I think I’ve found the most difficult job assignment in America: Go out and recruit a single volunteer to appear at an anti-raw-milk rally or at a legislative hearing on the subject. Surely there must be one person in all the land who would join such a rally?
Over the last three years, there have been many opportunities, and the promise of opponents, but I have yet to become aware of a single person who came out voluntarily–apart from paid public officials or professionals.
I’ve been to raw milk rallies and hearings around the country, and have monitored a number I couldn’t attend–from California to Wisconsin to Connecticut to Massachusetts– and like I said, I have yet to see anyone present to oppose raw dairy who wasn’t being paid…by us. At a hearing in Framingham, MA, last year on whether to allow a local farm to product raw milk, one man spoke out against the proposal. It turned out he was an employee of the state Department of Public Health who happened to live in Framingham.
The latest opportunity for the opponents to show up came in Minnesota, where last week 200 pro-raw-milk consumers and farmers sat, many with small children, in an over-heated auditorium for more than four hours to make their case for allowing raw milk to be picked up from the farm and brought to farmers markets and homes. This would free consumers from driving hours to obtain their milk. The original promise was that pro and anti raw milk consumers would face off, but once again, there wasn’t a single anti-raw-milk consumer in sight.
Many of the consumers then testified for three minutes apiece on their own personal experiences. The opposing view, that raw milk is inherently dangerous, was presented by the hired hands–the head of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture and the health commissioner, among others.
What’s becoming ever more clear is that the vast majority of Americans either favor the availability of raw dairy, or don’t oppose it. As the discussion following my previous post suggests, many of the most passionate supporters are open to realistic safety standards for raw dairies.
Moreover, there’s a growing sense that ever more people are becoming outraged by the aggressive government stance against raw dairy. A Washington Times columnist stated yesterday that, “The sting operation against (Pennsylvania farmer Dan) Allgyer’s Rainbow Acres Farm has touched a nerve around the country and across the ideological divide…”
The term “public health” strongly suggests that the public has an interest in how the rules regarding its health are set and enforced. But the professionals who administer these rules clearly don’t have any interest in what the public thinks. Otherwise, why would it be so difficult to find a single member of the public willing to show up and side with these professionals at a hearing or rally?
By the way, don’t expect to see the trend change in Washington at 10 Monday morning at the rally to support Amish farmer Dan Allgyer, who was targeted for court action by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration…unless it’s a hired agent recruited to keep tabs on the rally. If you’re in Washington Monday, please join us.
These are paid lobbyists for FOOD INC. They want to destroy the sustainable family dairy farm and replace it with huge CAFOs producing the lowest cost commodity milk using rBGH and GMO crops.
There is no way around this issue — the "public health" people are just a facade. The real core of this issue is the industrial corporate dairy processing and CAFO interests.
Mark suggests the point that many, or perhaps nearly all, of his customers do not have access to food from biologically diverse sources. That is probably true, and it is not surprising, since like most folks, his customers generally live in artificial, non-biologically diverse, non-ecomically diverse, environments. Mark's customers often therefore have less-than-optimal immune systems (including altered gut flora) and suffer more exposure to toxins (just to touch on a couple highlights). So what are we to do about that?
The establishment solution is of course the one that succors the commodity system: Test for, and bomb, pathogens. Well, that may be the best we can do for those unfortunate enough to have limited access to Nature, and for those who must depend on commodity-scale businesses for food. But we ought to be honest enough to admit that such a system is NOT optimal, and that we CAN do better.
Here's a quote from the book Teaming With Microbes: All bacteria compete with each other and with other organisms for the finite amount of food the soil offers and thus keep each other's populations in balance. Soils with a high diversity of bacterial types are more likely to have a larger number of nonpathogenic bacteria outcompeting pathogenic bacteria for space and nutrients. We are convinced that using the soil food web's natural defenses is the best way to keep the bad guys in check. Gardeners need to appreciate that bacteria are at the front line of defense.
