Isnt this the way milk pasteurization started? You have a number of disease outbreaks. You try pasteurization out in a few places, in a few markets. You reassure the public that pasteurization doesnt change the nutritional value of milk. Processors love it because it extends shelf life. And presto. After a few decades, its the only legal product and the old way is illegal.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just approved ionizing radiation of spinach and lettuce, in response to outbreaks of illness from E.coli 0157:H7, some of which have been linked to spinach and lettuce. Were told it doesnt affect the veggies nutritional value. The technique is expected to be applied initially in just a few markets. But that may well change, since the FDA says the irradiation extends produce shelf life. It makes sense that dead veggies last longer than living veggies, just like dead milk lasts longer than living milk.
Irradiation is currently allowed for meat and some fish. Now it extends to veggies. The FDA seems likely to extend approval to other foods. It all follows up on required pasteurization of ciders, juices, almonds. Seems we really are edging closer to the time when all our food is sanitized, and to get the real thing, well have to grow it ourselves or go directly to farms.
***
As Steve Bemis points out in a link following my previous post, there is an excellent retrospective on the politics of raw milk by John Schwenkler in Doublethink Online. I had spoken with John during his research, and it looks as if he went and did his homeworkthe article is well worth reading.
The most intriguing parts of the article have to do with his reporting efforts to tie Big Dairy to the sabotage campaigns against raw milks legitimacy. Ive long been dubious of this tienot doubting that Big Dairy would prefer a world without raw milk, but suspecting that it isnt a big enough threat for Big Dairy to spend a lot of time and money on. And that looks to be kind of what Schwenkler found–that there is opposition, but its not a high-priority matter for Big Dairy.
One dairy official worries that all the attention paid to illnesses from raw milk might damage the overall milk brand.
I think Schewnkler is probably more on target when he examines the raw milk situation in the context of factory farming/agribusiness and the consumer movement. Here, though, he neglects to point out that the 1987 FDA ban on interstate sales of raw milk occurred over the objections of the FDA, at the behest of the dean of the consumer movement, Ralph Nader.
***
Finally, germ lawyer Bill Marler seems to have discovered a potential marketing opportunity in the pending California raw milk legislation, SB 201, which is designed to undo the crazy coliform regulation that threatens to put the state’s two raw milk dairies out of business. There hasnt been anything in the way of real opposition, so Marler leaps into the fray with a press release on BusinessWire, claiming, the country’s top food safety advocates are calling on California legislators to vote against it.
I read through the release, looking for the names of all the top food safety people who have aligned themselves with the germ hater. But, alas, only one person is mentioned in the release–the person who paid (the appoximately $500) for putting it out: Bill Marler.
Actually there has been no link to raw milk and the illness proven.
Your conclusion that there is a connection between the illness and raw milk is fraudulent and a lie.
That means you are a fraud and a liar.
Do you work for the FDA? Or Marler?
"Your conclusion that there is a connection between the illness and raw milk is fraudulent and a lie."
I sent a link; no conclusions. And, I don’t work for FDA (what’s Marler?). To be a bit more forthcoming, I am a student studying the 2 sides of the raw milk debate and the testimonials provided by each. A contact gave a link to this site as a resource for a different point of view.
Cathy
http://www.marlerblog.com/2008/08/articles/case-news/governor-schwarzenegger-veto-this-bill/
More than 10-20 acres…our dream is to have a "back 40," and getting the dogs to poop at the most distant point from the house 🙂 Seriously, that video is disturbing whether it’s raw milk, spinach, ground beef, or a petting zoo. Rather than point fingers away from each "culprit," perhaps everyone should work together to prevent the suffering. These are not simply "accidents," I’ve read enough to know there were high "standard plate counts" before the illnesses at Dairy A; non-compliance reports at Nebraska beef; no kid-friendly handwashing stations at petting zoos; etc.
"Concerned" runs from the truth. I hope some better people start over.and save "raw milk" from that selfish perspective.
An example: I was able to drive by OP dairy outside of Fresno while I was working, at numerous times of the day. I researched the dairy the best I could on the net and asking people at the Co-OP, Claravale has always been sold out when I go there so I have not been able to try that milk, I have since been able to find out much more information on Claravale and would have no problem with consuming that milk too. I would not consider drinking just any raw dairy. And now that irradiation of foods are becoming more and more prevalant, I will be buying less than I already do from stores.
Perhaps more than 20 acres will give a side line of selling excess produce. I’ve never been around pigs and never butchered beef, I suppose you are never too old to learn.
Depending on when you entered the market, a full analysis would have required you to take the 99 south at Manning, drive about an hour south to a town called Pixley. At Pixley, you would take the southern most exit off the freeway and drive about fifteen minutes west to the dead end in the road. Do the drive some time.
Amanda
Im curious… If you are in a post high school program, what is your study major? I ask because the raw milk debate intersects with both biology/physiology, and constitutional rights, so requires a rather broad understanding.
Raw milk promoters are generally live food promoters who, at root, believe that the definition of pathogen needs rethinking. They (we) point out that simple exposure to a pathogen is not a reliable disease predictor (some who are exposed get sick, others do not), therefore the status of a disease host is an important factor in individual and public health. We wonder why our medical practitioners and our regulators (and our Marlers) seem so unconcerned with the status of disease hosts, but focus instead on the supply side, if you will, of the health equation, getting reliably exercised over the mere presence of this or that pathogenic microbe, but not over an immune system destroyed by industrial food and perhaps by narrowly focused medical care. The demand side of the health equation is to them, at least when treating an illness, or implementing a rule, or arguing a tort case, nonexistent.
The constitutional issue creeps in because those who desire to achieve health by energizing the demand side of healthby building their immune systems, encouraging soil health, etc.are having their tools taken away from them by a system driven by a supply-side focus. That system promotes dead, industrial foods, pesticide use, herbicide use, genetic alteration of seed stock, irradiated foods, and so on, while establishing rules counter to the sustenance of our natural environment, and impeding the free sale of live foods like raw milk. (The recent push to use coliform counts as a milk quality measure stands as evidence. Coliforms, of course, can be very beneficial and are in fact necessary for health, but according to the actions of our regulators and Marlers, they are uniformly bad things. That rule would have actually diminished milk quality. And if you have read recent posts here about the lactoperoxidase system and its effect on campylobacter, you will have noted other evidence that a health supply-side focus can be damaging to humans.)
