No way around it, the issue of food rights, responsibilities, and standards is complicated when it comes to raw dairy. That helps explain why the discussion here sometimes exasperates.
It certainly helps to discuss the issue in terms of specific situations, because that is when the complexity becomes clearer. As one example–that involving the Hartmann Farm in Minnesota–I’ve found myself conflicted. I’ve had concerns about the Farm’s safety practices involving raw milk, based on the evidence put forth by the Minnesota Department of Public Health about matching pathogens on the farm and in customers who became sick. Yet I’ve strongly opposed the state’s efforts to infringe on the rights of Minnesota consumers seeking to buy the farm’s milk. It’s a tough situation to reconcile.
This past weekend, I had some discussions that helped me come at the matter from yet another vantage point. The discussions stemmed from an important action last May, when the board of Organic Valley voted to drop as members of its cooperative dairy those selling raw milk privately, beginning in 2011. One question that came up at the time was this: how was the huge cooperative going to enforce its new edict?
The enforcement effort is apparently well under way. The result is that some farmers are leaving the Organic Valley stable, while others are staying with the huge cooperative, and foregoing their raw milk sales in favor of the more predictable bulk sales of milk for processing.
At a conference of the Northeast Organic Farming Association’s New York chapter in Saratoga Springs, NY, where Organic Valley was a major sponsor and donator of food, and I was a speaker, I met two employees of the cooperative who said they have been part of the enforcement effort.
David Hardy, an Organic Valley pooling coordinator, told me that in his territory of New York state, four or five dairies have “taken their signs down” advertising raw milk. Their decisions came after “discussions” he and the dairy owners had about Organic Valley’s new policy.
He explained the reasoning behind the policy as two-fold–that farmers have been using Organic Valley as a fallback while building their raw milk businesses and, as a result, have had ever less milk available to Organic Valley.
He said Organic Valley was willing to overlook sales to immediate neighbors, but won’t forgive dairies with farm stores selling raw milk to anyone who comes calling.
Peter Miller, Eastern regional manager, said he’s been focusing heavily on Pennsylvania, and there, the movement has been the opposite. At least five dairies have bid Organic Valley adios and either moved to exclusive sales of raw milk, or else taken up with another processor, which isn’t enforcing an exclusive arrangement.
He said Organic Valley has confronted a growing problem of milk “diversion”–raw milk that doesn’t make it onto Organic Valley trucks for processing because it’s being sold unpasteurized, or else used for making cheese, butter, and other products. “We may have a commitment to a processor for 50,000 pounds of milk, and when we show up with 35,000 pounds, that’s a problem.”
Both men indicated that the raw milk issue was the most divisive in the cooperative’s 23-year history. But they also made clear that the decision was a business decision, having little or nothing to do with raw milk’s perceived risks or the wishes of regulatory authorities. They noted that probably all Organic Valley’s directors and executive board members are raw milk drinkers. Indeed, they expressed amazement when I told them about the recent declarations from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that raw milk can’t be produced safely. “Well, I’ve been drinking raw milk a long time and I’m still here,” said Hardy.
And therein lies a key point. Organic Valley is a cooperative, or collective, of dairy producers, and it has a set of strict production and other standards about to who can join and what they need to do to keep selling via Organic Valley. It has just decided at long last that one of its standards is that, to be a member, you can’t sell raw milk privately.
The decision has nothing to do with rights or with safety. It has everything to do with business, markets, and profits. Organic Valley made a business decision to close the door on becoming involved in marketing raw milk, and instead focus exclusively on pasteurized products. It was clearly concerned about the competition it was experiencing from raw milk (“diversions” are another word for competition, in this instance).
Equally important, Organic Valley made a business decision to use its size to force as many raw milk producers as possible out of business. (If you stay with us, you have to abandon the raw milk business.)
Organic Valley’s executives may not agree with the FDA’s reasons for coming down on raw milk, but the reality is they don’t care what the agency believes or doesn’t believe. As long as the FDA and state agencies come down on raw milk, they are serving Organic Valley’s business interests, and that is all Organic Valley cares about. As I said, for Organic Valley, it’s about market share and profit margins.
