There’s news about a possible outbreak of campylobacter from raw milk in North Carolina, that likely affected three people, and possibly affected as many as eight.
Now, chances are you’ve read that news elsewhere, such as on the many lawyer web sites that play up seemingly every food outbreak, or in national media, like Forbes, or in a number of local media news and television stories.
All kinds of anti-raw-dairy folks are climbing on the bandwagon, as well, including Cattle Network, a trade publication, which is using the announcement to fan the flames, and even to push its idea that veterinarians should be FDA spies, reporting on dairies that distribute raw milk. Just what we need, more spies, more repression.
Where did these places learn about the outbreak? From a press release put out by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on the national public relations distribution site, PR Newswire.
Just an aside: I used to use PR Newswire on behalf of clients when I was in the public relations business. I generally only used it for corporate clients, since it is the largest, and certainly the most expensive, among many dozens of such services in the country.
Press releases on this and other services are priced based on length–for PR Newswire, it’s $715 for the first 400 words and $195 per each additional 100 words. The FDA’s press release ran 1,214 words, which would work out to $2,470 at published rates. (An FDA spokesperson tells me the FDA has a contract with PR Newswire that presumably discounts the cost some.) The release ran on so long, not because the North Carolina situation was so complicated to explain, but because the FDA chose to include lengthy statements warning about the dangers of raw milk, and seeking to disparage raw milk proponents. “Proponents of drinking raw milk often claim that raw milk is more nutritious than pasteurized milk and that raw milk is inherently antimicrobial, thus making pasteurization unnecessary. There is no meaningful nutritional difference between pasteurized and raw milk, and raw milk does not contain compounds that will kill harmful bacteria.”
The obvious question that comes up is this: Does the FDA give this much attention to other food-borne illnesses?
The FDA says there was nothing unusual in its scheme of things for putting out the North Carolina food-contamination press release the way it did. All its press releases are posted on its site and placed on PR Newswire, its spokesperson says. As for the Saturday issuance, the spokesperson insists, “When there is a public health issue, FDA puts out a press release as soon as possible, regardless of whether it’s a normal workday or a weekend.”
Moreover, the spokesperson says, the FDA has issued press releases warning of other foodborne illness cases. She points to a press release warning people not to eat a particular brand of sprouts, based on twenty illnesses in five states; one warning people not to eat oysters from an area of Florida; and another warning of hazelnuts tainted with E.coli 0157:H7 that sickened seven people from four states .
But all those cases involved public distribution, via retailers or restaurants, of products found to be currently contaminated. The milk distributed in North Carolina wasn’t distributed via public channels, but rather through a private club within the state. And the South Carolina dairy where the milk was produced hadn’t as of the release time been found to be contaminated, and the instances of people who might have become ill had occurred a month earlier.
The FDA tends not to issue press releases in cases in which the threat from illnesses is thought to have passed. Many of these other cases are broadcast on the websites of product liability lawyers. As one example, the Marler-Clark law firm summarized outbreaks involving tainted bakery and cantaloupe products earlier this year –which resulted in numerous illnesses — yet neither rated an FDA press release.
Why would the FDA feel compelled to get the word out far and wide about a relatively small, locally confined outbreak of food-borne illness that for all practical purposes ended a month earlier? There are two reasons, which have received much attention here.
The FDA has a case pending against Amish farmer Dan Allgyer in federal district court, filed in April, in which it is seeking a permanent injunction against him serving a private food club that brings raw milk from Pennsylvania to Maryland. That case has been very controversial, and inspired a boisterious demonstration in Washington two months ago, featuring a cow outside the Capitol.
The FDA is also the target of the lawsuit filed by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, which challenges the legality of the FDA’s ban on interstate sales of raw milk. The FDA has been unsuccessful thus far in its efforts to have the case thrown out, and perhaps frustrated in the process.
As is clear from many posts here, many raw milk producers and consumers support improved safety standards. But the FDA has no interest in improving safety–it only wants raw dairy to disappear. It’s also clear the FDA is using every tool in its arsenal to fight its political battle against raw milk. The only good news I can see is that, if history is any guide, the FDA’s current publicity blitz will simply serve to expand raw milk sales.
"Does the FDA give this much attention to other food-borne illnesses? "
Nope, not at all.
"dairy where the milk was produced hadn't as of the release time been found to be contaminated, and the instances of people who might have become ill had occurred a month earlier. "
Some things just make you go hmmmm…..
"FDA has no interest in improving safety–it only wants raw dairy to disappear. "
This has been apparent for some time.