I and others on this blog wonder where our rights have gone, and we wonder also just how much damage the regulators and the Marlers and even our medical practitioners will do, before this whole thing turns around.
That video is designed to scare people. It’s based on half-truths and accusation. If I were the parents, I’d be ashamed for making unproven and vicious statements, not to mention for exploiting my child’s pain and suffering. Apparently they see it differently. Guess I would too if it were my child.
CSU is planning a pathogen challenge test this fall. They are going to inoculate raw and pasteurized milk with human pathogens and see what the growth rate is in each for a variety of human pathogens. We’re enthused and hopeful.
I want to see a study done on the gut health of raw milk consumers. I want to know why, when thousands of consumers drink "tainted" raw milk, only 5 get sick. What was the diet provided this child before illness? (And why did they prescribe antibiotics, which I understand trigger kidney failure in this illness?)
There ought to be a class for every raw milk consumer about building immune health, and understanding whether or not they are "immune-compromised" before they decide to consume raw milk.
I keep thinking the reason they can’t find the source of the tomato/no wait pepper/no wait oh let’s just irradiate it all problem is because they’re not asking the right question – Was the victim immune-compromised?
-Blair
"NUKED FOODS" THE DANGERS OF IRRADIATED FOODS
http://www.truehealth.org/nukedfood.html
I do advocate the consumption of raw milk. We witnessed some very postive benefits in our family. I certainly am opposed to irradiated food. But I think it’s unwise to make blanket recommendations like one food fits all. I think that it’s especially wise to exercise caution when dealing with sick people.
I am afraid to give raw milk to my 84 year old father. Not that I don’t trust the milk – oh yes I do! He’s on oxygen, statins, all kinds of drugs – definitely immune-compromised. I think his body might be able to handle the detox, but the second he feels bad he calls the doctor for another drug…it’s s a no-win situation.
Thanks Steve, for your encouraging post. I like the diversity on this blog, especially when it’s civil and thoughtful.
Welcome Cathy, and keep offering challenges. How are we going to learn anything if we always agree with each other?
-Blair
I have to say I am disgruntled over the outsourcing issue. Don’t pitch the legislation to me as prohibiting outsourcing when it does not.
I’ve lobbied for my basic amendment with no satisfaction:
http://www.rebuild-from-depression.com/resources/SB201.pdf
The bill has changed since I wrote the letter, but I would write a letter with similar intent today.
What raw milk drinker wants milk intended for pasteurization and bottled as "certified raw milk"? I posed the question here on this blog once "Would you drink milk from a random bulk milk tank?" and, if memory serves, the resounding answer was "No."
Amanda
Cathy
Hey everyone, Sb 201 passed the State Assembly in CA today with a vote of 100% yes and zero no votes.
Amanda, why are you so negative? Not sure if you love or hate raw milk? This is a great day for raw milk safety and whole food nutrition. Lets celebrate this great success!!
It is also a day of tragedy as I just learned of the unlabeled death of vegetables via FDA authorized irradiation.
SB 201 stands as a shining example of how good science and good people can change a paradigm and make things better.
Take notice America…get involved in the polical process and make good change happen or in the alternative…live in an off grid Tee Pee on 20 acres in the mountains, milk your own skinny starving cow and let things to go to irradiated hell in a none recycleable handbasket.
It is time to change the FDA and that means all of us engaging not disengaging. They are us. They are people and they can be fired. Their policies can be changed and not tolerated.This is a country run for money.
Vote by changing what you spend your money on and products will change to get your dollar. That is how it works in the USA. Vote with your dollar and things change. Monsanto just learned this lesson the hard way. BST does not sell so they are selling their BST division.
Mark McAfee
Founder OPDC
"the status of disease hosts"
Dave, could this be that it would require actual research into the "hosts" immune status, and perhaps through research it would be discovered that the modern diet/environment contributes to the decline in healthy immune systems?
I don’t recall where I read it, but the foods of 60-70 yrs ago had higher nutritional values then the foods of today. Doesn’t that tell people anything? Don’t they care why there is a decline? Why aren’t tptb rectifying it? It seems there is just more artificial junk piled on our foods. Unnatural and unhealthy-unknown to the masses.
It will be interesting to read of the CSU pathogen challenge test when it is completed.
Mark, I believe Amanda’s issue is with out-sourcing. As she pointed out, most don’t want raw milk that is/was destined for pasteurization. Out-sourced milk is not something I’d have confidence in. The visions of the factory dairies come to mind.
From: "Mark McAfee" <mark@organicpastures.com>
Date: August 22, 2008 7:14:15 AM PDT
To: "’Edwin Shank’" <deshanks@abcmailbox.net>
Cc: <collettecassidy@yahoo.com>, "’Chessen Christine’" <chessenc@comcast.net>, "’Joshua C. Walters’" <josh@jcwaltersesq.com>, "’Rusty Areias’" <rareias@calstrat.com>, "’Kurt Schuparra’" <KSchuparra@calstrat.com>, <SAFallon@aol.com>, "’Pollock, Dennis – Fresno’" <dpollock@fresnobee.com>
Subject: RE: [Odairy] ‘Governor Schwarzenegger, Veto This Bill!’ Pleads Food Safety Advocate William Marler
SB 201 is good science and good policy
Although Bill Marlers thoughts and quotes may be well intentioned, but they are biased and highly inaccurate. Children are not on life support from any state inspected raw milk dairy operations.
Contrary to Bill Marlers statements, SB 201 is designed to dramatically enhance food safety. It is designed as a food safety bill and includes many critical elements that do not currently exist in todays regulations either in California or nationally. In the future, SB 201 will most probably become the standard by which all raw milk is safely produced nationally.
The bias against and the authors distain for the internationally recognized scientists, raw milk and dairy experts at UC Davis and other institutions that helped to develop SB 201 is obvious. In fact if SB 201 standards are not immediately adopted in CA and across the nation more illness may occur because of unregulated and untested under the radar raw dairy operations.
When a prohibition is set upon a food and people seek that food outside of inspected regulations, problems can occur. SB 201 addresses many of these concerns by placing nationally and internationally recognized food safety management systems into place ( HACCP systems and Farm Safety Plans ). These plans and systems include all current testing plus additional intensive pathogen testing that is not currently required.
