A couple weeks back, a debate flared up following my posting about the “poo duel.” It was a recurrence of a discussion that comes up from time to time, namely, how do pathogens fare in raw milk? Or more to the point, do pathogens actually become overwhelmed by the “good” bacteria, the lactic acid, of grass-fed raw milk?
In fact, it seems to be one of the major bones of scientific contention between opponents and advocates of raw milk.
On one side, we have people like Pumendu Vasavada of the University of Wisconsin, who completely rejects that idea.
At the International Association of Food Protection February symposium on raw milk, he argued that raw milk is inherently dangerous because “it is a hospitable substrate” for pathogens.
He also rejected the idea that “good bacteria” are beneficial. “Almost any bacterial species is capable of producing intestinal symptoms if swallowed in sufficient numbers,” he stated.
At the other end of the spectrum, some raw milk advocates have argued that raw milk from cows raised on grass is a terrible medium for pathogens. Naturopath Ron Schmid stated in the first edition of The Untold Story of Milk that “the good bugs the cows naturally harbor are able to kill off potential pathogens such as Salmonella and E.coli 0157.”
And Mark McAfee, owner of Organic Pastures Dairy Co., commissioned a laboratory in 2002 to inject a sample of his milk with pathogens, and concluded that when “pathogens were added to one-milliliter samples of organic raw milk they would not grow. In fact they died off.” That study has become part of the lore of the raw milk movement.
In commentary on my posting about the “Poo Duel,” Amanda Rose published some partial data about the study Organic Pastures commissioned. Others requested the full study, and I have posted it here. Amanda suggested that the results don’t show the pathogens were killed off.
Mark McAfee seems to have backed off his claim posted on the Weston A. Price site, telling me yesterday, “With raw milk by itself, you don’t see the explosion of bacteria…Lactic acid producing bacteria is the safety mechanism that inhibits the growth of the bacteria.” And a revised edition of The Untold Story of Milk eliminates the story of the study.
The lab study OPDC commissioned is really somewhere in between the original claims, and what Professor Vasavada argues. BSK lab inoculateda huge number of cells into the OPDC milk, and then tested to see if the bacteria wouldgrow, die, or stay the same over the shelf life at refrigeration temperatures. The data show that, overall, the number of bacteria stayed the same for these E.coli 0157:H7 and listeria monocytogenes, and declined sharply for salmonella.
A separate study I located from 1982 shows that campylobacter in both raw and sterile milk died off over the course of the refrigerated shelf life. Thus, neither raw nor highly pasteurized milk served as a favorable medium for this pathogen.
It seems as if, bottom line, pathogens don’t thrive in raw milk, but they don’t all necessarily die off sufficiently to ensure certain consumers can’t become ill.
To me, the flareup of this debate is further evidence of the ideological nature of the struggle over raw milk. One side or the other uses partial data to press its case—raw milk is dangerous, or raw milk isn’t dangerous. What this says to me is something I’ve said before, which is that it is possible to become ill from pathogens in raw milk, just as it’s possible to become ill from pathogens in spinach and hamburgers. Raw milk isn’t any more dangerous than many foods we consume that aren’t subject to debate.
It’s time to move on to new avenues of exploration—maybe an updated and more complete version of the studies posted here. Or completely new studies, such as those suggested in comments following the same Poo Duel posting, by Miguel and Steve Bemis. Let’s use ongoing illnesses to learn more about other possible determinants of food-borne illness—perhaps flavorings or colorings or sweeteners or whatever in seemingly ordinary foods; or genetic pre-disposition; or ongoing variations in individual immunity. Let’s expand our thinking, instead of looking for ever elusive “gotchas.”
