I’ve been traveling and trying to meet some writing deadlines, so am just in the last day or so catching up here. There’s definitely a lot of catching up to do. The growing concerns about the viability of our food system expressed by many on my previous posting seem to be coming to pass nearly before our eyes–one day it’s meatballs, today it’s tomatoes.
I also appreciate the comments from Bill Marler and C2, in particular, since they help keep us in touch with the conventional wisdom out there. (Though was Marler in his literature search on raw milk actually acknowledging that some studies show health benefits from raw milk? If so, watch out, it could be bad for business.) I appreciate as well how they present themselves as just doing their jobs—Marler going after the big bad corporations that allow pathogens into our foods and C2 taking the hand he is dealt, and enforcing the regulations on the books.
Especially intriguing is the New York Times article Marler linked to about the court fight over the contaminated church supper meatballs, and Nebraska Beef’s response, essentially saying consumers should have known there was a significant risk of getting sick from the beef.
Imagine if someone got sick from raw milk poured on cold cereal, and the farmer said, “Hey, bonehead, you should know this food is very susceptible to contamination.”
No serious producers of raw milk would do that, since they take so many precautions to protect against just that kind of situation, and it rarely occurs. But Nebraska Beef is being very honest when it says the church ladies should have known better. Really, all you have to do is read the many government warnings about raw meat and news articles about illnesses and recalls—or just look at the photos of the feedlots—and you’ll know that ordinary ground beef from the corner grocery or Wal-Mart is a high-risk proposition.
Marler is quoted as saying the Nebraska Beef approach is “boneheaded,” and he’s probably right. However, it’s boneheaded not because it’s dishonest, but because it likely won’t succeed in court.
Marler or whoever represents the church ladies will fan the flames of fear—this big bad corporation Nebraska Beef sold you their beef based on a supposition it is safe. A church lady was killed. The next victims could be you, or your children.
We as a society have two problems we can’t face up to—at least not yet. Our leaders can’t acknowledge that our food system is unsustainable, despite daily evidence to the contrary. Moreover, we see personal responsibility as a foreign concept. So the church ladies will most likely win. But, give Nebraska Beef some credit for being honest.
As for C2, he/she regularly tells us in one way or another that he/she is just doing his/her job. “I think you have the right to overturn these rules by convincing the ‘powers that be’ why they are not needed. Then go forward with your raw milk consumption legally.”
The problem with that argument is that the regulators each day make choices about which regulations they will enforce, and which they will ignore. Once they decide to enforce certain regulations, they have to decide how hard and how widely they’ll enforce them.
It’s clear that in California, Pennsylvania, and New York the regulators have decided to enforce the raw-milk regulations super aggressively. Why? Probably because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration told them to. Maybe there’s a carrot of some special federal funding down the road, or some other federal help on another problem the states care about. Maybe some Washington pols have received “suggestions” from the drug industry, or the milk lobby, and asked the FDA for some help.
But to suggest that the current regulator obsessiveness about raw milk is driven primarily about “safety” and “protection” is either naïve or dishonest. There are too many other supposedly safety-related regulations that are allowed to slide, or ignored completely.
In their views, Marler and C2 are just a couple of working stiffs doing the noblest of jobs—protecting little kids from illness. Best for such individuals not to think too much about the corrosive effects of the fear-mongering and finger-pointing they foster.
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/food-poisoning/news/20080610/salmonella-tomato-warning-expanded
The Salmonella outbreak has been ongoing since April. It has spread before the media and/or authorities notified the public. As of today, one man’s death maybe linked with the Salmonella as a contributing factor. It is close to mid June and the "source" is as of yet unknown? This time of year, NM imports most it its tomatos from Mexico….Geee could that be the source? It appears to have begun in TX and NM.
Perhaps buying local will be the "in" thing to do. We have 12 tomato plants heavy with green fruit.
I like what this person is saying.
Her letter asked a series of questions, including:
"The FDA was able to publish a list of states, territories, and countries where tomatoes are grown and harvested which have NOT been associated with this outbreak. If the agency possesses evidence that would allow it publish such a list, why did the FDA not compel a recall of tomatoes from the other regions that were not listed?"