Bill Marler is an ambulance chaser , a self appointed food safety alarmist. He makes money, tons of money on sick kids. In the past he has become rich on the likes of Odwalla, Jack in the Box, Spinach growers and beef recalls. Why should Bill Marler want these recalls and food illnesses to stop? If they stop he will no longer have a job or an income. He is an industry all unto himself with no regard for changing the very origins of the challenges that make him rich.
SB 201 is the most advanced food safety bill ever developed for dairy operations. It focuses on bad bacteria and tests intensively for them. Current regulations do not address bad bacteria but rather limits good bacteria that actually act to inhibit and kill bad bacteria. Current California law is bad science and can miss pathogenic bacteria because they are not tested for intensively and can still be present. SB 201 does not permit the sharing or bottling of raw milk between two or more dairies when that milk is intended for raw milk consumption and not pasteurization. SB 201 requires documentation of by weekly testing of both good and bad bacteria and this data must be reported to state regulators. Current testing happens one time per month.
SB 201 is good science and good policy. Bill Marler is Bill Marler.
The consumers of raw milk and the producers of raw milk all encourage the passage of SB 201 to advance food safety and food freedom. All Assembly committees that have voted on SB 201 voted unanimously for its passage. SB 201 was vetted by hours and hours of food safety expert testimony in CA State Senate hearings.
With SB 201 food safety is number one.
Raw milk is growing and rapidly developing market. People rely upon raw milk to treat a variety of chronic diseases including asthma, allergies and raw milk is not associated with lactose intolerance. Active enzymes, good beneficial bacteria and raw fats found only raw milk are critical to its immune rebuilding and healing qualities. Pasteurized milk can not be used as a substitute.
Safe raw milk is critical for its consumers and SB 201 provides this level of assurance.
Mark McAfee
Founder OPDC
There are so many variables that have not been explored with raw vs pasteurized milk. A viable regulation or law cannot be constructed very well on incomplete information. Lawyers sue based on interpretations of current law. Their profession is not to look for solutions, but to attack those who don’t follow the current rules (as a shark would, I suppose). The solution is to enter shark-infested waters in a cage, with proper protections, and persue what it is we are doing, and stay away from the cage’s edges when one comes near. If they smell meat but can’t get to it; too bad.
The CDC also needs to write reports in clearer language. I know the game. In hospitals, you have to show regulators you are getting people better, so when you admit them, you make them out to be more sick; when discharged more well. When informing the public, you put on the worst picture to scare them into doing what is "safe." Therefore, Listeriosis levels are stated based on those found in raw milk, not in how many people fell ill from the disease; and it is reported how many cases of Listeriosis there were in the U.S. without defining whether or not the source came from the U.S., or from raw or pasteurized in many media sources. Or the relevance of the report is skewed when the source is pasteurized, by ending the article with "Don’t drink raw milk." These hairs do need split, and in the reports. It is not the CDC’s job to scare the public, but to list the facts as they have been found. Valid choices are made on accurate and meaningful figures!
All the variables need to be thoroughly explored. As has been brought up in the past, which raw milk do you compare to pasteurized? Are you taking it from a factory farm, or from a grass fed cow on a farm regularly tested for pathogens? Someone stated that all variables couldn’t be eliminated when comparing pasteurized to raw, and therefore there could be no accurate comparison.
But factor by factor, they need to be compared. First, we need to know how often pasteurized milk is contaminated, and how much illness that causes, before we can say it benefits us to pasteurize it. The milk needs taken off the shelf as it would be bought by the consumer, and tested in that form for similar pathogens that raw is tested for, in consumer form, on a consistant and regular basis before it can be said that pasteurized is safer. The variable of probiotics in disease risk needs explored. I doubt NY Ag Dept. does any of this; nor any regulating body for that matter. Most regulations are based on assumptions that the act of killing bacteria in all milk by pasteurization makes it safer. That is an assumption, and may not be true when the variables of processing and selling are added.
The health debate vs the freedom debate is like the shark cage. We should be able to have free waters to swim in. We should have the freedom to find or raise our own food without fear of being attacked.
I’ve seen a lot of people like the boy in that video. I’m a nurse. E-coli is only one culprit. Saying that family should be ashamed puts me in mind of Hulk Hogan worrying about his son’s prosecution. I’ve had a child in intensive care; I know how it feels, and I’d be pretty angry with that statement, were I that boy’s parent. The thing is; that could have happened with pasteurized milk too; and has. There have been similar children in the same position with plenty of processed foods. No food is "safe," and we should not illude ourselves about that. We should have the choice to decide which we eat.
And to date, we don’t have accurate facts on what is safer than what else.
Gwen
You have piqued my curiosity however: Why do you see my concern as negative? Do you support outsourcing from dairies making product intended for pasteurization?
Amanda
I bet Angela feeds her family pus encrusted industrially manufactured toxic slop..
Very good points about all the variables in testing – I don’t know but I will try to find out and let you know. They know about RMAC, (in fact Dr.Meg Cattell basically outlined the test parameters for them last year, and they sounded enthusiastic) but I don’t know if they will seek us out for milk samples on this challenge test.
I did not say those parents should be ashamed; I said *I* would be ashamed to use that video footage the way it was used. I also acknowledged that my perspective might be different if it were my child. That video upset me because it was so poignant and yet so manipulative, and openly accused OP’s raw milk of causing his illness – which has not been proven – it’s a smear campaign. Guilty guilty guilty!! Outside a court of law.
As David pointed out in another post, how many people are getting well on raw milk? How many asthma sufferers are cured (2, in this house..)? How many allergies, ear aches, arthritic joints, and swollen guts improved? The "health" departments don’t acknowledge it.
Dr. Price’s definition of health is what drew me in; everyone else speaks of illness, or the lack of illness, but they have no idea what health is. Piano-key teeth, a wide dental arch, well-developed facial structure, a happy and calm disposition, and a culture that takes care of it’s young and elders – all because they eat nutrient-dense, real food. That’s worth fighting for.
-Blair
Why don’t you change your name to that.
Just make it troll instead.
What I feed my children has nothing to do with what I wrote. It was just an opinion that I have about one particular food item (raw dairy) And just so you know, my children eat very healthy foods, they are healthy, happy thriving kids. Im sure you are of the itelligence(or at least I hope), to know that raw milk is not the ONLY thing on planet earth that is considered healthy.
"Should you find yourself the victim of other people’s bitterness, ignorance, smallness or insecurities; remember, things could be worse, You could be one of them!."
Just ignore it and hope it goes away. Eventually she does.
Have a nice day all!!
I couldn’t agree with you more.
Really, I think the raw milk movement deserves a better hero than this man from California. In fact, I’d vote for David Gumpert who has done such an excellent job bringing the participants on this board together.
Signed,
the original concerned reader
David, I a very proud to be a lawyer representing victims of personal and corporate greed. And, yes, I do get paid doing it. I also spend about 1/2 my time for free talking to companies about why it is a bad idea to poison people (see, http://www.outbreakinc.com). Perhaps, I do that to give back and try to prevent more illnesses, perhaps it is a little guilt – people are complex, I am not different. I do not hide what I do – see my profile here, or take the time to visit http://www.billmarler.com.
David, I know that you promote the drinking of raw milk at you blog, http://www.completepatient.com, and I know you do not like the fact that I have sued manufacturers of raw milk who have poisoned children. But, the product you promote is no different that any other product. You really are no different than any PR man for any corporation you range against.
If a product is defective – E. coli tainted raw milk or an exploding pinto car – manufacturers under the law are treated the same. Those injured by defective products can seek compensation. I believe in the civil justice system. It is one of the only ways that people can stand up for their rights in the country.
I know you do not like me or what I do. You assume the worst, because anything else would challenge your beliefs and you can not do that. Actually, that says more about your inability to see different perspectives other than your own, than anything else. I feel badly for you.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/23/102456/537/85/573505
Also, here is the full test of my open letter to the Governator:
Governor Schwarzenegger, Veto This Bill!
An ambitious and well-meaning attempt to make Californias dairy products safer arrives this week in the California Assembly in the form of State Bill 201but the countrys top food safety advocates are calling on California legislators to vote against it. The bill places regulations on producers of raw milk dairy products and lays groundwork intended to stem the tide of deadly food borne illnesses tied to the raw milk industry. It sounds good, and may have enough support to reach the Governors desk, where the same advocates encourage a veto. Whats the problem?
Its difficult to work so hard against a bill that has such good intentions, said William Marler, food safety advocate and attorney. But SB 201 actually creates a detour around the regulation of raw milk, and must be re-written before the bill is ready. There are children on life support because of raw milk tainted with E. coli and other toxic bacteria, and there will be more of them in Californiaand nationwideunless changes are made to this legislation.
Rather than detailing the levels of fecal contaminates acceptable in a regulated raw milk product, the bill proposes that raw milk be regulated by a HACCP protocol. HACCPHazard Analysis Critical Control Pointis a food safety and self-inspection system that describes procedures for producing potentially dangerous foods. There are national HACCP protocols in place for juice, meat, poultry, and seafood processing, but none for raw milk. Developing a HACCP protocol can take years, and if SB201 is signed as written, California raw milk will enter a black hole of regulation. Companies will be free to produce raw milk essentially unregulated until a HACCP plan is ready.
Raw milkgiven that it is outside the pasteurization processhas inherent risks, continued Marler. Illnesses from raw milk and raw colostrumE. coli, campylobacter, and listeriaare on the rise, and weve seen first-hand a growing number of consumers whose lives will never be the same because of this product:
Dee Creek Farm E. Coli O157:H7 11 ill, 4 with Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome, or HUS
Grace Harbor Farms E. Coli O157:H7 2 children ill, one with HUS
Organic Pastures E. Coli O157:H7 – 6 ill, 2 children with HUS
Herb Depot E. Coli O157:H7 – Two children ill
Town Farm Dairy E. Coli O157:H7 – 5 ill, 2 with HUS
Alexandre Family EcoDairy Farms Campylobacter 15 illnesses, one on a ventilator.
Raw milk is at the center of a nationwide controversy over its potential value as a nutritional food versus the severe illnesses that can result from contaminated product.
Pasteurization was developed to rid dairy products of pathogens like toxic E. coli as well as to assure a longer, safer shelf life. Proponents of raw milk believe that pasteurization also eliminates healthful benefits of the dairy product.
(Peer-reviewed literature on the raw milk controversy can be found by clicking here for pro and here for con.) And, click here for a Legal History of Raw Milk.
Its the large producers of raw milk products that SB 201 aims to regulate, said Marler. Because of the HACCP loophole, a huge amount of contaminated product could reach the public. This bill is intended to stop them, but instead will give them a free ride for years to come. California Legislators and Governor Schwarzenegger, please send SB 201 back!
You can get to the links at:
http://www.marlerblog.com/2008/08/articles/case-news/governor-schwarzenegger-veto-this-bill/
David, your suggestion that I oppose this bill because I want more people to be sickened is reprehensible. You should be ashamed of yourself for even being able to consider such a thought. I feel sorry for you.
Rhianna
I still don’t see a dialog here; I just see posturing.
I just want a choice. That’s all.
-Blair
I had no idea about the depth of the controvesy with raw milk (professor in Colorado is interested). A couple questions if you might have more information:
1. a list/link to other states with bills relating to raw milk?
2. contact information for the researcher at CSU that is going to study raw milk? We’re at another university and not connected.
Thanks so much,
Cathy
Wow, I didn’t realize the trial was over. Is this an assumption or was this proved? Or are you just alluding that OP is guilty?
Blair, many of us just want a choice. Our choices of what we eat are being taken away.
http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/history/biographies/louis_pasteur.htm
Heres something we found online that was drawn up for a Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors concerning outbreaks from pasteurized milk:
1997, 28 persons ill from Salmonella in California, ALL FROM PASTEURIZED MILK.
1996, 46 persons ill from Campylobacter and Salmonella in California.
1994, 105 persons ill from E. coli and Listeria in California
March of 1985 19,660 confirmed cases of Salmonella typhimurium illness FROM CONSUMING PROPERLY PASTEURIZED MILK. Over 200,000 people ill from Salmonella typhimurium in PASTEURIZED MILK
1985, 142 cases and 47 deaths traced to PASTEURIZED Mexican-style cheese contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. Listeria monocytogenes SURVIVES PASTEURIZATION!
1985, 1500 persons ill from Salmonella infection
August of 1984 approximately 200 persons became ill with a Salmonella typhimurium from CONSUMING PASTEURIZED MILK
November of 1984, another outbreak of Salmonella typhimurium illness from CONSUMING PASTEURIZED MILK
1983, over 49 persons with Listeria illness have been associated with the consumption of PASTEURIZED MILK in Massachusetts.
1993, 28 persons ill from Salmonella infection
1982, 172 persons ill (100 hospitalized) from a three Southern state area from PASTEURIZED MILK.
1982, over 17,000 persons became ill with Yersinia enterocolitica from PASTEURIZED MILK bottled in Memphis, Tennessee.
The best details that I know of on current state status is on http://www.farmtoconsumer.org or http://www.realmilk.com.
Today I wrote to the professor that is sponsoring the pathogen challenge test, and forwarded Gwen’s concerns about the source of the milk being tested. In that email I promised her that I would not publish her email address. She knows about the raw milk community, and I believe that she is a good scientist. I asked to be on her copy list and I will relay information as soon as I get it.
I don’t know much except that the study will take place this fall. I am somewhat optimistic that they will test milk intended for raw consumption,but I have no asurrance yet.
I think it is a straight-foward test and won’t take long, but I expect that since it will be published,it will take longer than we want to see the results.
-Blair
Sylvia – our choices are getting better! I see it every day lately; we have a wallet and they feel it. They’ll come around, yes they will. As long as we do the deed.. The whole world listens to the family checkbook. Heh – watch them watch us.
-Blair
The Schmitmeyer story:
http://www.daytondailynews.com/search/content/oh/story/news/local/2006/12/30/ddn123006rawmilk.html
When Ted Strickland replaced Bob Taft as governor, many of Taft’s administration left, including the ODA director, Fred Daily. Robert Boggs replaced him. Both Strickland and Boggs seem to be more herdshare friendly, but this seems to be a temporary situation.
And Fred Daily is now running for U.S. Congress in the 18th district of Ohio. He was director during Ohio’s raw milk raids.
Gwen
I can only hope that the people in my state can successfully pressure our legislature into action on a similar threat to our welfare.
Every time I am out on the highway,I see carcasses of dead deer everywhere.I can see what is causeing this because those dangerous predators,the vultures, are all over the dead deer.Obviously the vultures are being harbored by the local farms,because I see them roosting on the fence posts when I drive by.The farmers should take the responsibility for eliminating these predators,but they won’t unless someone makes it illegal to have these predators on the farm.So run to the phone,don’t stop to think,let your representative know that you favor a law that will stop the decimation of the deer by these nasty vultures.
I have never seen it or heard of a Martin video tape.
Please tell me where I can see it.
Thanks
Mark McAfee
Founder OPDC
What makes everyone so sure that just because some type of bacteria are found in the presence of dead cells in someones digestive tract that they are the cause of the cells dying? Lots of things can kill the cells lining our intestines.The job of bacteria where ever they are found is to break down dead things so that they can be recycled.That is what the bacteria are doing. The cells were already dead before they arrived.Do we test milk for the presence of chemicals that can kill cells?I recall an incident in Canada a while ago where chocolate milk in school lunch programs made some children sick.Someone had the presence of mind to test the milk for sodium hypochlorite(the approved sanitizer for milking equiptment).They found it in a concentration that could certainly cause the children to be ill.
Isn’t it about time that we recognize that all kinds of chemicals that are added to our food purposely and accidentily are the real cause of the cell death and that microbes are blamed for the damage simply because they are present at the scene of the damage.They are just cleaning things up so that the healing process can begin.
I doubt the true answer will ever be found in this case. Ask the child, but then by this time, the child’s mind probably has been manipulated by so many "well meaning" adults that the poor kid may not even know what really occured.
I didn’t see the video, is that the same kid that had HUS but didn’t have the E-Coli that others had? Polluted water, what a concept! Chemicals in processed foods cannot be good for the human body, especially subjecting the body to the insults repeatedly. Kids get into many things. Someone may have been carrying the bacteria and shared it with the kid.
You need to do your own research on raw milk. We did. It’s a personal choice. I"m not trying to convert you to the "raw side" with studies. Not everything comes down to "science-based information". If you are fortunate enough to live in a state where raw milk is legal, then you can try it for yourself. Or not. The point is that you should be able to decide for yourself what you think is the best food for you & your family. There is no guarantee that any food is 100% risk free.
If you want to find recent research, google
the enzymes found in raw milk, such as lactoferrin, lactoperoxidase, nisin and I need help from readers because right now I can’t remember them all. I think it is lactoferrin that the FDA approved as a pathogen-inhibitor for meat packers. There are oodles of patents out there for milk isolates (laboratory synthesized, to make it patentable) that are derived from raw milk. Yet the sale of raw milk is illegal – doesn’t that seem odd?
Phosphatase, the enzyme necessary to make calcium bio-available, is also the enzyme the dairy industry tests for to ensure it is de-natured (killed dead) after pasteurization.
"Pottenger’s Cats" is a classic study, demonstrating degeneration of skeletal structure, overall health, and eventual sterility of cats after 4 generations on cooked milk. Skeptics poo-poo this because it was conducted in the 1930’s – as if Galileo, Isaac Newton et al should be poo-poo’d too…
To my knowledge there are only two modern nutritional studies, one conducted in Europe, that concluded people who drank "farm milk" had fewer allergies, and another by the Weston A. Price Foundation that concluded lactose-intolerant people could drink raw milk.
In the last 50 years, there haven’t been any other "scientific" studies comparing populations that drink raw milk vs pasteurized milk – the evidence is largely anecdotal.
Scientific, peer-reviewed, double-blind studies cost millions of dollars, and there is no benefit in conducting a study that tells you a non-patentable food is a health benefit. Where’s the money? In patentable products!
Many people testify that raw milk helps. You can poo-poo that if you want to. But if you’re still curious, take a look at some of this.
Here’s some books:
Dr. Weston A. Price: Nutrition and Physical Degeneration
Dr.Ron Schmid: The Untold Story of Milk
Dr. Charles Sanford Porter: Milk Diet as a Remedy for Chronic Disease
Sally Falln & Dr. Mary Enig: Nourishing Traditions
Here’s a few links:
http://www.realmilk.com (Read the Powerpoint Presentations)
http://www.rawmilkfacts.com
http://www.organicpastures.com/faq.html
Hope this helps,
-Blair
You can find negatives at the FDA and USDA websites.Of course these are balanced presentations (tongue in cheek).
Passion for OP? It is a convienent way for me to obtain raw milk. I really don’t care to milk any cows at this point in my life. My passion is the freedom to choose what I wish to consume. I do not require anyone to tell me what I can and cannot eat.
"But, your post makes the point that tragedy can occur after drinking raw milk – "
As recent outbreaks show, tragedy can occur with any foods, why single out raw milk? Many more have been sickened bby pastuerized milk over the last 50 years.
"no explanation why this poor boy wasn’t protected in an effort to save his immune system. Could you expand on why raw milk failed? "
Of course I cannot. I am not an MD nor am I privy to the kid’s medical history or living environment or DNA, etc.
"Also, still waiting for anyone to bring forward science-based information about the how raw milk promotes good health – "
As stated, we did our own research, you can do yours too. Find your own data if you are that interested. If you don’t want to consume raw milk, then don’t. It’s that simple.
"Can anyone find negatives discussed on the websites Mary listed; possible pathogens and illness that could result if a person drank contaminated raw milk? Is there balanced information on these websites? "
Are there balanced information on the fda, cdc, et al web sites of the pros and cons of raw milk?
How do you know Marler doesn’t need the money?
"I also spend about 1/2 my time for free talking to companies about why it is a bad idea to poison people (see, http://www.outbreakinc.com). Perhaps, I do that to give back and try to prevent more illnesses, perhaps it is a little guilt – people are complex, I am not different."
Give back what? This volunteer time still accounts for shark attack time, not figuring out a solution. Saying, "Get with the program," while ignoring valid arguments doesn’t count as "giving back," from my point of view.
I spent an hour this morning reading the chapter on research in my cardiac vascular care nursing book. It made me very negatively reminiscent of Statistics 101, with words like Qualitative and Quantitative methods, sampling errors and so on. It was even harder to concentrate to the din of someone else carrying on a conversation about their son’s eating disorder. (I was in a therapy waiting room while my teenage daughter was with her psychotherapist for something less severe).
Yesterday I had another conversation with my retired dairy farmer uncle who feels that centralized dairies protect the farmer from lawsuits. I was asking him about his impression of Fred Daily running for congress. Turns out he’s a family friend of my uncle’s. So I find myself re-evaluating the wording of my finished letter-to-the-editor that I’ve addressed to newspapers in 3 counties.
Sitting in the quiet, a question came to me, pondering all of this. When you are protecting the farmer from lawsuit by centralizing dairy processing, but the centralized processor still gets sued for food poisoning, what is accomplished? Some rudimentary protection of our food sources?
Bill Marler still makes money. People still get food poisoning, except it is from pasteurized milk, and the dairy farmer who makes the food stays safe. Nobody is compelled to figure out how it happens. Bill isn’t looking. He’s just preaching.
Then I get to the end of the chapter in a section called, "Evidence Based Practice." I read about Quality Assurance programs, which having been a nurse for the past 10 years now, I am all too familiar with. Half the time, the hospital-led "solutions," cause as many problems as they solve. But they have to show, on a continual basis, that they are trying. So we have to fill out extra papers before sending someone off to surgery, and the OR is calling, complaining that we’re holding up surgeries. That is about my impression of QA, hospital-based solutions.
Is there any equivalent in the dairy industry? What is it?
Is there some solution where the farmer can still sell off the farm to neighbors, and be protected the way they can when they sell to a centralized dairy? And how?
I still think that the structuring of the body that monitors food safety from the state department of agriculture standpoint needs an overhaul. The people who choose regulations need to be educated, but they also need to be elected, not appointed. So many statistics are assumed to mean things that they don’t mean. We are dealing with Type I and Type II errors in validity; with sampling errors and measurement issues.
There are no sides here, only uneducated people, and people unwilling to keep researching the real and needed questions so that they can hold onto their impressions. Because of the current structure, it is within the best interest of regulators to keep regulations based on outdated statistics and data, and not persue new data as the healthcare industry has to continually do. It might make them think too much.
Gwen
I dont think that anyone is singling out Raw milk. I think it is more a point of listing it as a risky food, along with meat, veggies, etc.. It is the topic of discussion here so I think that when you say singling out, you are over-exaggerating the point.
Raw Milk Pros: Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Posted on June 6, 2008 by Food Poisoning Attorney
I thought it might be helpful to bring a bit of rationality to the "raw milk debate." Here is a summary of the findings of a review of peer-reviewed literature on the topic of the consumption of raw milk at least the pros:
There is substantial epidemiological evidence from studies in Europe that consumption of raw milk products in childhood has a protective effect for some allergic conditions (e.g., asthma, hay fever, eczema); other factors associated with living on a farm such as contact with animals and barns showed a similar effect in these studies. Plausible explanations for these observations exist including the hygiene hypothesis and modulation of the immune system early in life. At the same time, no author recommends raw milk as a preventive measure for allergies at this time because of the potential hazards due to foodborne pathogens such as EHEC and Salmonella known to occur in raw milk. The body of literature suggests that further studies are needed to identify the specific factors in raw milk (and other farm exposures) that lead to a protective effect for allergic conditions.
No articles could be found substantiating an increased risk of autism due to pasteurized milk or a protective effect from raw milk consumption, respectively.
Probiotics are increasingly recognized in the literature as an effective approach for managing some gastrointestinal and allergic conditions. Specific criteria that define probiotics have been published and raw milk does not fit this definition. No articles suggested that raw milk should be used as a probiotic.
Raw milk and cheeses may contain microflora (beneficial bacteria) that produce metabolites and other antibacterial compounds that may be toxic to foodborne pathogens. The presence and quantity of these specific compounds, the bacterial species involved, and the log reduction for different foodborne pathogens from these bacteria/compounds has not been defined in raw milk; therefore, these properties cannot be considered a substitution for a kill step.
Although studies have shown modest reductions in some vitamins and other nutrients after pasteurization of milk, these changes are insignificant according to a review by Potter et al (1984), human nutrition studies have shown no advantage of raw over pasteurized milk. A review of more recent literature did not reveal any changes in this position.
No references could be found to support some benefits reported by raw milk advocates such as promotion of tooth development/reduction of dental caries; enhanced fertility; or existence of an undefined substance to protect against arthritis (anti-stiffness factor)
Detailed Literature Review of the Pros of Raw Milk Consumption: I. Protection against allergic conditions (e.g., asthma, hay fever, excema)
a. Raw milk advocates frequently cite recent epidemiological studies that have demonstrated a statistically significant inverse relationship between farm or unpasteurized milk and allergic conditions in children. A number of studies, mostly among children in various European countries, provide convincing evidence that a protective effect is associated with unpasteurized milk consumption during childhood. However, the underlying mechanism for this observation remains unclear and the overwhelming consensus among authors of these papers is that because of the potential health hazards from foodborne pathogens (EHEC, Salmonella, etc.) consumption of raw farm milk cannot be recommended as a preventive measure for allergic conditions.
It goes on with more details:
http://www.marlerblog.com/2008/06/articles/lawyer-oped/raw-milk-pros-review-of-the-peerreviewed-literature/
Just a rehash of the same old stuff.
Nothing new here.
Whether you like the conventional farmers or not, they are going out of business left and right (and I’ve actually seen auction bills for organic farmers, too, so they’re not immune). There have been droughts in the south from California to Florida, and the midwest corn/hay belt was flooded earlier this summer. Milk prices are dropping again, and farmers and calf buyers are shooting (dairy) bull calves because farmers cannot afford to buy them and raise them up as beef steers (due to price of diesel fuel, feed, hay) – and dairy steers are a significant portion of our country’s beef.
Now,everyone here who is questioning the ‘safety’ of raw milk, especially the significant number of new people here – ask yourselves. Where are you going to get your food this winter? It is predicted that there will be a flood of food (beef, pork, etc.) on the market early this winter as farmers dump their animals on the market, making these products cheap, cheap, cheap. Then…watch out. Food will be hard to come by, and what there is will be expensive. (And don’t look to other countries to sell food to us, they’re having their own food shortages and riots – GOOGLE IT if you don’t believe me!)
So what’s my point? Raw milk is safe, raw milk is dangerous, blah, blah, blah…But this winter, when the sh*t hits the fan, you may be contemplating actually drinking the dangerous raw milk, lest STARVE.
Something you may want to think about.
"It is worrisome that people without medical training are recommending raw dairy products for children and infants. "
Experts in all fields have damaged their own credibility by looking after their own interests first.Why are more people choosing home birth?Because hospitals and doctors are managing births in a way that makes them the most income,not in a way that gives the patient the best outcome.Why are parents homeschooling their children?Because the educational experts have designed a system that benefits themselves and is destructive to children and families.Why do people want to grow their own food or find someone to get it from who they trust?Because the food delivery system designed by experts is making us all sick!
Why would anyone believe the word of an expert?They have lied to us for so long that they have destroyed any credibility that they ever had.
The Pro raw milk posts are a rehash of the same old thing too. What is your point?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,409774,00.html
Farmer’s Almanac Predicts Colder, ‘Catastrophic’ Winter
"Numb’s the word," says the 192-year-old publication, which claims an accuracy rate of 80 to 85 percent for its forecasts that are prepared two years in advance.
The almanac’s 2009 edition, which goes on sale Tuesday, says at least two-thirds of the country can expect colder-than-average temperatures this winter, with only the Far West and Southeast in line for near-normal readings. "This is going to be catastrophic for millions of people," said almanac editor Peter Geiger.
The almanac not to be confused with the New Hampshire-based Old Farmer’s Almanac which is 26 years older attributes its forecasts to reclusive prognosticator Caleb Weatherbee, who uses a secret formula based on sunspots, the position of the planets and the tidal action of the moon.
The almanac is at odds with the National Weather Service, whose trends-based outlook calls for warmer than normal weather this winter over much of the country, including Alaska, said Ed O’Lenic, chief of the operations branch at NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center. The almanac and the weather service are in sync, however, in pointing to a chance of a drier winter in the Northwest.
O’Lenic wouldn’t comment specifically on the almanac’s ability to forecast the weather two years from now, but said it’s generally impossible to come up with accurate forecasts more than a week in advance.
Science vs. alternative methods.
Meanwhile I’m going to start stockpiling for the winter!
Actually the pro raw posts have some new info.
Check it out.
The anti raw milk always rehash the same old stuff.
That’s my point.
August 26, 2008
Shares Fall as Maple Leaf Expands Meat Recall
By IAN AUSTEN
OTTAWA Shares in Maple Leaf Foods, which expanded a nationwide recall of its cold cuts over the weekend after its products were linked to four deaths and dozens of illness, fell to their lowest level in seven years during trading on Monday.
The stock of the company, which is Canadas leading food processor, was down about 10 percent on the Toronto exchange. At the same time, a conference call with analysts offered more in the way of uncertainty than answers about the companys future.
Canadian health officials announced over the weekend that their tests confirmed that the Listeria monocytogenes bacteria found in some cold cuts made by a Maple Leaf plant in Toronto plant matched the strain that has killed four people and caused 21 confirmed cases of listerosis.
The relatively long incubation period for the illness, which can be fatal for the elderly, infirm and people with compromised immune systems, means that public health officials anticipate that other cases will develop.
Three victims were women who lived in retirement homes in Ontario. The fourth victim was a man in British Columbia.
What started with a recall of two types of cold cuts just more than a week ago, has been expanded by Maple Leaf to include 220 products made in the Toronto plant, one of 24 owned by the company.
Some products were made as far back as January but none were distributed in the United States, the company said.
During the conference call, the chief financial officer, Michael H. Vels, said the recall would cost the company, which is currently unprofitable, about 20 million Canadian dollars.
But despite repeated questioning from analysts, Mr. Vels declined to estimate the long-term impact on sales.
Damage control and financial minimization at a time like this has not even been considered, Mr. Vels said. Certainly as an investor that may not be what you want to hear, but 100 percent of our actions and focus over the weekend has been to identify consumers and ensure our products are returned.
Maple Leaf expanded its advertising campaign related to the recall on Monday. While that largely has taken the form of full page newspaper advertisement, the company has posted a video of Michael H. McCain, its president and chief executive, on YouTube.
During a news conference on Sunday, Mr. McCain, whose father Wallace McCain acquired control of Maple Leaf in 1991, acknowledged the difficulty the company now faces.
Its clear that the confidence in Maple Leaf and our brand has been shaken and I feel very badly about that, he said. If we act in the interest of public health, over time, I hope, that we can rebuild that confidence.
Despite the recall and laboratory tests conclusively connecting the strain that infected the victims to the strain found in its meats, Maple Leaf has nevertheless maintains that there is no proof that its products caused the deaths.
Maple Leaf products have not been directly linked to consumer illness and death, Mr. Vels said on Monday.
The recall has expanded beyond Maple Leaf. Some fast-food chains, including McDonalds Restaurants of Canada, have pulled menu items that were made with Maple Leaf supplied cold cuts. On Monday, Lucerne Foods, which is based in Calgary, recalled 22 types of sandwiches it prepares for retailers that use Maple Leaf meats. Canada Safeway is among the chains that sold the sandwiches.
The widening of the recall is leading to some confusion among consumers about what meat products are safe. Over the weekend, Tony Clement, the federal health minister, suggested that Canadians who have doubts about the providence of the cold cuts in their refrigerators should simply throw the food out.
Thats the same old MEAT STUFF.
Whats new about the raw milk posters. Read back a few months. Same old thing there too. The only difference is that you havent called anyone a troll in the last few hours. GOOD JOB. Try using only one name. It will save yourself some time.
Am I missing something here?
Rob’s post is relevant if you’re participating in the discussion of FOOD SECURITY/STARVATION.
(p.s. The internet definition of a ‘troll’ is someone who goes onto a blog and intentionally inflames the fires, distracting the posters and co-oping the conversation. Sorry, Angela, some people are trolls here. ‘E calls ’em like he sees ’em!)
The only one doing the attacking is Rob. You should read back. She does it all the time. Its very annoying. No one can have another opinon or she strikes. Cheryl, either you are Rob too or you are just like her.
IV. Raw milk contains beneficial bacteria.
There is evidence that there may be metabolites toxic to foodborne pathogens and antibacterial compounds that are produced by other bacterial species in raw milk. These compounds may help the bacteria that produce them to survive and compete in the food environment. Some of these properties are exploited by the food industry, but often to promote food quality, not foodborne pathogen control per se (at least not as the only method to control pathogens). The presence of these compounds in raw milk has not been defined and thus should not be relied upon as a kill step for dangerous foodborne pathogens that may also be present in raw milk.
Representative examples from the literature
Doyle, M. P., and D. J. Roman. 1982. Prevalence and survival of Campylobacter jejuni in unpasteurized milk. Appl Environ Microbiol 44:1154-8.
This study compared the survival of 8 C. jejuni strains in sterile and raw milk
The survival time (number of days) of C. jejuni strains varied depending on the specific strain
Campylobacter survived longer in sterile milk than raw milk at refrigeration temperatures
o The authors speculated that other microflora in raw milk may have produced toxic metabolites that inactivated the C. jejuni (for example, lactoperoxidase)
o Although Campylobacter levels dropped off sooner in raw milk over the study period, there could still be enough surviving bacteria to represent an infectious dose (see Figure 2)
The authors conclude: our results indicate the presence and possible persistence of C. jejuni in raw grade A milk and reaffirm the need for pasteurization.
Good point. Don’t forget that those contaminated cold cuts are processed and have very little if any nutritional value.
Gwen
Sylvia,
I dont think that anyone is singling out Raw milk. I think it is more a point of listing it as a risky food, along with meat, veggies, etc.. It is the topic of discussion here so I think that when you say singling out, you are over-exaggerating the point.
Rob,
The Pro raw milk posts are a rehash of the same old thing too. What is your point?
Rob/concerned,
Thats the same old MEAT STUFF.
Whats new about the raw milk posters. Read back a few months. Same old thing there too. The only difference is that you havent called anyone a troll in the last few hours. GOOD JOB. Try using only one name. It will save yourself some time.
Cheryl,
The only one doing the attacking is Rob. You should read back. She does it all the time. Its very annoying. No one can have another opinon or she strikes. Cheryl, either you are Rob too or you are just like her.
Its amazing how Rob comes on here as Curious and calls the anit-raw milk posters TROLLS. Then as soon as I comment on the only person that calls anyone trolls on here, ROB posts a long winded ,repetative post about meat and then uses CURIOUS again, IN ERROR, I might add to make yet another ridiculous point. THEN, Cheryl comes on and says how ROB is getting attacked. WOW…this blog is really getting crazy.!
Gwen, You brought back horrid memories of stat class <shuddering> I think other than the manipulation of numbers, I learned how bitter my instructor was regarding his recent divorce.
FYI, SB 201 specifically requires all raw milk be from a single dairy origin. Raw milk can not come from two different sources. The only exception is that two raw dairies can share raw milk if they are under HACCP and being tested according to SB 201 standards..
That should clear up that issue.
Current CDFA policy permits a raw dairy to outsource as much raw milk as they want to buy from an outside source that is intended for pasteurization and then use that raw milk in their raw dairy products.
Does Bill Marler like that kind of regulation and milk policy?
I guess so….he has slammed the SB 201 standards and damned them in a letter to the governor in hopes of a veto. Thank god the legislature, the governor, big dairy and even CDFA is smarter than that. everyone in this process has come together in concensus except for Bill Marler. It appears it will hurt future business.
SB 201 is good science for a great product for healthy people in a free state.
This fight is just starting. Almonds, vegetables and other foods are being sterilized and consumers are being denied access and propper labeling so they can identy whole unprocessed foods. SB 201 is just the first set of standards in many standards yet to come for all whole foods.
Senator Dean Florez was brilliant when he said…"I want a world class food safety bill for safe California raw milk". SB 201 is just that.
Mark McAfee
Founder OPDC
Bring it to all the experts: a HACCP plan for raw dairy that doesn’t include coliforms and other indicators is a sham. Indeed, a HACCP plan for any dairy product that doesn’t include a proven "kill step" is subject to severe national/international criticism. I welcome seeing this debated outside the blogs (and political hearings/courts where participants are carefully chosen and controlled).
Get a grip on yourself. Whatever medication you’re on, increase the dosage.
Mark, If all raw milk is to be from a single dairy origin; then how can it come from two different sources? If 2 raw dairies are sharing then it is coming from 2 separate sources.
This is where I don’t want my milk or any other food outsourced. If I buy from you, then I expect all of what I buy to come from your farm, not anyone elses. If you run out, then so be it. Outsourcing and mass production is what has led to so much contamination and decrease in nutritional values. IMHO
I welcome seeing this debated outside the blogs (and political hearings/courts where participants are carefully chosen and controlled.
It seems that concerned wants a guaranteed outcome (raw milk is guilty) by stacking the deck and choosing and controlling the participants. How interesting.
Sounds very facist to me. What next, bring on the nazis and jack boots?
I forgot they have been doing that already. Just ask Mark Nolt.