"Survival in Water
Survival of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in water was studied by Wang and Doyle (1998). Greatest survival was reported in filtered, autoclaved municipal water and least in lake water. Regardless of the water source, survival was greatest at 8C and least at 25C. The pathogen survived for at least 91 d at 8C, but was not detectable within 49 to 84 d at 25C. It was also demonstrated that E. coli O157:H7 can enter a viable but nonculturable (VBNC) state in water (Wang and Doyle, 1998). This VBNC state of the pathogen in the natural environment poses an epidemiological concern since the source of contamination can be overlooked during outbreak investigations where conventional recovery methods are used. Nonetheless, the concept of bacteria adopting a VBNC state as a survival strategy in adverse environmental conditions has not gained universal acceptance (Weichart, 1999)."
"Greatest survival was reported in filtered, autoclaved municipal water and least in lake water."
WHY? Could it be the presence of competing bacteria in the lake water?
"We contend that elimination of pathogens from manures used as fertilizer is a critical control point for managing the pathogen problem on crops used as feed and food and in managing the microbial safety of the water supply"
Is the reason that "pathogens" are abundant and persistant in soils and water,because they are also accompanied by antibacterial agents that clear out the competing bacteria?
"Raw milk isnt any more dangerous than many foods we consume that arent subject to debate."
This is true. Why is it that raw milk is deemed by some more dangerous than other foods? Chemical filled processed foods? artificial sweetners? HFCS? These are the poisoning of America. To me the debate is freedom to choose what you want to consume.
Studies, along with questions/answers and input from all "sides" would be wonderful. Will it ever happen? Why didn’t more people become ill from the spinach contamination? Why didn’t those who did become ill get HUS? Will the medical community research that?
Thanks for providing a link to the BSK study. Looking at the results, it is clear that the E. coli O157:H7, Listeria, and Salmonella numbers did not change much over time at refrigeration temperature after inoculation into the raw milk. The E. coli O157:H7 strains decreased some during the first days of storage, but then went back up to the starting point by Day 7. The Salmonella only decreased after more than a week of storage; these bacteria behave similarly in pasteurized milk…die off over time. I wish BSK had also done the study with pasteurized milk as comparison, but based on this small BSK study, it looks like pathogens survive in raw milk.
miguel:
"Is the reason that "pathogens" are abundant and persistant in soils and water,because they are also accompanied by antibacterial agents that clear out the competing bacteria? "
How would you address these BSK results? The bacteria were inoculated into organic milk (no antibiotics) from grass fed cows, yet they did not die off (indeed, the E. coli O157:H7 died some during the first 4 days, then the population began to grow again and reached the same high level by day 7) . This study has been cited widely on raw milk websites – yet, it doesn’t seem to support that raw milk is any different than pasteurized milk in terms of how long pathogens survive.
Sylvia:
Studies, along with questions/answers and input from all "sides" would be wonderful. Will it ever happen?
I agree. The bigger studies need to be done – are there benefits from raw milk? The European studies are intriguing, but we need more follow-up research.
IMHO
First and foremost follow the money what powerful groups have the most to gain or lose from the truth about raw milk? It certainly is not the few small raw milk farmers or their hand full of customers.
Of the various food groups that we consume only raw milk stands above them all! From raw milk we derive cream, butter, kefir, cheese and the miracle of WHEY. Whey provides the power to slow cook our cabbage, beets, onions, garlic, cucumbers, brussel sprouts, cauliflower amd more. I have had trouble digesting lemonade but made with whey instead of water no problem at all even in my old digestive system.
There is no food on the "food pyramid’ that stands above raw milk from clean grass feed cows. RAW MILK FROM CLEAN GRASS FED COWS IS THE CAP STONE!
Why do they villfy raw milk follow the money there is no other REAL reason. IMHO
As said many times, no food is sterile, nor should it be. There should be basic sanitary standards. Teaching the public and the farmers are the key. Like simple hand washing and sanitation-look at the results in decreased "pathogen" spreading (decreased illness/injuries). I would gravitate towards the person who goes above-beyond the basics in sanitation.
I haven’t milked a cow since the 1960s, it isn’t something I want to do in my retiring years, I would have to learn about sanitation and all the rest that goes with quality and safe milk production, and if I was to milk my own cow, I’d probably learn to make cheeses et al. I would prefer to put my trust into someone who has years of knowledge and know-how. They would less likely contaminate than I would. We’ve had a garden off and on all our lives, handled different kninds of poo (bovine, horse,chicken/turkey) Spread it with my hands, pulled carrots out of the ground, rinsed with the hose and taken bites, same with peppers and other foods. I don’t recall any of us becoming ill. Growing up, I didn’t know the scientific reasons for letting the poo/compost sit for months before use, that was just how it was "made". I knew that fresh poo could make you sick, didn’t know the cellular reasons why. Education is the key to decreased contamination.
Studies to find out why some get sick and others don’t are needed. Is anyone doing these studies?
Back for a moment to epidemiological studies in light of Miguel’s arguments – could we have access to a "typical" food poisoning incident questionnaire? It would be interesting to see how those inquiries are conducted. Specifically, I’m wondering what harm there would be to collect additional data in such cases, like what kinds of processed foods were consumed in recent hours/days before the outbreak. This kind of raw data, if gathered, might point to other possible vectors, which in turn might then suggest other theories in a disease outbreak. For example, if there appeared a pattern of consumption of a particular highly processed food or even a batch of such food, might this data then suggest an analysis of those foods? Maybe they had a higher-than-normal "slug" of preservatives/lactic acid suppressors, and this might then be seen to have contributed to an outbreak. In other words, assuming "pathogens" are everywhere all the time and most of the time, we don’t get sick, isn’t it worth at least gathering additional data during investigations? Certainly this might prove valuable if it were to lead to a shifting of the paradigm (and ultimately, the effectiveness) of disease-sleuthing.
Finally, self promotion: my common-sense recommendation to simply exempt small farms from the current blizzard of food safety bills appears currently at http://www.hartkeisonline.com.
The BSK results show a that the ecoli numbers dropped and then recovered,but I’m sure that the total number of all types of bacteria in the milk showed a steady growth rate from day zero until day 14.What is important is that the relative numbers of ecoli ,in comparison to the lactic acid bacteria,declined quickly at first and then continued to decline as a percentage of the total bacteria in the milk. The conclusion that raw milk does not support the growth of ecoli along with the fact that raw milk does encourage the growth of lactic acid bacteria, tells us that the lactic acid bacteria are protective against ecoli.When experts tell us that as little as 10 cells/ml of ecoli 0157:H7 are enough to cause illness they must be assuming that those 10 are going to grow into a quorum.As Bill Marler’s experts say even if the number of ecoli are too small to detect they could still grow and become enough to make a child ill,if they are given the right conditions.Raw milk by itself does not provide the right conditions.Since the lactic acid bacteria have the ability to interfere with the quorum sensing ability of the ecoli it is the relative number of LAB to ecoli that matters.The BSK results are meaningless without showing how the numbers of LAB changed with time.
Why did the leaders in the raw milk community need to lie about the results of the BSK study? Why the lies, if raw milk is so wonderful and safe? Whos financially benefiting from these lies?
This is an issue about ethics and morality. Telling lies with the hope that it will encourage people to choose raw milk for their family should disgust everyone. People need the truth about the pathogen risk involved when choosing raw milk, especially when choosing it for their children.
I wonder how many of the parents whose children became ill from raw milk over the past few years tried raw milk because they were sold a bill of safety lies by a few people in a particular organization that has an agenda to make raw milk legal in every state in the nation?
cp
To the medical proffession it means that their tools to fight acute illness no longer work.But this is not the biggest threat we face when antibiotics are dumped on our soil and into our water.All of those antibiotics and antimicrobials are changing the natural community of bacteria found in the soil and water.In a healthy community of soil or water bacteria just like a healthy gut,the commensal bacteria will outnumber the "pathogens" 1000 to 1.If you take thousands of gallons of liquiid hog factory waste and spread it on a few acres of land,the balance will be badly upset.Now the "pathogens" may become as much as 50% of the bacteria in the soil or water.The animal feed or human food grown on this soil will be much more likely to cause human illness as it moves up through our food chain.As small farms fail and corporate factory farming takes over the land,an ever increasing part of the soil and water used to produce our food,will have this diseased profile of microbes.
Your words reveal ugly motivation, and it’s hardly the ‘safety’ of poor defenseless little kids. Windex couldn’t have done any better.
Raw milk is an option that everyone should have …..legally. And those that are against that choice, are the real liars…for they deceive from the prominence of their position.
I think it prudent to explore the motivations of the ‘russian roulette’ crowd….and what they have to gain by keeping raw milk out of the stomachs of those who want it. By eliminating that choice, and by orchestrating a carefully planned, multi-faceted campaign against the good stuff, they are actually doing a disservice to the general health of the population. There are hundreds, no thousands (probably tens of thousands) of people who have benefited greatly by incorporating raw milk into their diets….and many have a significantly improved quality of life thanks to it. That the authorities have to rely on misinformation, twisted facts and sensational propaganda to deceive the public makes one wonder why….
Fact is raw milk is here, and is again becoming engrained in society. Many more are getting the Truth, and are living better lives because of it. Is it perfect….no….no food production that is beneficial is 100%…but when you add up the benefits, and subtract the ‘losses’, the idea that raw milk is a negative is balderdash. If every food that made someone sick was villified like raw milk is, the food supply of the country and the world would be nil (no…it would be boiled, nuked or chemicalized into deadness)
ask yourself…why is raw milk treated differently than any other food?
However, I am troubled by the an analogy used in one statement. Consider this statement:
"….it is possible to become ill from pathogens in raw milk, just as its possible to become ill from pathogens in spinach and hamburgers. Raw milk isnt any more dangerous than many foods we consume that arent subject to debate."
Of course, the closer analogy would be to raw ground beef, not cooked ground beef in the form of hamburgers.
Consider if the statement read:
"Raw milk isn’t any more dangerous than eating an uncooked hamburger, a food we consume that isn’t subject to debate."
Or perhaps how about:
"Raw milk isn’t any more dangerous than eating uncooked eggs, a food we consume that isn’t subject to debate."
From the perspective of food safety "regulators," this is what you are saying.
Perhaps some attention ought to be paid to making the case with empirical evidence for why "milk is different" than consuming other raw animal products. I guess to some degree that was the intention of the study discussed here, but perhaps the investigation ought to have been comparing raw milk as a medium for pathogen growth vs. other raw animal products (not pasteurized milk).
Or how about comparing raw milk to uncooked seafood as a medium for growth, since there is a legal (in some states) and cultural acceptance (I presume across most parts of the globe) of eating both in a raw state ?
Or a discourse on the biological reasons raw seafood carries less (or more?) risk of food-borne illness?
I am sure it is nothing you haven’t heard already, but the concept of "raw" is really what drives this debate from the regulatory angle. Arguing the "magical" science-defying powers of raw milk will never get any traction. Presenting a case as to why this particular raw animal product is different, how it is different, and how it can be made to carry a tolerable level of risk, is where the dialogue will happen.
Excellent comparisons. Personally, if I was concerned about exposure to a foodborne pathogen in a raw food, I’d drink raw milk from a producer in Blair’s organization in Colorado before I’d eat raw ground beef or raw gulf coast oysters. On the other hand, I’d feel "safer" with raw spinach or other produce compared with raw milk (those industries have made great strides in food safety practices in response to outbreaks and research on how to produce a safer raw product). The jury is still out on nuts – raw or pasteurized/roasted 🙂
miguel,
Do you have a link to studies supporting your ideas about the interaction between lactic acid bacteria and pathogens in raw milk. Specifically, fresh "real" milk straight from the cow over its shelf life, not fermented products (it is well known that the fermentation process will greatly reduce or eliminate pathogens unless there is cross-contamination later).
Steve,
The number of bacteria inoculated into the raw milk and raw colostrum were equivalent to adding a pure culture at the peak of growth. You probably couldn’t achieve these numbers (millions of bacteria in a drop, or billions+ in a thimbleful) in a natural setting even if the farmer milked an animal with full-blown mastitis. However, it is often necessary in experimental studies to use high inoculum levels and attempt to extrapolate to natural conditions. Bottom line: this study has many flaws now that we have seen the raw data. It shouldn’t be used on raw milk websites, testimony, or elsewhere to support the safety of raw milk. Certainly, experts like Hull or Beals must have looked at this data and seen the problems with it? As cp asks, what is the motivation by those who paid for the study to misinterpret the conclusions? Follow the money…?
milkfarmer,
I sympathize with your frustration with how raw milk is currently regulated (but I don’t sympathize with your attacks on cp – all should be able to express an opinion here). It is crucial, as the raw milk movement gains more footing in the legislative process, that the studies cited and other claims about raw milk are accurate because they will receive greater scrutiny as a broader audience examines the issue. The fact that drug companies, big ag, and others lacking scruples have misrepresented their data isn’t a good reason for this movement to do the same. The misrepresentation of the BSK study only sets the movement back, IMHO.
At this point, Id suggest simply removing the BSK study from the raw milk websites and other educational materials. New studies, perhaps along the lines of what Steve, Sylvia, David, and Regulator suggest, would be worthwhile to better answer the questions about raw milk safety and benefits relative to other foods, especially raw foods.
Perhaps this is your issue with raw milk. It appears for many on this blog, the issue is freedom of choice. Big pharm, ag, FDA, et al; all lie and misrepresent whatever they are peddling, much to the harm of not only children, but the whole population and environment. They disgust me. People need the truth about everything that is peddled for consumption or that will affect the environment. Giving kids fast foods and sodas can be letheal to thier health. Yet it is sanctioned and promoted by the govt. I have yet to hear any movements against this poisoning. Diabetes and early CAD in young teenagers is from the phoods they are consuming. A slow poisoning of America. No one is screaming to ban that garbage.
"but perhaps the investigation ought to have been comparing raw milk as a medium for pathogen growth vs. other raw animal products (not pasteurized milk)."
Why would you do that? Raw meat is not the same as raw milk nor pasteurized milk. If you are to compare the two (milks), then sticking with milk is essential for getting comparable results. Does raw milk from healthy grass fed cows inhibit "pathogens" more so than pasteurized milk? Or are they simular? Also are you using healthy grass fed cows for the pasteurized milk? Did the cows obtain any abx or other added chemicals to feed or thier bodies? many questions,
If you or anyone wishes to consume raw seafood that is thier business not mine. It isn’t my place to tell you or them different, nor is it anyones place to tell me what to consume.
It appears that many studies from all avenues have many flaws and it has been stated numerous times: follow the money. This isn’t anything new. Look at pharmacuticals, they do it daily on TV, push thier drugs. It’s really nauseating.
According to Dr. Barbara Starfield of Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health the third largest cause of death in the US behind heart disease and cancer is medical errors.
Writing in the JAMA Dr Starfield has documented the tragedy of the traditional medical paradigm in the following statistics.
Deaths per year Cause
106,000 Non-error effects of drugs
80,000 Infections in hospitals
45,000 Others errors in hospitals
12,000 Unecessary sugery
7,000 Medication errors in hospitals
250,000 Total deaths per year from iatrogenic causes
These estimates are for death only and do not include the many negative effects that are associated with disability or discomfort.
These are mindnumbing stats!
I dont have a censes figure for hospital admissions but in 2005 there were 7569 hospitals nationwide and it costs 16% of GDP or $2,5 trillion dollars to pay for the health care system yearly. What are we getting for our money and why are we as a nation so sick? Is there no connection to the SAD and all our pill poping? You are what you eat untrue?
I will take my risk of consuming raw dairy for I surely can not fare any worse than those above. Look up at the Herd of Elephants in the room lest you get trampled while observing the speck of dust on the floor!
Can I assume that you do not object to raw milk being widely available to people as long as it is clearly labeled as raw?All of the other raw foods that you mention are available in every grocery store.
Do you object only that information is available promoting the benefits of consuming raw milk?How would you control the spread of this information?The most powerful aspect of this awakening is that it spreads from person to person,friend to friend,brother to sister.All of the fearmongering against it only serves to destroy the credibility of those who make claims of exagerated danger without any supporting evidence.
http://www.ebmonline.org/cgi/content/full/228/4/333
Non-O157 Verotoxin-Producing Escherichia coli: A Problem, Paradox, and Paradigm
Karl A. Bettelheim1
National Escherichia coli Reference Laboratory, Microbiological Diagnostic Unit, Public Health Laboratory, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia
"For almost two decades, most VTEC studies concentrated only on E. coli O157:H7. A recent study (73), however, has shown that although a single outbreak was predominantly due to E. coli O111:H-, other VTEC serotypes (e.g., O157:H7) were also involved. If only standard screening methods had been used, this outbreak would have been attributed to E. coli O157:H7. When VTEC isolates were recently compared over a 5-year period in Australia, it was found that VTEC other than O157:H7 were the major causes of human illnesses (40)."
"The concept of the VTEC paradigm is that out of commensal E. coli, there can emerge pathogenic variants that cause human illnesses. These pathogens differ from their commensal counterparts in their carriage of the virulence factors. There will also be strains among these commensal E. coli that carry some of the virulence factors, but cannot cause human illnesses."
Future Considerations
"Our methods of producing, distributing, and handling food have changed extraordinarily in the past century. Many of these processes have created appropriate niches for food-borne pathogens. Such pathogens will continue to be difficult to identify, they will merge among the commensal groups, and will require extensive microbiological experience to be identified. It should be considered that more pathogenic E. coli will continue to emerge. There are already numbers of such variants, including the enteroaggregative E. coli, the diffuse adherent E. coli, the cytotoxic necrotizing factor-producing E. coli, the cytolethal distending toxin-producing E. coli, and probably many others. Therefore, pathogenic E. coli can be seen as a paradigm of potential future food-borne pathogens and probably other pathogens as well. The current heavy reliance on very specific tests based either on the use of specific nucleic acid sequences or monoclonal antibodies will become a severe disadvantage in detecting such newly emerging pathogens. Only the experienced and well-trained microbiologist with a keen eye, an open mind, and a strong sense of curiosity will be able to observe such new developments."
Rather than pinning all of our hopes on complicated testing for and identification of microbes,which appears to be increasingly hopeless,why don’t we take a look at the "methods of producing, distributing, and handling food " which have "created appropriate niches for food-borne pathogens".If we can understand how these niches have been created,there is hope that we can make changes that will lead to a reduction of illness from food.
http://tiny.cc/kJbeO
Studies by Edrington et al (2006 and 2008) suggested that day length and effects on hormones such as melatonin secretion from the gastrointestinal tracts may be the underlying mechanism for seasonality in cattle. The authors hypothesized that the seasonal variation is a result of physiological responses within the host animal to changing day-length. Hormones have been shown to play a role in the regulation of bacterial populations and host immunity.
Anger abounds. I have been called many things in my life, but "Liar" was and is not one of them.
OPDC paid for the BSK study. The study used standardized lab protocols to establish whether raw milk supported the growth of pathogens. The conclusion, opinion and determination was made by the scientist at BSK that reviewed the results. That conclusion based on the data that "raw milk did not support the growth of the pathogens tested". If you do not like that science…then go do your own test and pay for it and see what it says.
This was not my conclusion, opionion or determination. The BSK scientist made this determination without any influence from me. So I can only conclude that there are some close minded haters out in the blog world that jjust hate me and raw milk.
Thats just fine….but why not just come out and say that. Stop skirting arround the point.
If you think hurtful things will make me feel bad or advance your positions….it does not work with me.
I am so happy from seeing 200 of our best consumers at the Fresno Farmers Market this Saturday morning buying record amounts of raw milk and other whole natural foods.
I am so happy that they got to be interviewed by an award winning video documentary team. Their stories of immune recovery are now a part of the bigger movement of whole food and raw milk education. The video team is putting together feature film for PBS. The words and experiences of these wonderful souls can not be overshaddowed by negativity or hateful statements.
I am so happy that the bigging steps have been taken to establish a raw milk dairy in Las Vegas Nevada and that the Nevada State dairy Commission is fully cooperating.
I am so happy because new consumers are being added to the 45,000 weekly CA consumers and the word is spreading.
So if you want to call me a liar…that is your right.
I can also ignore you and let history tell the truth.
Some advice….stop blogging and start working and doing good things.
All the best,
Mark McAfee
But why? That is the issue that needs to be explored. Until it is, little headway will be made.
pg. 304 McAfee recently took samples of his milk to a laboratory in Fresno where technicians introduced pathogens into the milkSalmonella and E.coli 0157:H7. The organisms could not be found in the milk the next daythey could not survive.
pg. 338 McAfee then showed me laboratory reports of the tests hed recently run. He had introduced pathogens into his milk and they simply did not multiply. In many cases they died off. (gives the impression that the pathogens were no longer detectable)
The 2009 version of the Untold Story of Milk:
pg. 374 McAfee then showed me laboratory reports of the test hed recently run. He had introduced pathogens into his milk and they simply did not multiply. In many cases they died off.
pg. 372 Referring to Organic Pastures Dairy.The dairy does not outsource its dairy products and uses all of its own fluid raw milk in its own products. (Mark admitted to outsourcing cream and colostrum)
Just because you say it is doesn’t make it so…and my response to cp’s ‘attack’ was hardly an ‘attack’. Revealing the agenda, and pointing out the hypocrisy of trying to cast the raw milkers as liars, is true. Some of us have a no nonsense way to stating opinion…and my reduction and response to the anger in cp’s post was warranted. While I agree that everyone should be able to offer an opinion….the fact that one offers it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be responded to…and evaluated for it’s ‘worth’.
The raw milk movement has an uphill battle….fighting against the deception and lies of those in power…the Ag departments…FDA…Big Dairy. The threshold for ‘scruples’ should be higher for public officials…those with the fancy titles. We can nit pick semantics if we want….but it’s obvious who wants a real better health for America….and Mark and Sally are doing more for that… than Mr Sheehan and those others, scaring the populace with twisted facts and false propaganda. Any attempt at discrediting the raw milk movement is just an diversion from the real truth….for it doesn’t matter who is promoting it, or discrediting it…fact is raw milk has the capacity for miraculous changes in personal health…and preventing it’s consumption via misinformation and deception is evil.
Few more comments…
To me it is wrong to presume OPDC is guilty; isn’t that contrary to our legal process? Seems libelous to post intentionally incriminating assertions while a court case is pending Not only wrong, isn’t it illegal – or do we now do Trial by Blog?
Steve’s comment about food safety legislation, 1st on this comment list but since lost in the mud-slinging, is really, really important now. I’m sensing pressure here in Colorado to generate exception legislation for small farms. On a federal level, we need some massive, intelligent and cohesive grassroots coordination and education. Who will lead? Who will speak? Will FTCLDF lead us? Do we start at a local level, state, or federal? There is momentum here in Colorado, but I want to see a coordinated effort. Clueless, but willing….
Finally, Geez Louise
(sorry, one of my favorite expressions – long personal story about a gal named Louise I worked with – no personal offense intended..she stuck to me.) — Everybody knows that an imbalance of gut flora promotes overgrowth of opportunistic bacteria — that’s precisely why we want to drink raw milk!
Germophobia – America loves fear. Gets their blood flowing – feels good – for a little while.
Ducking and Running,
-Blair