Speaking of code reds, the South Korean government is on the verge of collapse because 200,000-plus demonstrated against imports of American beef (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0611/p12s01-woap.html). They fear our beef has mad cow disease. Maybe they’ve been reading too much about our feedlot practices.
That’s a horrible thought!
Steve, when someone asks a question such as that, I wonder if they allow their children do such things. Supposedly there are no stupid questions…I beg to differ.
"The dirtier the milk…."
I can only assume that he and others who think as he does, prefer chemical laden processed foods (or is that phoods?). Those who prefer foods in their natural state are lumped into the "(insert preferred derogatory name)" pile. I cannot understand why.
As for those who say it is a "safety" issue; do you really think that anyone who consumes any product doesn’t believe there should be safety/sanitary standards in place? Those standards should be fair and obtainable on a consistant basis.
Since you are being generous and brave enough to post here again (as though we don’t know you have cajones to post anywhere you want. LOL), I agree to join you and David in a toast to our constructive communication, collaboration, and cooperation. I’ll keep my drink simple: a very nice wine from France produced in the finest of soils (approved by miguel–I’ll share the glass…I mean bottle…with him).
Seriously, the most telling point in your comment relates to the supposition that Dairy A is accusing the plaintiff’s of being at fault because of "knowingly feeding their child a product that might be contaminated." Is that dairy then admitting their product was or could have been contaminated (not what I’ve read here previously)?? How can they have it both ways–question to the gang.
Darth
To Darth: They can’t, but it can’t hurt to try.
Sorry for the slow response, but I didn’t understand your question. Does "two ways" mean the warning label on milk? It is supposedly there to inform consumers that the product could contain live bacteria, so that if a parent chooses to feed it to their child, they know they are incurring a risk. It’s simply a government requirement – not any kind of inference of "contamination".
Sylvia
"Phoods" – heh.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080611/ap_on_re_us/raw_milk_crackdown
http://www.marlerblog.com/2008/04/articles/legal-cases/organic-pastures-where-there-is-smoke-there-is-fire/
"The problem with that argument is that the regulators each day make choices about which regulations they will enforce, and which they will ignore."
No disagreement with you on that point. Just look at the way our domestic tomatoes are being sacrificed for Mexico. It would seem as though (I do not have all the facts) they also killed the domestic spinach industry with a nationwide recall (no brand names) two years ago using a similar amount of epidemiological evidence as the Mexico-tomato connection now. Why no recall this time? I’m not much into conspiracy theories, but is this more about protecting trade than food safety?" I’ve seen similar questions asked about Mad Cow disease policies–where does food safety end and politics begin? They are intertwined and underlie the apparent inconsistencies in how different products are regulated.
Reading that article posted by Steve Bemis and the comments that followed made me wonder if the raw milk community might want to practice some "self-regulation" of a "bad player" in the industry before FDA gets the opportunity with a multistate outbreak. Okay, accuse me of fear mongering again, but ignoring the possibility could be deadly for your industry. If a multi-state outbreak occurs (and at this time, there is only 1 dairy in the country that would most likely be involved), FDA will NOT be coming to the defense of the smaller farmer’s that sell locally at farmer’s markets or participate in small scale cow shares. There will not be a list of "safe raw dairies not involved in the outbreak." LOL. Working stiff raw dairymen(women) will be shut down as fast as the big one despite the obvious differences in risk.
C2
"Reading that article posted by Steve Bemis and the comments that followed made me wonder if the raw milk community might want to practice some "self-regulation" of a "bad player" in the industry before FDA gets the opportunity with a multistate outbreak."
"Again I find myself agreeing with C2"
Two suggestions:
1) consider not using your precious donation dollars to help that player with his legal problems
2) Oppose the SB 201 bill in CA and go back to the coliform count standard (which I still think is rather arbitrary, but it could be a mechanism…), OR give that bill some teeth instead of supporting the current format that panders to one dairy’s needs–at the expense, IMHO, of current or future small scale (possibly smaller risk) farmers.
Bill–thanks for jumping on again and bringing all your love and passion into the conversation (I can’t imagine that spending some time on this blog helps line your pockets).