I think that's a pretty fair statement. First, it considers the realities of health and illness by stating its terms in non-absolutes. It does not suggest the lie that the FDA and Marler make their living fromthat if producers would only follow bomb-the-pathogens rules there would never be an illness (and Marler's favorite corollary to it: the presence of an illness means there's somebody to hang and money to be made in the hanging). It says that achieving OPTIMAL health comes from encouraging microbial diversity at every link in the biologic chain, from the soil through the consumer.
The BEST solution, clearly, is to escape from non-diverse environments; to whenever possible dismantle centralized food and business systems; to avoid monoculturalism, and to journey toward polyculturalism. It IS possible to do it, or at least get very close to it.
Now hear this: A small number of us have decided to attempt to carve optimal, polycultural environments out of this busy world, but you can bet it's tough going. We are forever berated, belittled, and bullied by system-mongers. We are told, for example, You can't have safe food without a laboratory worked into the process. (Government, of course, puts fines and fees and incarceration into the mix to be sure everyone complies). Well, mankind did fine without laboratories for milllenia, and we can do fine without them now. We simply need to be sensitive to Nature, and to accept a few bare realities: 1. No system can guarantee life without the possibility of disease; 2. Every single element in a biologic chainfrom the soil to the consumeris a potential disease vector; and 3. Optimal health results from full, microbial diversity and balance in every link in the biologic chain.
I am under no illusions regarding the scale of our current troubles, nor the difficulties in converting from monoculturalism to polyculturalism. But I am sick and tired of hearing the lie that sanitized, tested, non-diverse systems are the best we can do. And I am frankly angry that the rules and regulations designed to limit the damage done by monoculturalism always (ALWAYS!) spill over onto the polycultures, and in the process diminish their strength. This is no little thing, for instead of encouraging the growth of the very best of our biological and social structures, we are working to destroy them.
Mark says Bill Marler will own the movement if this movement does not get its head out of its off the reservation do not tread on me philosophy. Well, Marler and the FDA already own the movement if they can force everybody to adopt commodity-style practices. They are already the puppeteers of the big guys (as perhaps they ought to be) but by God they have no business pushing around whatever tiny clusters of natural men have managed to fight their way out of the morass in an attempt to do something better for themselves and their communities.
http://www.marbef.org/wiki/Microbial_research
" A conceptual model of how microbial diversity in the ocean is expressed, i.e. a few organisms are relatively abundant and participate in ecosystem functioning while the majority of microbes await more optimal growing conditions, as shown above in the large tail of biodiversity. "Adaptation by Thomas Pommier (CNRS) of a figure by Pedrs-Ali (2006).
The few relatively abundant microbes would be the common lactic acid bacteria.
They should make up a very high percentage of the total microbes present.The rest of the microbes should occur in very small numbers but the longer the "tail of biodiversity" the better.This tail should contain all types of bacteria.This diversity is what helps us to establish a stable immune system in our gut.Stability and the ability to rebound quickly after an assault from the outside is what helps prevent us from becoming acutely ill.Remember the principles :All elements of a system interact with each other.And every element fulfills multiple functions and every function is performed by multiple elements.
This is what I was trying to say about biodiversity in milk.There is balance between the abundance of a relative few microbes and the "long tail of biodiversity".
Miguel raises an important point. There are a handful of main species that should be dominant in raw milk (the lactic acid species ) and the rest of the biodiversity is the "long tail."
The point here is that if, for example, coliform or pseudomonas become the dominant species, we know there is a problem with the raw milk.
Do the lab tests for strains of bacteria tell us their relative numbers or just that they are present or absent?
It all depends on the test… some tests do, some don't.
Coliform plates are performed on Violet Red Bile Agar. That is an ennumeration. It is essentially a standard plate count performed on a measured sample size, with a selective media that only allows coliforms to grow.
Many tests for specific pathogens are not ennumerations but merely for the presence of the organism. Ennumerations are more difficult to do because of all the enrichment and selective plating that has to be done to isolate the particular organisms in question. I'm not an expert on these tests by any means, but I do think that there are some versions that allow the lab technician to conduct ennumerations on the specific pathogen.
There is no reason that good quality raw milk should have E. Coli O157:H7 or Listeria Monocytogenes. A very low number of E. Coli is normal, but the presence of O157:H7 is generally indicative of deeper problems.
