the New World Order and all that goes with this knowledge. I think it is a bit large scale for anyone to really do anything about it. Consider yourself lucky to own a farm when the food supply becomes limited. With in impending world wide depression, there will not be money for regulators. It will be a dream come true. You will be able to produce and sell raw milk to your hearts content.
Cheryl, you know what else is amazing about America. I can choose the type of life and health I would like to have. I can choose to eat and grow healthy food. I can choose alternative medicine. I can live in a world within a world and life is good. I feel horrible for everyone who chooses to live in the sick world, but for the most part people dont want take responsibility for the tough choices in life. Its work. Its commitment. Its self-control. Its discipline. Eating processed foods and taking a pill when one is sick is just an easier and cheaper life option.
I choose to live differently. Im happy with that choice and noone is preventing me from doing it. It just takes a lot of research, hard work, and dedication. Life is tough and certainly not fair. I feel blessed to have the knowledge base to live a healthy life.
Cheryl, see if you can stomach the stories on S.T.O.Ps website. Whether you like it or not, this is the face of E.coli 0157:H7. I think all raw milk dairy farmers should be informed of the risks.
cp
Are you Mary McGonigle-Martin?
Does it really matter who I am? On this blog I’m choosing to be the voice of families whose children have become ill after drinking raw milk. In case anyone hasn’t been paying attention, the common raw milk illness outbreak theme for children in 2008 has been E.coli 0157:H7 and HUS.
cp
Of course it matters who you are. And the way you answered tells me that you are, because if you weren’t, you would have simply said ‘no’. When I started reading this blog 1 1/2 years ago, the conversation was monopolized by MMM, OP and e-coli. When I stopped reading this blog 5 months ago, it was because the conversation was monopolized with MMM, OP and e-coli. I started taking a peak again not too long ago, and am thrilled with the political tone of David’s writing, and that the regular commentors are starting to see the degenerate abuses by our government. I felt invigorated, we’re starting to ‘get it’! Don has been trying to tell us this for a long time, and now, we’re all starting to ‘get it.’
If we, again, are going to have a rehashing of MMM, OP and e-coli, please tell me now, because I definitely have better things to do with my time.
Oh, by the way, does Bill Marler know that you’re participating in a blog with Mark McAfee, with your litigation pending and everything?
Some health department inspectors beleive they are out to protect the farmers and their customers from sickness and disease. This is because they are taught that all food must meet standards to be safe– whether it is fresh, healthy farm food or the soft whip ice cream cones. One health inspector wrote me to say the children have rights too and raw milk or uninspected meat given to childen may be considered child abuse . Further, she stated she would not let her children play with others who have not been vaccinated!
Vegetables at farmers markets may be next. There is already concerns.
This has prompted a Family Farm Food and Health Alert in Ohio, as you suggested, to become organized. A reverse 911 would be in order. Your readers can see this at http://wholefoodusa.wordpress.com
No, Im not MMM as you like to say. Im the pathogen fact outbreak advocate for families and children who drink raw milk. Please re-read my previous post. I metioned 3 recent E.coli 0157:H7 outbreaks that happened in 2008. Also, there is more health than just drinking raw milk.
We live in a completely toxic world. Our bodies are inundated with chemicals. No one can escape it. The concept of health needs to be viewed holistically. We can improve our health by eating non processed, organically grown live foods and at the same time remove all toxic cleaning products, pesticides, herbicides, plastics, Teflon and aluminum cookware, and microwaves from our homes. Hormone disrupters are wreaking havoc on the human body. They affect the endocrine system. Once this system is challenge, your body is in trouble. Then there is the issue of dental amalgams. Mercury is toxic. Do they need to be removed in order for the body to heal? This plays a role in many illnesses.
Far-infrared saunas are also a must in every home. Id encourage everyone to read on this topic. Through the use of infrared saunas, you can remove toxic chemicals and heavy metal build-up from your body. This helps the healing process of the human body. Every person has their own total body burden of toxins. When you reach capacity, you become ill because your body on longer has the capacity to eliminate toxins.