C2
The parties had differing views of the worth of the loss–and your point whould be? ….If the state was correct, then why would they pay anything? Oh wait, the state is in a financial bind right now..Arnie isn’t too good at budgeting.
http://www.marlerblog.com/rawmilk(1)(1)(1)(1).pdf
The environmental investigation at the dairy identified E. Coli 0157:H7 from three cows but PFGE patterns of these isolates did not match that of the children. Despite not finding the outbreak strain at this dairy, the source of infection for these children was likely raw milk products produced by the dairy.
(emphisis mine)
Guilty without proof? Bastardizing at its best.
http://www.marlerblog.com/Cluster%20of%20Campylobacter%20infections(1).pdf
CA EPI 08-03: Cluster of Campylobacter infections possibly associated with raw dairy products
Summary
In December 2007, eight persons with Campylobacter infection who reported drinking a commercially available (Dairy A) raw dairy product were identified. . Only one patient isolate was available for DNA fingerprinting; the pulsed-field gel electrophoresis patterns of isolates from four cattle fecal samples collected at Dairy A were indistinguishable from the patient isolate. Dairy A raw dairy products were highly suspect vehicles as the source of these illnesses, but further investigation to definitively implicate this product was not feasible.
There are many dictionaries that define indistinguishable. Under methods, it does not implicate Dairy A, only suspects. Vigilantly parties abound.
samples of raw whole milk (code date Nov 20), raw skim milk (code date Nov 17) raw cream (code date Nov 22) collected November 7, 2007. For routine pathogen testing where found negative for Campylobacter, E. Coli 0157:H7, Listeria and Salmonella.
Wasnt this one of the tests done by the state that was questionable for proper handling of the specimen? Was it Bob that used the term "bottom feeders"? I wonder how the lawyers that defended OJ can look in the mirror each day and feel good about themselves.
Please do not be offended, but using your logic "we" have NEVER identified the source of an outbreak, or any causal association with disease and the environment–food, animals, air, water, etc. (definitively). Your logic suggests that the links to pasteurized dairy product (including the recent tragic Listeria outbreak), hamburger, and all the others are
"Guilty without proof? Bastardizing at its best."
Indeed, open up any of those state reports or publications not related to raw dairy and you will see the same language and criteria (caveat: specific to the specific pathogen or disease, but all equally based on circumstantial evidence that is nevertheless the gold standard). Furthermore, look at the reports about smoking/lung cancer or even the literature on the benefits of raw milk in protection against allergies posted here recently. All bastardizations?
C2
I was looking back to see who posted this statement. I couldnt find it. Is this statement making a comparison between the attorneys who defended a man who brutally murdered his wife and Bill Marler who defends people who become ill after eating contaminated food? Talk about a stretch!
This is more of the ugly talk that serves no purpose but to insult.
Did I mention my father was a criminal defense attorney? Its a hard life, but he believed in the principles of our constitution. Does that sound familiar Bob?
"Know your farmer" needs to mean more than know his name. It means really know him, his ethics and his priorities. I have said I am appalled that Dairy A has outsourced. I am also appalled at the actual practices of some "organic" vegetable farmers I know, both industrial organic and smaller farms. There are other farms that are not certified organic whose practices I am completely comfortable with. Really knowing your farmer is not easy and unfortunately certifications and inspections are a poor second best.
re this: "…the raw milk community might want to practice some "self-regulation" of a ‘bad player’ in the industry before FDA gets the opportunity with a multistate outbreak. Okay, accuse me of fear mongering again, but ignoring the possibility could be deadly for your industry."
The "raw milk community?" C’mon! That’s a cheap attempt at marginalization.
A recurring theme on this blog and elsewhere has been a support of small farms and the farmer/consumer relationship, and thereby helping to avoid the problems inherent in "industry." Therein is your self-regulation. Keeping the third parties a long arm’s length away is healthy physically and psychologically, but "industry" cultivates third party involvement.