Same with listeria. It is normal to have low levels of psychrotrophic bacteria (the test for psychrotrophics is called a Preliminary Incubation count because the sample is incubated at 55F for 18 hours and then plated as a standard plate count. The resultin plate is then compared to the results of the Standard Plate Count conducted on the same sample prior to incubation). But if you have a listeria hit or a high P.I. Count with a lot of pseudomonas, it is generally indicative of deeper problems.
I hope others are reading your posts and realizing the reality. It's money from small cow shares that is supporting the Legal Defense Fund, which is suing to give you the right to ship your milk all over the country (again). Your opinions, and your association with the Fund, and the Foundation, makes continuing supporting these 'real' institutions harder. If they believe as you do, then they don't deserve the financial support of modest, hard working (non industrial) milk farmers. Its good that your new 'institution' won't be associated with these bodies….as the word spreads of your real feelings, it will be better for them if they distance themselves from you.
Now you might think that labels, inspections, and PR campaigns might keep Marler the Vulture at bay….but you'll be mistaken if you do. He's probably salivating at the possibility of millions of more raw milk gallons being sold in this country….especially by those who are businessmen first and farmers second….for an innocent, principled farmers don't knuckle under easily, and make 'business decisions' to cut a deal and pay blood money to this vampire.
It's not the small cow share that threatens Big Dairy…most small milk producers recognize that coexistence is the most prudent way for survival…and see raw milk as an option for those who choose. You instead want to trash the existing system, and pigeon hole raw milk into the conventional delivery system model. I actually encourage you to continue…because as your head grows, and you get bolder and bolder, the threat you pose to Big Dairy will increase even more, and inevitably you will be cut down to size.
Depending on where you draw the line, the margins can occupy more space than the middle. Just because there are producers operating in the shadows of the authorities, doesn't mean they aren't reveling in the Light of their customers. Smaller, more personal producers deliver milk in a better way. Mindless plucking of a gallon off the A&P shelf discredits the farmer, and robs the consumer of a vital opportunity to be in touch with their food supply (and those that create it). We should be finding ways to discourage this conventional model.
In regards to organic certification…anyone who thinks that the current certification system is working doesn't have a clue what organic means (or meant). The current system serves Big Ag, and those who serve that Master. Like Pete said, most small producers, marketing food directly to consumers, have shunned the new program. Every report of abuse of the current system just reinforces the organic but not certified' assertion. Organic as a meaningful term is dead….although I wouldn't expect anyone who named their business 'organic anything' to agree with this…it ruins the 'image'.
Now I have no illusions of the future. Raw milk will be diminished by it's industrialization. Those like Mark and Scott, blinded by their passion, will inevitably ruin what they love. We can only hope that people like Pete, Miquel and Goatmaid will continue to serve their 'tribes', and give real meaning to the jug in the fridge.
The current line of action will further divide the raw milk movement….with those of real substance, modest expectations, and a truer understanding of the natural world, on the other side. Sad.
I only half understand the polemics presented in comments by readers on this blog. It concerns me that the standards issue is presented before we define good health. Good health is so individual. Like people, and animals.
The issue for me has always been freedom to choose, as well as continuous improvement via ongoing education and community networking. I suspect Tim Wightman's statement that America has not yet tasted their best glass of raw milk is correct. But on the other hand, scores of raw milk consumers swear by their supply of raw milk, and the immune benefits it supplies. 12 million consumers, and growing!
As far as establishing standards for raw milk production, it makes sense to me to move away from chasing pathogens and learn more about permaculture, healthy soils, healthy animals. I'm in the Dave Milano/Miguel camp – but I also understand the need for every farmer to closely evaluate / stay in touch with their process. Share results, but don't presume how to run every farm. Sustainable practices require local attention.
If anyone thinks they have perfect standards, well more power to them, but to dictate what happens on other farms? Nuts.
I trust our farmers know their land, and their animals. I have no desire to police them – they police themselves. I'm happy that we provide a Q/A forum, and see producers share knowledge and experience. But universal standards? Test my soul!
Seems to me things are going quite well overall. I very much enjoy the knowledge shared on this blog.
But if any of you presume we know enough to establish universal standards, be careful what you wish for.
Thank you,
Blair
I believe the CAFOs, GMOs, etc, cannot deliver this without denaturing the product and thus leaving an unhealthy product with the potential to be lethal to the human body and the environment.
Insurance?? For what? To feed the insurance industry and the lawyers? The insurance business for the most part is based on fear of what might happen and probably won't if you take care of things properly. If you indulge in risky behavior (milk through a pipeline) or feed thousands, then yes, I can see that you might feel you need insurance. But if one takes care, does things properly and don't increase business beyond what you and your land are capable of, I see no real need for insurance. Greed for growth and money is killing this country… has anyone seen the documentary, "Capitalism, a love story"?
"If you are a little cow share….you are free to fly. Few rules should apply. But you will sit next to the guy piloting and you had better damn well know him and his mental state and how many drinks he has had."
But, isn't that the whole point of "Know Your Farmer," as propounded by the USDA? Don't you think people trust their local farmer who sells eggs over DeCoster, for example?
"I do not understand the hostility. Raw milk testing standards should be flexible enough to include someone like you milking a few goats, all the way up to someone like Mark who is milking hundreds of cows. The rigerousness of the testing should be appropriate to the size of the operation."
What I don't trust is that the operation won't become corrupted and the tests tainted.
"Are you afraid of transparency? Are you afraid of sending in a milk sample to a lab to be analyzed, and having the results published to the public?"
I'm not afraid of MY sending in samples… I'm afraid of OTHERS sticking their dirty hands in my milk to obtain samples, as has happened in NY and other states, thus delivering a corrupted sample that was accepted as the correct one, despite a split sample proving no contamination. I'm afraid of increasing requirements to eventually drive out the smaller producer, say, samples every day! Gotta protect the consumer!
"There are definetly repercussions from outbreaks. Mike Hartmann's irresponsibility has resulted in attacks on several other local food suppliers who were not responsible for his antics."
Yet, DeCoster's far more serious "antics" did not result in attacks on other local egg suppliers, and DeCosters themselves received little more than a slap on the wrist… they're still in operation and were the whole time (though granted, they had to sell their eggs only for cooked products)… and why? because the small farmers and backyard egg producers are no real threat to the egg industry.
I still agree that this whole thing is nothing more than an attempt to control/safeguard monopoly by squeezing out the little guys. I have no problems with regulating raw milk if it comes from large farms where the farmer hires employees to milk his animals with a pipeline. Just like I have no problem with someone regulating DeCoster, but leaving the small farmers who have several dozen hens alone.
It's not the small farmers who are causing all the health problems with hamburger, eggs, spinach, lettuce… and milk.
Goatmaid-
I agree with you.
But it IS the farm milking 20-50 cows who doesn't take food safety seriously, that is causing outbreaks that are having repercussions for other 20-50 cow farms who DO take food safety seriously.
The standard we are talking about would be created by each farm to fit the farms specific situation. Someone like you would be more than encouraged to submit your own lab samples without a "dirty hands" regulator contaminating it with Listeria, ala the New York situation.
I don't understand your argument here. I share your disgust with corporate capitalism. But encouraging raw milk farms to develop food safety protocals, including laboratory testing regimes, should not be that controversial, regarldess of which side of the political isle you stand on. We have the ability to do this testing, and it is relatively inexpensive, there is no reason we should be hostile to it.
Every element fulfills multiple functions in the system.
This is why I object to labeling micro organisms as pathogens or beneficial organisms.It would be correct to say that one of the functions a microbe sometimes performs has a beneficial or detrimental effect on our system.But still this depends on our viewpoint and our viewpoint may change.
A good way to understand this is to look at how weeds are regarded on a conventional farm.Weeds compete with the crop so they are bad.But weeds fulfill multiple functions in the system.Rather than use the term "weed" which I would rather discard along with the term "pathogen",let me use a bull thistle as an example.
"How do you get rid of bull thistles in your pasture?"
"why do you want to get rid of them?"
"so they won't make seeds and spread all over the pasture."
Thistles in the pasture are regarded as bad because cows don't eat them and they make seeds that will take hold and grow IF there is bare ground for them to start in.
Thistles also make seeds that attract finches to the pasture bringing their droppings to fertilize the pasture.Thistles make root exudates that feed the soil microbes increasing the biodiversity in the soil which also adds fertility .In dry times,thistles act like water towers.Their deep tap root pulls up water from deep in the subsoil and shares it with the grass at the surface.Thistles' tap roots loosen up the soil and create open structure that improves soil drainage,lets air(nitrogen) in and makes room for the grass roots to penetrate deeper into the soil.Thistles actually add to the pasture rather than detract from it.
If we could understand all of the functions that a Salmonella or E.coli o157:H7 perform in a system we might begin to understand why they need to be in that "long tail of biodiversity" in our digestive system.That they are there should be of no concern.
If we have a few thistles in the pasture they are no problem,unless we decide to plow up the pasture.Then the conditions exist for those thistle seeds in the soil to sprout and grow.Now we do have a thistle problem.But what was the cause?Was it allowing the thistles to exist or was it plowing up the pasture and giving the seeds the conditions to sprout and grow?Likewise with the salmonella,if we want the benefits of the functions it performs for the system we need take care that the dominant microbes in the system remain dominant.
The plants we call weeds are really the pioneer species in the system.They move quickly to cover bare ground.Bare ground is like a wound in the skin of the earth,weeds are healing this wound by holding the earth together ,covering it from the rain, wind and sun and creating the conditions for the return of the grass and clover.Likewise the microbes in the "long tail of biodiversity" are the healers that take over if the dominant microbes suffer some calamity.These "long tail" microbes move into the opening left by the death of the dominant microbes and immediately begin the process of re establishing the infrastructure that allows the dominate species to repopulate.
I respect your perspectives. But for the live of me. I do not think you have read a thing I wrote. I support and help Cow Share oprations in CA I spoke with many last week in Chico CA when they asked to speak with me. There are 65 cow shares in CA many come to OPDC for training and information. Our door is open.
The voices in your heads are making you blind to what I have said here. Biodiversity is the key and foundational to the conditions for safe raw milk. Trust in mother nature but verify to assure your ecosystem is in balance. That is RAMP.
There is a phsycosis that has overcome those that live in denial of reality. Marler the FDA filthy politics. Sick kids all over the place. Is that what we want for our future in America.
Not for me. Not for all that I have spoken with. Whether a farmer or consumer. They all want and dream for fair standards and simple common safety goals. They are all for farm specific food safety programs that are size appropriate.
As for my ego. Well that is an interesting comment
I will not defend my defense of moms and their kids. If that makes me important to moms so be it. We are all raw milk rock stars to our consumers.
Mark
Anger is destructive for constructive progress and it divides the movement. There is room at the raw milk table for large and small cow shares and legal raw milk. Let's all open our minds to greater possibilities for all of America.
Mark
I am not criticizing you.I hope it is not taken that way.What I hope is that we will use the words that say what we mean when we talk about standards.
The FDA and CDC are in the business of controlling how the people think about disease.It is a mistake to let them frame the discussion.When we use words like "pathogen" and "zero tolerance" we are letting them speak through us.Let's frame the discussion on our terms.You can afford to do a profile of the bacterial community in your milk.Not a complete one,but including several lactic acid bacteria types and several of those that you used to call pathogens(long tail biodiversity types).We need to change the discussion from how to prevent exposure to how to safely establish a bio diverse immune system.The key is to emphasis how the dominant lactic acid bacteria are in control of the ecosystem functions,keeping the long tail of biodiversity essentially dormant.Care for the welfare of these bacteria is the key to control of the other micro organisms.As long as the lactic acid bacteria are dominant we can benefit from all of the other functions that the biodiversity brings to the system.And in the event of a calamity for the lactic acid bacterial section we need to realize that the bio diverse tail is working to restore the balance and anything we do should be to support the early re establishment of those dominant bacterial types.
I completely disagree. You can know your customer inside and out. You can be a small farmer with less than 10 cows milking without a pipeline. They can be your best and longest customer, but if that customers child becomes sick they will call you. No matter how many years they've been drinking raw milk, how much it's helped their own health, and no matter how close of a relationship they have with you. They can even be a poster child for the WAPF and they will call you. "My little John is sick in the hospital; do you think it could be the milk"? They grasp when their child is sick, and you (we) might too. They don't mean it but raw milk will come to their minds before the potato salad they had at Grandma's house on Thanksgiving.
As a producer, it is then your responsibility to prove your innocence (yes, I wish it was innocence until proven guilty- but it's not). Testing will help you. You can sometimes nip the thing in the bud by looking at your testing and saying "we have not had any abnormal tests".
The above did happen to us.
But what if you can't prove your innocence? What if you do get sued and it isn't even your fault? Insurance could help save your farm, and for some of us the very home we live in. How good are you going to your other raw milk consumers if you lose the farm or are in a drawn out legal battle for years?
I'm not sure how long some of you have been in the business of providing raw milk but it may happen to you someday. Are you ready?
And about Mark……….Mark wouldn't recognize me in a crowd, doesn't know me by name or my farm by name, and we live miles and miles apart. But, I consider Mark is my friend, a rock start producer, and a big help to anyone who producers raw milk with one cow or fifty. He doesn't know it but I listened to him and copied some of his tips for how to handle suspected outbreaks. I know what questions to ask when someone calls me saying they don't feel good, could it be the milk? Do you?
When I had another question and no one in my state (or the nation for that matter) could help me – I called Mark and he took my call, walked me through it and got me to the place I needed to be.
Please listen to him, he has experience, he has passion, he is an asset to the raw milk movement. We need him.
have you ever met Mark McAffee?
I have. He came to speak to us in Burnaby British Columbia in the fall of 2007, just as we were getting going.
I have the measure of the man … he's a classic American entrepreneur type – the kind who creates wealth. He so-inspired our Agister, that she threw her heart into the project. We went from 1 cow in the backyard, to 30 cows now /24 in milk today, with a couple dozen others out there in the field, of various ages.
A year later, when the govt. "framed a law in mischief" as an excuse to come after our cowshare, he was there at the end of the phone, giving us invaluable advice so as to shove the idiot snivel servants back in their place.
1000s of people in BC and across the prairies are getting life-giving REAL MILK this afternoon … in large part because of Mark McAffee coming here and inspiring us.
Buckminster Fuller called people like him "practical dreamers" – who put legs under their vision
he has the results to show for his lifework … please give us your name, phone number and the location of your farm so we can drop by and compare what he's done, with what you've done in the Campaign for REAL MILK
"divisive", you sneer? Your relentless pessimism is the most divisive note on this forum. Sniping that Mark McAffee is misleading /betraying small farmers exposes your ignorance of how business operates. In fact, the success of Organic Pastures breaks the trail so small holders benefit.
Lacking any information about you, my guess is you're one of the 51% of Ham-mericans who derive your paycheque from a govt. program … ironically, your ilk are the ones most vocal coveting authentic success, even as they parasitize the body politic
to make an appointment to visit the farm in Chilliwack BC, please contact me
Gordon S Watson
7954 Elwell Street Burnaby British Columbia V5E 1M4
604 526 5064
http://www.freewebs.com/bovinity
How does that saying go? Oh ye,Getting angry at someone is like taking poison and expecting the other guy to die from it.
I hope we all can settle down and have a long anticipated discussion about standards.A discussion where those of us who aren't necessarily in agreement with whoever is establishing these standards,can ask reasonable questions and get real answers.So far ,I think Mark has indicated that politics are involved in the standards that are being proposed.I hope science will play a part.
Miguel. You are so right science is the foundation of standards. But not FDA university paid off political science. Real research that validates and explains mans questions. Research that validates nature and our experiences That is what this movement needs badly. Our RAWMI board of directors has a PHD veterinarian state certified epidemiologist sitting on it. She drinks raw milk! This is real. This is for the producer and the safety and understanding of our consumers.
Miguel. I really value your posts. They drive beyond conventional thought and call the world round green and biodiverse when others banter over it's flatness.
You would be a great addition to the RAWMI executive board. I wish I could really know your name.
RAWMI will be solid and strong not because of a monoculture of voices but a diversity of opinion shared among very bright adults that work hard for it's mission.
Even the stone throwers teach us things. Even though most of that is how to duck quick, these are soft balls and are great prep for the live rounds that will come later from true enemies.
I know that consumers want delicious safe raw mik for their families. The greatest gift we can give them is health with out the unwanted surprise of illness. That is what I want for all of us. Whether that is a 2 cow cow share or a 100 cow retail operation. No more Dan Allgyers story of FDA abuse. We should work to earn respect as a food and stop getting kicked in the teeth. The very best way to do this is proving ourselves with a long track record of safety and very happy passionately committed moms. That is done by consistent practices. Not random guessing
Please remember this.
Voluntary.
Size appropriate
Common goals achieved by all farmers in program yet these goals are achieved through each farmers individual plan
That is strength. That is taking charge. That is responsibility
Mark
With my recent comments I am attempting to advocate for a holistic model of achieving health. That is what I mean to do by invoking biologic context in regard to the production and consumption of raw milk. I am saying that, in essence, where one lives and how one lives are as important as what one eats, and that the interplay of the wheres and hows are critical to what a body does with inputs like food, water, and air. I am saying, in other words, that viewing any product out of the context of its users habits and conditions is to see that product at best through a glass darkly.
I recently visited a friends dairy farm to look at a cow for purchase. Several of his children walked with me (barefoot) the tenth of a mile from house to barn, and as I went about my business the kids rattled about, doing their appointed chores and of course playing. You might be surprised at their near continuous close contact with substances most people would consider untouchablethe inevitable consequence of living on a farm, even a neat, clean, and tidy one. (One young lad curled up for a few minutes in a wheelbarrow, pulling an empty feed sack over himself as a blanket. God only knows what had been in that wheelbarrow.) Exposures everywhere, but not an illness to be found.
We speak here often about the health benefits of living on a biologically diverse farmof stronger bodies and stronger immune systems. Of course not everyone can live on a farm, but we should all know and consider that those benefits come also by living NEAR good farms, and by working and playing outdoors in biologically diverse environments, and by intersecting and interacting with people and plants and animals from those biologically diverse environments. (Drinking good quality raw milk is a fine example of the latter.)
I believe that the best plan to achieve good health is one that includes building a life around biological diversity. To many, bound into an urban or suburban environment, that seems an impossibility. For some it is impossible; for others it is simply a matter of readjusting priorities. For some, biological diversity is already a plain reality. For those unable or unwilling to enjoy biologic diversity, there necessarily WILL be compromises. One of those is a greater risk of infectious disease, and perhaps their response to that potential might include a level of obsessiveness regarding exposures that is unnecessary in, say, my farmer friends family. For them, a laboratory may be seen as an essential mediator between them and their inputs. Fine. I do not want to quibble with that. I do want to argue however, that the need for such compromises are not universal. I also believe the corollary, that one cannot reasonably expect to achieve the high level of health enjoyed from being a member of a biologically diverse environment as from a compromise environment.
(By the way, the same holds true for psychologically diverse environmentsthose run under the command to love ones brothers and ones enemiesbut that is a discussion for another place and time.)
For the record, if my environment were walled off in part or whole from Nature, I would drink OPDC milk, and do it gratefully. Notably, I would drink it with the full knowledge that Marks milk, as good as it is, is not a substitute for comprehensive biological diversity. In other words, my expectations for health would be higher than if I did not drink it at all, but lower than if I were a true member of a biologically diverse environment. That, to my mind, is only fair and right, just like it is only fair and right to not suggest that laboratories are a necessary ingredient in every healthy life.
"A view of the past" " And the future " "The only future possible……….."
But a permaculture food forest won't protect you from FDA agents and Bill Marler.
-Bill
I can see a time in the future,maybe not so long from now,when sending milk samples off to a lab somewhere and getting back the correct results in a reasonable amount of time will be a faint memory in the mind of a few very old people.Between now and then I hope to have relearned a few skills that artisan cheese makers knew long ago.
I was out delivering milk to a CSA when one of the farmers came over and said "that milk last week made me sick and I'm going to sue you". I smiled and said "I don't have any money so I guess you'll have to take over the farm,but I should warn you that this crowd of people standing in line to fill their jars,goes with the farm."