"Please Do Not Eat FDA Crap"
I have asked the FDA to correct its data in the press release and enter the proper CDC data. Which they will not do. I have also suggusted that the FDA do the right thing and help farmers to produce safer raw milk….which they will not do.
FOOD INC GUYS….FOOD INC…. with a touch of Farmageddon.
Mark
" They don't want to know how milk is produced, they don't want to know how beef is created. I think it is a waste of time to try to educate consumers. They don't need to be educated and they do not want to be educated".
This is an exact quote from a leader in the CA Dairy industry.
He thinks consumers are stupid and need to be kept ignorant. At least this is what I think I see him saying?!?
Now you know one of the greatest reasons that that the CA dairy industry has failed and how zero value added. Now you know why they use green pastures on bill boards but in fact have their cows CAFO's and deep manure. They think consumers are that stupid and they think that lies will sell more milk.
My experience has been the opposite. When consumers meet their dairyman and he educates them about the truth and the reality of the farm and describe every little thing, with pictures and data and etc….the consumers become very loyal and our branded market of raw milk grows tremendously. Stupid is as stupid does….
If ( most I would think ) consumers knew this about their farmers they would be even more pissed off.
You make your bed you sleep in it.
I want smart educated, farm connected consumers….no wonder raw milk from grass fed animals is such a huge threat to big dairy.
Mark
I'm curious for my own education…
Kevin
The opposite is true. Temperature abuse will actually tend to speed-up the expiration of campylobacter in raw milk. Campy can't grow in raw milk, the best it can hope for is to merely survive for just long enough to infect a person. Typically it lasts no more than 24 hours (but if there is a large pseudomonas population present it can last for as long as 48 hours.)
This is not true of all pathogens, however. Some can grow in raw milk, especially E. Coli and Staph. Aureus, but their growth is very dependent on the right conditions, warmth being the most important. (The only pathogen that can grow at refrigerator temperatures is listeria)
If a strong lactic-acid producing culture (such as kefir or cheese culture) is added to the milk, it should consume the lactose and drop the pH fast enough to exclude E. Coli and Staph, and promote their expiration.
E. Coli growth in milk is fairly easy to detect, because they produce gas bubbles and putrid off-flavors. Most E. Coli is harmless (even beneficial), and there are only a few strains that are dangerous. But it is still good to keep it out of the milk for quality and safety reasons.
I will be speaking in support of local foods and farmer to consumer connections….add Milk Pool Rape and Cow and Goat Shares to that as well.
I am pushing a bill that is soon to be introduced. It is called the "CALIFORNIA RAW MILK RIGHTS ACT" and will do much to assure protections for Co-producers ( farmers and the animal owning consumers ) and will also remove Human Consumption Raw Milk from the CA Milk Pool.
Currently, OPDC is subject to nothing more than CDFA Milk Pool Sanctioned Economic Rape of OPDC and Raw Milk. We are the only dairy in CA effected by this regulation in this way. Claravale is exempt because they produce less than 500 gallons per day of raw milk. If this was lifted I am sure that Claravale would produce a little more raw milk. OPDC is paying the Milk Pool about $35,000 per month and does not adn can not buy or use one drop of milk from the Milk Pool. It is illegal to puchase Raw Milk from the Milk Pool and bottle it under a raw milk brand. It would not pass TB test requirements, Coliform test standards, pathogen tests etc….it is the other raw milk in America which is intended to be and must be pasteurized.
What upsets most people and me the most is this.
When a consumer dollar votes to buy raw grass fed organic milk, they are using and choosing an economic tool in the market place. A choice for more raw organic milk.
What they get is a slap in the face and a punch in the GUT….they pay higher prices for raw milk and the fees paid by OPDC to the Milk Pool "go to the CAFO down the street" that makes BST hormone aided, antibiotic fed, dried powdered UHT PMO cheese-whiz and undigestible pasteurized lactaid or UHT 80 day unltra dead skim white stuff.
Consumers should never be subsidizing what they do not want…..foods that they hate and do not want to participate in or pay for. Yet, in CA consumer dollar voting is being raped also.
This is the fight we have in CA. It is getting broad support, except for the Big dairy guys that love my payment every month to their money sucking, life sucking, environmental sucking, PMO approved, FDA beloved, market disremoved CAFO's.
Can you sense the passion….it is enough to make you sick….and it does.
Mark
It'd be better to set up 5 smaller local dairies than employing a fleet of delivery trucks to distribute the healthy widgets from your milk plant (and then complain about paying the price for being too large). Bigger might be more American….but it damn sure aint better.
Hard to believe that one can't make a healthy living at less than 500 gallons per day…..
Being satisfied with less makes you appreciate what you have so much more.