Regarding Bill Marler and his ilk: Lawyers are paid to win. That is their business. They are decidedly NOT paid to find truth, except as it relates to winning their case. That is why a single lawyer in a town will go broke but two will become rich. Shame on us for allowing law to trump relationship. The ugliness of that mistake is everywhere evident, including here on this blog, so well exemplified by Marler’s smarmy bragging.
Perhaps I’ll write another letter. 🙂
Here’s my other proposal that I posted here earlier (obviously inspired by the outsourcing research I did):
http://tinyurl.com/6bs48r
My dad grew up in a labor camp where this was not the case. I expect when enough guys lost their testicles, they came to find some value in the law.
I’m certainly not, nor is anyone I’m aware of, suggesting that there is no value in the law. I’m saying merely that relationship is always preferable to law.
Law, since it emerges as a "solution" only when relationship is weak, is likely to become a swingling club. We have enough of that sort of thing in areas we can’t control.
Dave
In a similar vein, reveling in a poster-child story of suffering prepares us for neither good science nor good policy. That it can cause a jury to award millions of dollars as if distributing M&Ms is evidence enough of the damage it can caouse. If we were to apply that sort of emotional thinking to every product and service we would soon have no products or services, or they will be provided only by centralized systems big enough to fight endless legal battles.
Your use of the OJ trial as a comparison is ridiculous!
Bird poop on a tomato. Throw the whole think away? Is washing good enough. What if the bird just left a confinement dairy and dropped e-coli poo on my plant? Worst case scenario I know. Any ideas?
Escherichia coli 0157:H7 Infections in Children Associated with Raw Milk and Raw Colostrum From Cows — California, 2006
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5723a2.htm
You are very silly about a serious situation!
🙂
In any case, problems in his labor camp used to be solved very quickly.
Amanda
If you squeezed the poopy tomato and sold the poop juice at the farmer’s market, you’d probably have a problem. If you consumed it yourself and got sick, you would essentially sue yourself because you would have to shoulder the financial consequences.
Amanda
I like your Dad already!
Dave
I’ll pick the rest of the report apart later when I have more time, but I find the last sentence interesting:
"To reduce the risk for E. coli O157 and other infections, consumers should not drink raw milk or raw milk products."
Well, let’s make a few changes:
"To reduce the risk of highway deaths consumers should not buy cars." You HAVE sued auto companies forproducing inherently dangerous products that kill kids, right?
"To reduce the risk of foodborne illness consumers should not buy deli meats." You HAVE sued Boar’s Head and others, right? After all, the biggest group of foods that cause illness are deli meats.
"To reduce the risk of cirrosis of the liver consumers should not consume alcohol." I’m sorry, but I have not heard of the suit I know you filed against your favorite scotch distiller…but you must have since you believe so strongly in protecting us rather than letting us make our own decisions.
Nope…you just found an easy target that lines your pockets.
BTW, your condescending remark about your ambulance warming up…nope…the folks that ride ambulances want to actually help people that are suffering. Your type just wants to follow the ambulance and get a retainer agreement signed in the ER. That’s your idea of "help".
Bob Hayles
The lesson to learn from this is that it is the "terrain" or conditions present that determine whether a bacteria acts as a pathogen or not.To prevent illness we need to control the conditions so that the beneficial bacteria predominate and inhibit the growth of the pathogens.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:RZlSpAu_BasJ:www.chlorineinstitute.org/files/PDFs/ChlorineEffectsOnHealth.pdf+chlorine+ppm+toxic+effects&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us&client=firefox-a
,
"Effects of Chlorine Exposure
tolerated for up to one hour;
The effects of various levels of chlorine
inhalation vary with the individuals involved. The
following list, taken from the Chlorine Institutes
Pamphlet 90, Molecular Chlorine: Health and
Environmental Effects, is a compilation of chlorine
exposure thresholds and reported responses in
humans:
0.2-0.4 ppm: threshold of odor perception with
considerable variation among subjects (a decrease
in odor perception occurs over time);
1-3 ppm: mild, mucous membrane irritation
5-15 ppm: moderate irritation of the respiratory
tract;
30 ppm: immediate chest pain, vomiting,
dyspnea, and cough;
40-60 ppm: toxic pneumonitis and
pulmonary edema;
430 ppm: lethal over 30 minutes;
1000 ppm: fatal within a few minutes.