Gut health and the immune system is another entire topic when discussing health. Probiotics play a vital role for gut health. Foods high in probiotics add the good bacteria to the digestive system which allows the immune system to work properly. Kefir, yogurt, cheese, fermented vegetables, kombucha (a Chinese fermented tea), and powered probiotics all add the necessary good bacteria to our diets. A healthy gut = a healthy immune system = a healthy person. The average person knows nothing about gut health. This is not a topic of discussion within allopathic medicine.
This is where raw milk comes in. Raw milk advocates believe drinking raw milk contributes to improving gut health. Raw milk is one of the many avenues available to achieve gut health. Controversy surrounds raw milk consumption because there is a possibility of pathogen contamination. Is it worth the risk for health?
Where does one begin if they want to improve their health?
Many that blog here are advocates for the Weston A. Price Foundation.
Brenda Watson has a PBS series on many topics of health: diet, colon health and detoxification. She has also written many books and has her own line of detox products. Brenda Watson healed herself from a chronic illness.
The Body Ecology Diet by Donna Gates teaches some great concepts regarding gut health and the immune system. Her diet is designed to help people with thyroid disorders as well as autoimmune disorders and cancer. Her website also offers a wide variety of products.
Dr. Sherry A Rogers has written extensively on health and the weaknesses of our allopathic medical system. She practices functional medicine. I would suggest reading her book Detoxify or Die. This book outlines the big picture of the toxic world we live in and the necessity of healing our planet. This book also outlines proper methods for using an infrared sauna and supplements to help with the detoxification process. Sherry Rogers also healed herself from a chronic illness.
Dr. Mark Hyman practices functional medicine. He converted to this practice of medicine after living in China and became poisoned with heavy metals, mainly mercury. His newest book is The UltraMind Solutuion. Its focus is the epidemic of brain disorders, there cause and how to heal the brain.
Finding a good naturopathic and/or homeopathic doctor also assists with the process of restoring ones health. Theres also Chinese and Ayurveda medicine. There is so much to learn.
Again Cheryl, if you dont like my posts, please skip over them. Since David has changed the format for logging in, we have all been able to have enjoyable converastions even though we have different perspectives. Please do not bring combat and ugliness back to this blog. Open, respectful, communication with an array of perspectives is what makes this blog worth reading.
cp
They jailed the Goat Milk gal in CA becuase she was selling raw milk with out inspections or a permit.
I dissagree with the CDFA heavy handed arrest and believe that this is rediculous.
The word is out tune in at 1830 January 3rd for the Food Network series on Raw Milk.
The Fresno Bee is doing a feature article on OPDC and why raw milk is selling like crazy and why GOT DEAD MILK and its star studded milk mustache wearing $100 million dollar ( not sure how much it is but it is huge ) advertizement campaign has decreasing fluid milk sales.
I think that the FDA has spent its "nutritional capital". People just do not believe them anymore or their motives.
Check back later.,….merry christmas.
Mark McAFee
I’m not sure who appointed you…..but it was probably your big head that leads you to believe that "I represent the voice of all mothers whose children have become ill from E.coli 0157:H7 after consuming raw milk"…no matter what hand you look at.
Arrogance and righteousness at it’s worst. I suggest you check your ego a bit here, after all you might embarass yourself. Can you say "wolf".
You might speak for those ignorant mothers, the ones who haven’t researched raw milk, and have come to a true realization of the risk/benefit factors. You might speak for those who really aren’t supportive of raw milk per se, but willing to jump on the latest fad, because of it’s social status thing. You might represent those, with their head in the sand, that trust and believe that the standard food safety system, and the standard food supply is beneficial and safe (and try and adapt that view to raw milk). But the notion that you represent ALL mothers whose kids have gotten sick from raw milk is self delusion. Keep banging your chest that hard and you’ll get a bruise.
You say this:
…you know what else is amazing about America. I can choose the type of life and health I would like to have. …I feel horrible for everyone who chooses to live in the sick world, but for the most part people dont want take responsibility for the tough choices in life.
but I don’t think you mean it. You are really much more in agreement with Prosecutor Scott Serazin, who said about Manna Storehouse (as reported by cleveland.com):
Manna has members affirm that they ‘take full responsibility for their own health, health choices, food choices and food quality.’ County officials say the business cannot operate that way. Assistant County Prosecutor Scott Serazin said any business that sells perishable foods must be licensed and follow regulations covering those who store and supply food. There is no exception in the law for a co-op, Serazin said, and Manna cannot ask customers to waive safety regulations. ‘You just can’t have that,’ he said. "There has to be some kind of regulation and inspection of food.’"
Sounds to me like Manna Storehouse members were attempting to do exactly what you boast of doing. They were making informed decisions, and taking responsibility for them. Manna Storehouse did not force members to waive safety regulations. The members simply did not want those regulations. They decided as much. A tough decision, you might call it. But uh-oh, those decisions do not agree with you or the regulators. Too bad for Manna Storehouse members.
And by the way, you are correctly pleased with your freedom to grow your own food. But in this latest step down the slippery slope of regulatory control, government has asserted that private citizens cannot buy food grown by their neighbors without permission from government, and only then when those transactions occur according to government rules.
There is only one next step, and that is to regulate, license, or even prevent you from growing your own. (Some would say, me included, that government has already crossed that line by attacking herdshares.)
Love and hope,
=Blair
Could it be said that these so called food safety experts are nothing more than a monopoly enforcement arm of the big corporate dairies?
Gaining legitimacy and following the rules of a monopoly will not result in freedom to choose raw dairy! IMHO
We live in a society governed by law not by official decree.When anyone is accused of breaking a law,they need to be able to see that law in writing and to have any questions they have about that law answered to their satisfaction.What is happening now is that when people question authority,the authority,instead of answering the questions,brings in the armed police to intimidate.Property is seized without even any discussion over the nature of the law in question or a determination that the law actually was broken.All of this type of behavior by the authorities is unlawful and should never be tolerated.Even small transgressions should be punished or they lead inevitably to much greater transgressions.
If adults want to drink raw milk for the health benefits, they can decide for themselves if the risk is worth it. With children, raw milk is more of a crap shoot. Childrens immune systems are not fully developed. Why would any parent want to take the small, informed risk with raw milk when using probiotics will produce the same health benefit without a pathogen risk?
Raw milk is not the only option for improving gut health and the immune system. I dont understand the logic that parents have the right to choose a risky health option for their children because in America we have liberties. Why would any parent truly interested in health put their children at risk?
If anyone decides to answer this question, please dont provide a list of all the other risks in life. Please just answer the question about the risk of raw milk. Heres the question, why would any parent want to take the small, informed risk with raw milk when using probiotics will produce the same health benefit without a pathogen risk?
cp
There is no choice of food that does not carry risk.We can’t live on probiotics alone.Would you feed your children pasteurized milk that was packaged in a plastic container?Only the FDA and the plastics industry still believe that the hormone disrupters in the plastic containers are harmless.
I don’t agree with your premise that enterobiotics are a valid substitute for raw milk.
You say you don’t understand the logic that results in parents feeding raw milk to their children. Well, to me, the conversation ends there. You don’t understand. Must I prove to you in biological terms that my choice is right before I may act on it? Just how confident are you of your position? Enough to take responsibility for the health of my children? We are talking here about a food that been sustaining mankind for millennia. It is also, as far as I am aware, the only food that can sustain a human being healthfully with no other inputs. You want me to substitute a capsule for that?
Many here have mentioned the loving intent of those who desire to protect others with regulations. Well, I am getting offended by those who suggest that I am recklessly endangering my children by not following their rules. I have been accused of abusing my children by home schooling them. I have friends who have been threatened by officials for refusing to have their children vaccinated. Now I’m told that I ignore my children’s best interests by giving them raw milk. Natural, unprocessed, old-fashioned, beautiful, milk! Really cp, do you want to join that chorus? Are you so sure that your logic is correct that you are justified in coming between me and what I have made for my children?
Ive been reading the comments on this blog long enough to know that you own your own family cow. I assume you milk this cow yourself or family members do. My question was not directed to the one cow family milk supply. I would think that with one cow you can make darn sure all is clean before milking. This is your familys milk supply. Raw milk is not inherently dangerous. As you well know, the poop pathogens are the problem. Also, living the farm life, immunities are probably built up in your family that protects you against the bad bacteria.
This is far different from someone who participates in a cowshare program or the next step, raw milk being sold in farmers markets or in grocery stores. First, the natural ecosystem of immunities is disrupted when the consumers do not live on the farm. Second, what number of cows would be considered safe to manage when raw milk is being sold to families? Is there a safe number in the risk assessment? When would sanitation practices become compromised by the sheer size of the dairy herd? 4, 8, 10, 20, 50, 100, 400?
It only takes as little as 10 E.coli 0157:H7 bacteria to make a child very ill. If a cowshare program has 20 cows, is this a safe number to manage to make sure all teats are squeaky clean, as well as the surrounding area? What about 400 cows? With this high number, doesnt the risk for a poop boo-boo become riskier? So when were talking about an informed risk when drinking raw milk, the risk is probably relative to the size of the herd being milked and the sanitation practices followed.
There have been numerous studies done on the positive effects of probiotic supplements in regards to gut and immune health. How do you know it is not as effective as raw milk and raw milk products? For families who do not live on a farm and milk their own cow, wouldnt probiotics be a safer choice? Isnt it a worthwhile question?
This blog is inundated with people who share the WAPF food philosophy. Is it possible there are a number of ways to reach the same health objective Sally Fallon has promoted?
I bet the families this year whose children became ill from raw milk in Vermont, Connecticut and Missouri wished they had known about the probiotic option. All children became contaminated with E.coli 0157:H7 with a few developing HUS. What do you think their opinion is of the risk they took with their children when choosing raw milk?
Respectfully,
cp
Well now, perhaps you have identified a small bit of common ground here.
I like your phrase the natural ecosystem of immunities for it helps express the complex interplay of factors that optimizes health, especially those involved with exposure and immunity. And though I would quibble with your statement that the immunity ecosystem as you call it is disrupted when the consumers do not live on the farmin truth it is disrupted when we do not integrate at all levels with the natural environment (that is, farms are not magic bullets)I would heartily agree that those of us who enjoy clean farm life are generally stronger than those living daily in, say, a hyper-sanitized suburban neighborhood.
I do own a cow, as you said (and share milking duties with my wife) but if I did not, and lived instead in the ‘burbs, I would not be afraid to obtain raw milk from a farm like Mark McAfee’s. And I would drink that milk in the context of a suburban life that included occasional dirty fingernails, an organic backyard garden, playtime on a pesticide-free, chemical-free lawn, grass-fed beef and pork, mosquito bites, sincere church-going, and an eschewing, as much as possible, of medical care.
I believe you would agree that true health results from a balance of many, many factors. Untainted food from healthy soils; appropriate exercise; an attitude of reverence, generosity, contentedness, and humility; natural exposures to biologics; limited exposures to toxins; gentle healing modalities in times of need. We fail to some extent at all of these things. But our most dramatic mistakes are made in response to those failures. Rather than re-mold to submit to natural balance, we instead attempt to reform the natural world. We look to wipe out perceived dangers. That is a neurosis, in my opinion, and is at the root of many pushy, hurtful, peace-stealing systems, and probably the root of more health problems than we imagine. Children decked out in helmets and elbow guards riding tricycles, or being saved from a playful mud puddle, and even in some cases (not all!) drinking pasteurized milk, I see as reactiveness, distrust, and fear. I will trade some risk to avoid that. In fact, I believe the health risks are far greater in reactiveness than in submission to nature.
What would I do if I lost a child to HUS triggered by a raw milk bacteria? I don’t know, but my guess is that I would never touch raw milk again. Likewise if I lost a child to a boating accident I would probably never again step into a boat. Actually, I know a man whose six year old son was killed when the wood pile he was playing on collapsed. Afterward the man could barely participate in life at any level. Such events prove only this: That a sane, centered populace will not allow rare, worst case events to direct the mainstream.
You are a gifted, poetic writer. Your spirit is grounded in simplicity and idealism. We need more of that in this world.
However, isnt the history of the world defined by reactivity? Isnt life like a pendulum swinging from one extreme to another? Isnt this pendulum the natural change process in life? What one defines as progress another would define as destruction. Both perspectives are correct. The raw milk movement would be defined as progress by some and destruction by others. It all depends on the perspective one is viewing it from. Its a value judgment based on beliefs.
Raw milk consumption is not going to disappear. The pendulum is swinging back, hopefully to the middle and what you would refer to as the centered populace. With this swing, we cant live in idealism. Tough questions have to be asked. Honest discussions need to take place. Fear from either side can not dictate and dominate the direction. People need to come to a middle ground of agreement. Can this be accomplished? I tend to be an optimist at heart, but with this subject, my pessimism starts leaking out. Many people on this blog cant even discuss this topic with out getting ugly and rude with each other. Arent we a microcosm of whats happening in America on this topic? If we cant all come to a place of agreement, a middle ground of compromise, how will this happen in the big picture?
I think there are two huge issues that need to be discussed openly and honestly and then maybe a middle compromise can be reached.
1. Raw milk contains something that promotes a healthy immune system. This needs to be researched. We wouldnt have a large group of people returning to raw milk if peoples health were not improving because of it. We wouldnt have parents taking risks with their children if the health improvements were not dramatic.
2. An open, honest, realistic discussion about pathogens and the illnesses that occur from these pathogens needs to be addressed. When an outbreak happens, how can it be prevented the next time? What caused the outbreak? Outbreaks need to be used as a learning tool to prevent future outbreaks.
I am also deeply disturbed when the discussions on this blog start turning to guns and violence. I dont think this is the centered populace you are referring to.
cp
In the words of someone else I read recently (slightly different context), it’s a word that stops all rational conversation in its tracks. "Safety" brooks no give-and-take. It is the trump card we play when we don’t want to have to bother thinking a little harder about which rules really make sense, what effect they’re having on us, and who those rules are really protecting.
We have to start thinking about changing everything we’re up against. A society that encourages and rewards crazy lawsuits. A society that treats adults like babies. And especially adults who throw around the word "safety" more frequently than a 2-year-old uses the word "No!"
"Safety first?" I don’t think so. Individual rights first. That’s what the government is supposed to be there to protect — not safety. In fact, the idea that government should play nanny to Americans or can even effectively do so is what has gotten our society into the mess we are in today.
Parents should have the right to decide for their children, whether you like it or not. Only in cases of ill intent or deliberate neglect should the state take over, and that is simply not the case with people giving raw milk to their children. If these cases of HUS were caused by raw milk, it was an accident. Accidents happen and there are no guarantees, as numerous food outbreaks under the watch of the FDA have shown. What other parental decisions would you like to see that state take over for parents in an attempt to prevent anything bad from ever happening to anyone?
I have an idea — how about 10 mph speed limits? It would save lives, right? Safety first!
If you don’t want to drink raw milk, don’t drink it. But you don’t have the right to decide for others or for their children by the imposition of coercive laws. Drinking raw milk violates no one else’s rights. In cases of alleged neglect or fraud the courts should adjudicate cases. Period, end of story.
And on the science front, surely you’re aware that raw milk contains immunoglobulins and other enzymes — not just probiotics.
fa-rm.org
http://fa-rm.org/blog/index.html
You have the right to choose anything you want for your children. You are the parent. Did someone say you didnt have this right? You seem to have a lot of knowledge about raw milk. How did you learn this knowledge?
What do you know about probiotics? Have you read any of the research on this topic?
What do you know about E.coli 0157:H7? What happens to a child when they eat a food source contaminated with this pathogen? What kind of symptoms does this child experience? In other words, what does E.coli 0157:H7 look like when a child suffers from its toxins? How long does a child suffer with these symptoms? What happens when it turns into HUS? What are all the possibilities for damage on this childs body? What are the long term consequences of this damage?
Informed choices and their consequences are always important to know about when we make decisions for our children.
cp
All of us agree that informed decisions should be made when it comes to children. But ultimately this isn’t really about a tit for tat about the facts of biology. You’re trying to shift the focus of this discussion and try to insinuate that public policy should be based in science rather than individual rights, just because some parents are not fully informed — and that’s morally wrong.
"You have the right to choose anything you want for your children. You are the parent. Did someone say you didnt have this right?"
Yes, the government says parents don’t have the right. In about half of states the government says that parents don’t have the right to choose what they want for their children, wrt raw milk. So, no, parents actually *don’t* have the right to choose based upon their own best judgment. The state has decided for them — and that’s unfortunately your ultimate insinuation here, though you refuse to come right out and say it. So now I’ll ask a rhetorical question of my own. You believe that the *state*, NOT the *individual*, should decide should decide such matters for "the good of society" and "the good of the children", don’t you?
If you can answer "yes" to that question, then all rational conversation has ended with you, because you don’t support individual rights and you support state-sanctioned force to prevent people making decisions that don’t actually violate anyone else’s rights. When someone advocates the use of force (as exists in the form of laws making it illegal to drink raw milk in about half of states) the conversation is necessarily over.
First I want to apologize for offending you. That was not my intention.
You’ve made some interesting assumptions. Im absolutely baffled as to where you came up with everything you state I believe and what you think my motivations are for asking the previous questions I asked. I ask the tough questions about raw milk consumption and pathogen contamination and you go into a defensive tailspin about Im not sure..personal rights.
I dont believe it is illegal to drink raw milk in any state. If you own your own cow or goat, you can drink raw milk. Its just illegal to sell raw milk.
Im assuming you live in a state where it is illegal to sell raw milk. I live in a state where it is legal. I have no problem with raw milk being sold to people who are interested in drinking it. In my state, you can buy it in the grocery store.
Im not offended by the questions you ask, why are you so offended by mine? Im not assuming youre an ingnoramus by asking questions. Im not trying to put you on the defensive. Im just asking questions about raw milk and the pathogens that can be found in raw milk.
You are right about one of your statements, public policy should be based on science. Parents purchasing raw milk for their children should be informed of the fact that raw milk is a high risk food for pathogen contamination. In the state where I live, I would like to see a point of sale sign where raw milk is sold. On this sign would be the list of pathogens and the illnesses these pathogens cause. For example, some parents may want to know that their child could suffer permanent kidney damage from E.coli 0157:H7.
You asked me this, [So now I’ll ask a rhetorical question of my own. You believe that the *state*, NOT the *individual*, should decide should decide such matters for "the good of society" and "the good of the children", don’t you?]
My answer, no that is not my belief.
Now that Ive answered your question, will you answer mine about E.coli 0157:H7 contamination.
What do you know about E.coli 0157:H7? What happens to a child when they eat a food source contaminated with this pathogen? What kind of symptoms does this child experience? In other words, what does E.coli 0157:H7 look like when a child suffers from its toxins? How long does a child suffer with these symptoms? What happens when it turns into HUS? What are all the possibilities for damage on this childs body? What are the long term consequences of this damage?
Thank you.
cp
Kinda off topic, but I find this new ad campaign disturbing…
"The Whopper Versus the Big Mac. Which is the Real King of Burgers (part 1). This is the First of Three Articles Comparing the Style of a Truly American Product – Namely, the Hamburger"
In a recent series of commercials, one company promotes their burger to "virgins" from presumably 3rd world countries, never "exposed" to the wonders of an American burger.
Hmm. They do not present any downsides about the dangers of burgers…food safety if underdone, e.g. undercooked… and obesity if overdone, e.g., supersized.
Big or small company, each should be held accountable. Disappointing that raw milk producers, in general, seem to take the same path toward denial when dealing with parents of sick kids. Indeed, reading Milk Farmer and friends attacks on cp, when she asked some questons about food safety is very sad. The exchange sounds like the Big Whopper! I’ve come to respect the small farmer and the raw milk movement, but when the proponents in the movement talk like Cargill to protect their interests (and do not promote honest exchange and labeling of their product)…this is very discouraging.
http://tinyurl.com/8pv7k5
9-Year Old Girl Has To Take Ag Giant Cargill To Court To Get Justice
Posted on December 24, 2008 by E. coli Lawyer
When the Minnesota-based Agricultural giant Cargill dumps on you…well it is not a pretty site. The privately-owned company still 85 percent controlled by the descendants of the MacMillan and Cargill families. It clicks off $1 billion in profits a quarter and its $120 billion in annual revenues would put it in the top 20 if it were publicly traded and eligible for the Fortune 500…
What was denied? Was it denial that it was a particular dairy farmers milk? Has there been proof it was a particular farmers milk? Or speculation? Raw milk bottles in CA are labeled per regulations/laws. If you didnt believe it was your milk, wouldnt you stand up to what you believe to be false accusations?
Indeed, reading Milk Farmer and friends attacks on cp, when she asked some questons about food safety is very sad.
Attacks? If cp needs answers then it would be best that s/he do research for his/her self. Obviously people werent in agreement with cp, that does not mean any attacks were made, insinuating such is inflammatory.
It is so sad that the govt allows and encourages people to consume processed foods (or should it be phoods?) yet it attacks natural foods. There is a great loss of respect and trust for the govt, and they brought it on by themselves.
Ive drawn blood from kids that had fat globs floating in the tubes. Do parents or adult patients appear concerned? Rarely. Should those parents be charged with child endangerment? The average American eats fast foods @ 16 days a month, plus the processed foods eaten at home and outside the home. Have you seen a fatty liver? Or renal damage? Enlarged heart? Children have more "illnesses" today than 100 yrs ago. Obesity isnt the only disfiguring result of todays nutrition on society.
Observer said on 12/20:
"…….But, doubt that the officials are terribly "exasperated" over raw milk; despite the dynamic exchange on this blog, raw milk and local herdshare/co-op arrangements are a very small slice of the food safety frustration pie. However, your point highlights an interesting catch 22…in general, if an outbreak occurs from any food product (including everything from "big ag" to raw milk, custom slaughter meat, etc.), the public and media are quick to accuse the officials of failing to protect them. Headlines read…the investigation was too slow, the regulations are too weak or not enforced well enough, why wasn’t the public warned sooner, and on and on……"
Steve Bemis said on 12/21 :
"….Finally, when going down this path we also must realize the maxim – be careful what you wish for, since you might live to get it. With freedom comes responsibility, and some risk. I think most reading this blog are willing to trade the perceived small risks attendant to raw foods from which they as consumers are not "protected" by burdensome regulation. The reasons, of course, are the very real benefits, both real and perceived, in eating more wholesome foods of our own choice. This is a shared risk, both for the consumer and the producer. The elephant in the room, of course, is litigation. The pro’s and con’s of how risk is to be shared for the inevitable Bad Thing when it Happens will also need a full and frank discussion….."
Absolutely hit the nail on the head. There is nothing more to it than that. Selling raw fluid milk is legally the same as injecteding any other product into the stream of commerce, no matter how small or controlled one tries to make the "stream." We as a society are "legally" so far past the times when statements like "buyer beware" and "I am an educated consumer and assume all risk associated with this product" hold any legal water that to wish for those "simpler times" is not a constructive endeavor. One must deal with the reality of today’s legal world, not one that is long gone. Dairy products made with raw fluid milk, beyond those whose standards of identity are already encompassed by the current version of the Code of Federal Regulations (hard, semi-soft and soft ripened cheeses aged more than 60 days, etc.), must have some standard of identity associated with their production before the legal construct can be in place to sell these products in today’s world, bring the revenues to farmers and the foods to those who want them. RIghtly or wrongly, the 20th century ended with pasteurization of milk being an assumption of the entire mechanism in place for selling milk and dairy products in the United States, and whatever interfacing comes up from time to time between that mechanism and tort law. That won’t change as a result of short-sighted exceptions for some permutation of "limited sales," which tort law doesn’t recognize when a producer is sued, or the equivalent of moonshining. One of the most difficult questions to which I have not seen the answer is how will farm insurers react when their underwriting and claims departments learn/comprehend that unpasteurized dairy products sales are going on — denial of coverage, cancellation of the policy?
The "shared risk" noted by Mr. Bemis is at least four-part: (1) producer (individual monetary liabiility), (2) consumer (risk of illness and resultant financial and other losses), (3) government (e.g. costs of food-borne illness investigations, regulatory apparatus, court system to handle tort cases, cost of stopping spread of human illness, etc.) and (4) insurance companies (payment of claims). If you talk to the health care industry, they probably would say they are a fifth player since they have to treat any illnesses. This is the same equation that exists for the sale of absolutley all food products (or any product for that matter — we just don’t ingest all of them, they can cause harm in other ways).