Remember, many of those customers and would-be customers Organic Valley most craves are existing or would-be raw milk drinkers. That’s why it sponsors events like the one I was at this past weekend, and has in the past been a major presence at the Weston A. Price Foundation (though it was absent from last November’s conference). And that’s why organizations like NOFA eagerly grab Organic Valley’s money and food “donations”.
You don’t think Walmart announced the lowered sodium and sugar levels in its food products last week because it cares about its customers’ health, do you? No, it saw its food sales leveling off, and the crazy growth of farmers markets and other good-food sources, and decided it needed to join the bandwagon and rah-rah for healthy food. And Michelle Obama took the unprecedented step of endorsing a major corporation’s marketing initiative because she wants Walmart and its suppliers to do well enough to create more jobs, which will help her old man get lots of corporate donations to win re-election. This is all about money, and the fact that there’s a shift going on in how people view food and health is reverberating in board rooms and political back rooms. Did someone mention rights? Ha ha.
It’s often said America has the best legal system money can buy. In the world of business, you gain rights and privileges according to how much financial influence you have. You need congressmen, senators? Those people are expensive. Food rights advocates can deluge them with all the phone calls and emails we want, but when push comes to shove, as it did in the U.S. Senate over S510 (the food safety legislation) in December, money ultimately speaks the loudest. Those companies and individuals who make large contributions call in their chits during such tough situations.
Same thing goes with insurance companies. To smy opin’s upset that Hawthorne Valley obtained insurance coverage for raw milk from Farm Family, and smy opin didn’t, I don’t know the particulars of the situation, but it could well be as smy opin speculated–Hawthorne Valley had more financial clout.
Part of where I’m going with this is that, say what you will about Organic Valley, but it has been very successful in using production standards and effective organization to carve out a new market (organic pasteurized dairy), and achieving serious clout. Legislators and regulators listen to what the organization has to say.
Raw dairy producers don’t need to emulate Organic Valley. The reality, though, is that organizing to establish safety standards for raw milk is in large measure a savvy business move. In answering the biggest objection put forth by the public health and regulator community, it not only does improve safety, but sends a powerful marketing and branding message. In addition, by joining forces to guarantee their milk will meet certain standards, raw milk producers help create an organization that will grow and gain clout. There is power in unity and organization.
As I and others have said, you assert your rights via any number of avenues–in the courts, the legislatures, and in the marketplace. The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund has begun the process in the courts. Even if it doesn’t win many cases initially, it has begun the long-term process of educating judges, and forcing regulators to undergo open questioning and cross-examination.
This is a long-term battle. The kinds of lofty goals Tim Wightman neatly articulated following my previous post about true sustainability for the sake of future generations are admirable. To gain the opportunity to implement such lofty goals requires first having some clout. I would say to lola granola that it’s an open field right now. The Weston A. Price Foundation definitely has clout, by virtue of having spent some years now assembling a membership in excess of 11,000, and that gives it an advantage, if its leadership chooses to get seriously engaged in the standards arena. Scott Trautman, the Wisconsin dairy farmer, has assembled a small core group of farmers and consumers who want to carry the safety and standards torch. As I’ve said, there’s nothing that says the arena is limited to one, two, or five efforts.
There’s absolutely no doubt that a huge market exists for raw dairy. Many raw dairies can’t produce enough product to satisfy the market. There’s also little doubt in my mind that sitting around agonizing about conspiracies and purity of motives is just another way of playing into the hands of competitors like Organic Valley, and government and medical community adversaries. It’s time to leverage the huge amount of clout that is waiting to be mobilized, and seriously fight back. ?
kirsten weiblen-
Actually, chilling milk more slowly will negatively effect the bacterial profile.
The temperature range of 40-50F is the most conducive to the growth of cold-loving organisms like pseudomonas. Enzymes that degrade butterfat (lipases) are also most active in that temperature range.
For overnight storage of milk that is going to be turned into cheese the next day (or another cultured acidified food), 50-55F is the ideal storage temperature. Milk should not be stored at 50-55F for more than 24 hours
However, if you are chilling milk because you want it to stay "sweet", it should be chilled to 34-38F as quickly as possible. The less time the milk spends in the 40-50F range, the better.
In short — Either you chill milk or you don't. The "in between" of chilling milk more slowly is only going to make psycrotrophic problems worse.
Check out this.
http://aphvan.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/organize-fish-3.jpg
HMMM CORPORATE PERSONHOOD one wonders how much this strange sounding issue has adversely affect our UN-A-LIENABLE RIGHT to choose raw milk.
Those letters and emails were ignorred.
Proudly, I was one of the first or the first producer of OV organic milk to be thrown out of CROPP and OV. I have deep respect for OV…. But…I also think there will be plenty of bulk tank hedging by the current OV producers that sell raw milk on the side. A human with a heart does not deny friends or established customers access to raw organic milk. This new OV rule is ljust lip service and a bandage on a carotid artery gusher.
OV is a processor and no processor ever wants to see raw milk by-pass them and connect to a consumer. OV simply wants to protect its base of "change adverse producers" that are scared to death by the FOOD CHAIN challenges of raw milk responsibility….this is understandable.
What is not well understood is why OV does not create a super value added regionally branded raw milk product that can provide additional strength to its producers and brand. What the OV producers do not have and fear….OV has plenty of. OV has the marketing, branding, QA, trucks, branding marketing etc….the farmers stories could be used on these regional markets. Wow! what a great departure from dead milk. How much more dead milk they can sell if they fixed lactose intolerance for their consumers with living raw milk?!
You will see OV change its ways or crumble away in the next ten years….you watch.
The scariest thing I have ever seen OV do is to flush its moral ethical toilet and promote Soy Milk as a CROPP OV product.
Now that is real whoring.
Greed in business decisions will catch them someday. If the consumers gut and health is not put first priority….then their Organic Karma points are being burned and nutritional justice will take out OV in time. Truth is the truth. The gut, the thyroid gland, testicle size, fertility, bone density, man boobs, breast lumps do not lie.
Mark
http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-index.html
MW
The CDC gives no credit to raw milk or any of the studies about raw milk. Mary. You are denying moms a fair review of the data. The fact remains People are not dying or getting sick in CA. The CDC makes no mention of clean verses dirty raw milk.
It does appear hopeful that at least John Sheehan is not quoted with his Russian Roullette and never ever statements about raw milk. The CDC statements are showing a definite softening at the FDA.
Mark
Your question implies that the CDC website is scientifically oriented. It isn't. Its purpose is propaganda. So I wouldn't be surprised if CDC has no studies to support the claim about TB.
As an example on the opposite side, where studies do exist, the Q&A section asks this question: "Does drinking raw milk prevent or cure any diseases, such as asthma, allergies, heart disease, or cancer?"
We know that the European PARSIFAL study of nearly 15,000 people showed raw milk reduces the incidence of asthma and allergies, yet here is how the CDC answers the question: "No. There are no health benefits from drinking raw milk that cannot be obtained from drinking pasteurized milk…"
Propaganda is about presenting a particular point of view, without letting the facts get in the way.
David
The hearing was attended by about 20 people. Everyone that presented testimony was in favor of the bill. Further information at Garden State Raw Milk:
http://www.gardenstaterawmilk.org/index.asp
BTW, did they follow up on the other website you wrote to the FDA about?
Another reason I was curious about the science behind those statements is that so many raw milk studies are rebuffed because they were done so long ago. I'm thinking about certain animal studies, milk cures, Weston Price findings, etc.
I am curious to know not only if the statements are based on actual studies, but also how one decides which "old" science is reliable and which is not. It seems to be based entirely on whether or not the result supports their bias. LOL.
The problem is: who is going to fund these studies?
It's occurred to me that the claim that raw milk suppresses pathogens might qualify as enough of a "myth" that Mythbusters might do it. Pasteurized milk, cafo raw, some OP or Claravale, some goat milk, etc. They take on all kinds of weird projects, even some that don't explode. The controversy might even be an added attraction for those guys. It would be great exposure for fresh milk, too. And they'd be very impartial testers. No one could claim bias. And Discovery Channel would fund it.
Already done….watch the CDC website for the next few weeks.
Any bets? There is a lot quietly and confidentially brewing…
What did OV say when you requested them to share their vat temps for raw cheese with you?
When I asked OV, they refused to tell me…that was years ago.
The test I use to see if a raw milk cheese maker is making truly raw or fake raw cheese is this….it is called the "hang-up" test…..Cause if it is fake and thermalized they just "Hang-Up".
If the cheese maker is "truly raw" ( ie…vat temps of less than 105 degrees or about body temp )….they will brag about it all day!!
Mark
This is from the raw milk cheese maker's association:
http://www.rawmilkcheese.org/
"We define Raw Milk Cheese as: Cheese produced from milk that, PRIOR TO SETTING THE CURD, has not been heated above the temperature of the milk (104F, 40C) at the time of milking …."
(emphasis added)
The only reason I mention this is because there are traditional varieites of raw milk cheese in which the curd is cooked to a much higher temp than the ~103F-105F traditional in cheddar.
In fact, it is probably fair to assume that the Swiss mountaineers that Weston A. Price studied cooked their curd to about 118F when they made alpine cheese during the summer months.
The reason is entirely because of their terrior.
The cheddar makers of southwestern England had abundant access to salt, and the means to build larger starter cultures to drive acid development in the vat, both factors which promote drying of the curd. Thus the cheddar makers did not need nearly as hot of cook temperatures in order to achieve the same moisture content as the alpine cheese makers.
The realities of alpine cheese making required the use of much more heat to produce a low moisture cheese capable of aging through the long winter. The alpine cheese makers did not have the ability to store milk and build large starters cultures the way that their counterparts in England did.
In fact, there is one particular outstanding raw milk cheese, made here in Wisconsin, that is modelled after the cheeses made in the alps — Pleasant Ridge Reserve, which is probably the most decorated cheese in the U.S. They cook their curd to about 118F.
My understanding is that above 118F, enzymes begin to be denatured. That is basically the threshold for heat tolerance. You can hold your finger in water that is 118F indefinetly. If it is 119F or more, you're going to be forced to pull it out.
That being said…. you begin to cook off delicate floral aromatic compounds (from pasture flowers) above 110F. The only purpose of applying those cook temperatures to the curd is to produce a durable cheese that can age for a long time. It is still a real raw milk cheese, as long as the milk was not heated above 104F prior to setting the curd.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/business/26milk.html?_r=1&hp
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the FDA worked with small raw milk dairies like they worked with the mega poison dairies?
Was that confer or sleep with?? Just asking??
That means NCIMS and DFA are the FDA…..they are the champions of FOOD INC. Interesting that it was the USDA that turned in this data and exposed the problems at the FDA.
When the dairy antibiotics are branded "Today" and "Tommorrow"….that means antibiotics in your milk today and tommorrow. You can bet your dead milk that CAFO PMO milk has antibiotics. You can also bet that industry will fight tooth and nail to prevent this testing or allow the expanded use of additional tests for additional antibiotics that are currently not tested for.
http://www.accelgen.com/farm%20products/udder%20health/Mastitis_Treatment.aspx
MSRA killed 20,000 real live people last year … FDA policies are cold blooded killers.
Crazy world….I testified right after a high level FDA vet that was flown in to a Dean Florez hearing in Sac two years ago. The hearing was about antibiotic use in animal feed. At that hearing, the FDA vet said that there was no evidence that antibiotics in Animal feed created an additional risk to humans. When the medical community had just delivered a deep stack of documents stating just the oposite. The FDA vet sat with the dairy and meet guys at the hearing.
My testimony was just short of a dog bite to the FDA throat… I was so incredibly shocked by the FOOD Inc of it all.
If the public would just connect the dots. A class action suit filed against the FDA for American genocide sounds about ripe for filing soon.
Mark
Stay tuned. I paid nothing to hush anything
More to come for sure.
Is there a desire here to censor CDC or those who want to voice a negative testimonial about raw milk? Does this blog believe in censorship – only allow positive stories about raw milk? For a group that supposedly cares about rights, it is pathetic when you want censored comments against your views, especially on a government website that rarely allows any testimonials on either side. Those who had a bad experience with raw milk should have the same rights to describe their experience as those who had a great experience with the product. In a truly open society, everyone could weigh the testimonials and make a decision. This blog tries to force anyone with negative comments about raw milk to shut up, and moreover, tells anyone who suggests guidelines/standards to go away. The outcome looks predictable.
Food Freedom Betrayal
There ain't no conspiracies today yesterday or will there be tomorrow everyone is just trying to do a good job eh?
your comments still get posted on this INDEPENDENTLY RUN forum, so quit grumbling
Please let us know when the taxpayer-funded, purportedly-objective Centre for Disease Control ( now there's an Orwellian term for ya!") extends the same even-handed approach
Week by week the Marler Thomas website Food Poison Journal gloats about any trivial setback in the Campaign for REAL MILK. But will they post my reasoned feedback ? Yet to do so …
You once told us that there's no such thing as chemtrails and that you should know because you're a pilot.
I'd invite you to watch this 8 1/2 minute video:
The whole planet is being sprayed with barium and aluminum and you want stricter standards for better milk quality when this is going on right above our heads?
And don't anyone dare call me a conspiracy theorist when all you have to do is look up in the sky.
I do have to complement you. You are extremely gifted. What is you secret for performing fellatio on the CDC and the FDA at the same time?
http://www.viewzone2.com/chemtrailsx.html
The link above gives another possible reason for all the aerosol spraying however the results are still the same not good. About 3 years ago when David was in our area for an unpleasent event concerning a local farmer I pointed to sky showing David the extemely strange contrails overhead. I am sure David remembers that because he made a note of that on his note pad. David perhaps you might give us your view on the chemtrails since many claim it does adversely affect our health. Thank you.
Each year, federal inspectors find illegal levels of antibiotics in hundreds of older dairy cows bound for the slaughterhouse. Concerned that those antibiotics might also be contaminating the milk Americans drink, the Food and Drug Administration intended to begin tests this month on the milk from farms that had repeatedly sold cows tainted by drug residue.
But the testing plan met with fierce protest from the dairy industry, which said that it could force farmers to needlessly dump millions of gallons of milk while they waited for test results. Industry officials and state regulators said the testing program was poorly conceived and could lead to costly recalls that could be avoided with a better plan for testing.
In response, the F.D.A. postponed the testing, and now the two sides are sparring over how much danger the antibiotics pose and the best way to ensure that the drugs do not end up in the milk supply.
What has been served up, up to this point, by Food and Drug has been potentially very damaging to innocent dairy farmers, said John J. Wilson, a senior vice president for Dairy Farmers of America, the nations largest dairy cooperative. He said that that the nations milk was safe and that there was little reason to think that the slaughterhouse findings would be replicated in tests of the milk supply………………………
Today, every truckload of milk is tested for four to six antibiotics that are commonly used on dairy farms. The list includes drugs like penicillin and ampicillin, which are also prescribed for people. Each year, only a small number of truckloads are found to be hot milk, containing trace amounts of antibiotics. In those cases, the milk is destroyed.
But dairy farmers use many more drugs that are not regularly tested for in milk. Regulators are concerned because some of those other drugs have been showing up in the slaughterhouse testing.
Federal officials have discussed expanded testing for years. But industry executives said that it was not until last month that the F.D.A. told them it was finally going to begin.
The agency said that it planned to test milk from about 900 dairy farms that had repeatedly been caught sending cows to slaughter with illegal levels of drugs in their systems.
It said it would test for about two dozen antibiotics beyond the six that are typically tested for. The testing would also look for a painkiller and anti-inflammatory drug popular on dairy farms, called flunixin, which often shows up in the slaughterhouse testing…………………………
Chris Lewis
We wait for more from the CDC and FDA with anticipation…but given their history and the recent website, why should we think it'll be more of the same…one sided garbage, half the story, and lies.
… rather than answering truthfully the terrible health issues of CAFO milk that were raised in the NY Times article….
Although I believe Truly Concerned's recent post was a bit out of line, you too have been rude to posters here, but to my knowledge, your posts have never been censored. If this is incorrect, please let this forum know.
In re your last post: OPDC has NEVER been proven to have sickened Mary's son or anyone else. I think it is outrageous that she continues to claim it as a fact, when she and her lawyer together didn't have the balls to prove it. Mark was forced to settle because of his insurance company. The prosecution rested for money – not truth. Oh – and for a bit of shameless self-promotion as well.
Shortly after their annoucement, a reader on their Facebook page asked how they manufactured their raw cheese and to what temperature they brought it up to. They bring it up to just 2 degrees under pasteurization, which is definitely not raw to me. I used to buy it by the case, but not anymore. They are being very misleading by labeling it raw. Not a company you can trust.