To receive a lethal exposure, a person would
have to remain near a leak source, within a chlorine
cloud, and without respiratory protection."
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/418230_3
"A Multistate Outbreak of Salmonella enterica
from Emerging Infectious Diseases
Conclusions
We report on a large, multistate outbreak caused by S. Baildon, an unusual Salmonella serotype. The outbreak was associated with eating raw tomatoes. Because less than three percent of estimated Salmonella cases are officially reported nationwide[4,5], this outbreak could have included 3,300 cases.
Raw tomatoes were epidemiologically implicated as the source of this outbreak. This finding is supported by several observations. First, eating raw tomatoes was strongly associated with illness in the case-control studies, and nearly all patients ate them. Second, these studies were conducted independently, using different control recruitment strategies. Third, raw tomatoes have a 3-week shelf life, consistent with the brief occurrence of the outbreak.
That many restaurants across several states were involved suggests the tomatoes were likely contaminated early on–at the farm or during packing. Salmonellae can grow on tomato skin surfaces and infiltrate core tissues during tomato harvest, packing, and transportation[6,7]. Air spaces in tomatoes at high field-heat temperatures can constrict when submerged in cool water. As air space volume decreases, water and salmonellae can be drawn (by vacuum effect) from the dump tank into the fruit through the stem scar. For these reasons, postharvest process water should be potable and warmer than the incoming fruit (8).
Once tomatoes are contaminated, elimination of salmonellae can be difficult. While chlorine levels of 200-250 ppm would be expected to substantially reduce salmonellae[6,7], even higher levels of chlorine disinfection (320 ppm) did not eliminate salmonellae from tomatoes in one laboratory study[6]. The efficacy of chlorine against salmonellae depends, in part, on the location and amount of contamination. Salmonellae inoculated onto stem scars and growth cracks survived disinfection better than on smooth tomato skins[7].
The grower/packer cooperative we observed had at least some elements of a hazard analysis critical control point (HACCP) program for commercial tomato packinghouses[9] including warm, chlorinated wash water. However, we observed operations after the outbreak and did not have access to historic water quality measures (free chlorine, pH, and temperature). Even if free chlorine levels of 125 ppm were maintained, such levels would not be expected to eliminate organisms in stem scars or damaged tomato skin."
I keep things easy for myself. If I get hired by a client who has a legitimate claim, I sue on their behalf. I do not care if it is Jack in the Box or Dairy A. That is the choice I make. You make yours.
-Blair
"These larger and more severe wildfires are an unintended consequence of a suppression policy that doesn’t work," says Richard Minnich, a wildfire ecologist at the University of California at Riverside. "If anything, suppression actually endangers society."
It struck me then that it was analogous to what is going on in our food supply.
It was a shot at a system where McDonalds gets sued for serving a hot bevarage hot…whe the lawyer should have told the lady, "Sue ’em when they give you cold coffee for crying out loud."
It was a shot at a system where some POS lawyer sues the local dry cleaner for a million bucks for losing a pair of his pants.
It was a shot at a system where someone cannot even say, "I’m sorry. I made a mistake. I’m human, but I’ll try harder next time.", without a legal vulture there to, as you said yourself, own the person who was…human. A system where folks cannot even apologise without opening themselves to legal action.
Perhaps I’m wrong about you personally. I don’t think so, but maybe I am. One thing I do know though…I can sleep well knowing that my house payment, my next meal, isn’t dependent on someone else’s misery.
Bob Hayles
(For that matter, I’ve drunk lots of raw milk too without a problem – comparably as much as pasteurized, and it doesn’t scare me).
Birds who sit on tomato stakes in general, are bug-eaters, not grain-eaters. I’ll take an educated guess and say that bug-eating birds carry less infectious e-coli and have healthier poop. UNlike starlings that land enmasse in your pasture until you go out and shoo them away.
Having been through a dissolution, and then a very nasty custody battle involving $20,000 past due child support, and having had to pay a lawyer to simply keep the right to keep my children, I agree that the main people who "win" are the lawyers. Even the worst of enemies can come to an agreement to keep their own money in their own pockets, if they have any sense. Divorcees sometimes don’t have that sense when it comes to something they care about.
Compensation lawyers on the other hand, sometimes work on commission – the bigger the award, the bigger their check. So they have every reason to take it to the limit. When Bill Marler says, "I will own you," that is what he is talking about. That statement, in my book, is unethical, egotistical, and mean-spirited. There is some good in compensating a victim, but there is plenty of evil in becoming arrogant or vicious about it.
Likely a few of us here are privy to the philosophies of developing a scapegoat or common enemy, and see this dichotomous thinking for what it is; and others here are in the dark about what that is. Some of us are looking at the whole picture in a different, brainstorming way, and looking for solutions, whereas some are stuck on righteousness of their own cause and the unrighteousness of anyone else.
My domestic relations lawyer was one of the top rated in my state. Her retainer and fees were expensive, but I paid her less than my ex paid his "free consultation" lawyer. In fact I paid less than anyone I know who has had a custody battle. She took very little time, and did an excellent job, and I have my children. I didn’t follow all of her advice – didn’t take my ex to the cleaners and have him put in jail. Because that wasn’t what was best for all involved. She was discouraged with me, but I don’t care much for what others think is "best" for my children, when they are building their career on it.
My experience with arrogance is that the higher it climbs, the harder it falls. That applies to lawyers as well as corporations.
The topic that keeps getting lost in all these discussions is that pasteurized has caused more illness than raw. The "you got bugs in your food, I’m gonna get you," mentality is patronizing and not helpful. It’s like having someone throw an alligator on King Arthur’s roundtable just to stir things up. Obnoxius.
In the past month, my baby has eaten goat poop, chicken poop and garden dirt, and she hasn’t even gotten diarrhea. It is less dangerous than what is on my shoes from the hospital, and it is less dangerous than the milk, vegetables or meat I buy in the store, poop or not. I don’t particularly care for all the drama here.
Gwen
"Perhaps I’m wrong about you [Bill Marler] personally. I don’t think so, but maybe I am."
I give you much credit for that statement and believe it resembles how our initial "conversations" developed. Now we’re good friends that agree to disagree, right (and I will try your RAW feta someday)? I think if you spent a little time looking around the Marler blogs, you’d see a different side: in particular, an effort to problem solve and an admission that the legal system is blunt intrument for change. Check out his testimony before congress:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-oi-hrg.022608.Marler-Testimony.pdf
Gwen,
I like your idea about examining differences between crows, starlings, or other birds in terms of pathogen carriage relative to their exposures to different diets and environments (for example, feedlots). Interesting. Also, maybe the "drama" helps nothing, but it reflects the current state of things, especially among the "decision makers" on the various sides of the issues.
C2
I haven’t noticed this. Will you site where you see this? I think many are in denial of the dangers of processed foods along with added chemicals to include environmental.
"all equally based on circumstantial evidence that is nevertheless the gold standard"
This is not true, I believe I had posted in the past an example. The terms regarding "probabilities" are used when there is no definitive source/cause.
"Is this statement making a comparison between the attorneys who defended a man who brutally murdered his wife and Bill Marler"
I sure am. A lawyer has a choice. Without being court appointed, there is no reason to take a case where you believe someone is guilty to defend.
"Using the OJ trial analogy to its illogical conclusion"
They correlate in regards to lawyers who defend obvious criminals. Someone used the term "bottom feeders". As I have said in the past, if there is proof (not maybes, probabilities,links…) that somene errored then they should be liable. Mr. Marlar you’ve made it quite obvious that you disapprove of raw dairy, your slander is appaulling coming from a professional. Your mannerisms on this blog have shown you in a negative light.
"I will not support the absurdly small coliform count. I will continue to support FTCLDF. I believe strongly in the cause."
Yes, indeed.
"It was a shot at a system where McDonalds gets sued for serving a hot bevarage hot…
That Micky Ds’ was not frivilous. (sp)http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
Can you imagine the damage of her mouth/throat had she taken a drink of 185 degree coffee? Apparently it was a repeat performance by Micky-Ds. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm