Thanks again to Mary McGonigle-Martin for enlightening us about E.coli in raw milk–for investing so much time and effort, because this kind of analysis isn’t easy to carry out. (See her comment following my previous posting.)
I’m not surprised that she’s found illness from E.coli in raw milk to be so unusual–much less common than it is in many other foods, from spinach to Taco Bell burritos. And it fits with her previous analysis of CDC data that raw milk is less of a culprit in dairy illness than it’s made out to be by government authorities.
We’ve certainly devoted a lot of discussion to the subject of E.coli in raw milk on this blog over the last ten months, but I see it as part of a journey. The journey isn’t always smooth and direct. But more often than not, people of good will arrive at the right destination.
It’s important that the journey is taken. The bureaucrats and politicians who continue to try to scare people about raw milk, by using half truths and discredited data, will eventually have to face the truth. They will have no choice, as more consumers make their own journeys, and realize that the risks associated with raw milk are probably much less than the risks associated with drinking apple juice from China, or burritos from Taco Bell, or salami from the grocery store deli counter.
I respect Mary’s decision not to write more about this subject. She has done a huge amount to take her own trauma and turn it into amazingly positive energy.
There is still a lot to do to further the education process, though. Farmers who try to produce high-quality raw milk can tell you about the ongoing harassment they face from local agriculture authorities. But the kind of data Mary has come up with will inevitably help loosen their grip.
I was telling my husband the other day that I would like our local newspaper to do a follow-up story on Chris, with the focus being food safety and foodborne illnesses, especially e-coli and HUS. I told him I wish I could find other mothers whose children had HUS. Angry, grieving mothers can change the world. I used the example of MADDMothers against Drunk Drivers. A few days later I stumbled across this website.
Heres the story of this organization–S.T.O.P. was born out of the collective grief and anger of parents of E. coli O157:H7 victims. The January 1993 outbreak of E. coli in the Northwest associated with Jack-in-the Box hamburgers turned out to be a pivotal moment in contemporary food safety history. Because of the sheer magnitude of the outbreak, the threat of E. coli contamination for the first time garnered nationwide media attention. The publication of the names of those victims enabled victims of previous incidents and outbreaks of E. coli from around the country to find one another. Victims and families who had lost or nearly lost their loved ones, came together to form S.T.O.P. As consumers, most of us had been unaware that these microbes even existed or that they could be in the foods we purchased. We had no idea that microbes in food could cause such ravaging illness.
I spent hours reading all the stories that are posted about different children who ate contaminated food with the deadly e-coli 0157:H7 pathogen and then developed HUS. At least half the kids posted died. Of course I spent most of the afternoon balling my eyes out. One may ask, Why do I do this to myself? Im not sure.but something healing happens for me afterwards. I felt a soul connection to each family as I was reading each story. Once again Im reminded of the true miracle that happened for Chris. We are so blessed he is still alive!
Heres the list of accomplishments this organization has achieved.
2003-2004
S.T.O.P. releases groundbreaking report "Why Are People Still Dying From Contaminated Food?"
S.T.O.P. actions help to spur formation of the first-ever Congressional Food Safety Caucus
S.T.O.P. captures worldwide media attention with its press event on the state of food safety
S.T.O.P. produces first national Victims and Advocacy Conference on stopping foodborne disease
2001-2002
S.T.O.P. wins mandatory pasteurization for all bulk juices
S.T.O.P. prevents reversal of the zero tolerance policy for salmonella in school lunch meat
S.T.O.P. exposes ongoing distribution of recalled meat in the school lunch program
S.T.O.P. organizes a Rally for Safer Food in Washington DC
S.T.O.P. testifies before joint Congressional committee regarding contamination in school lunches
1999-2000
S.T.O.P. wins the introduction of microbial testing and a zero tolerance policy for pathogens in school lunch meat.
S.T.O.P. spurs critical improvements to the recall process for contaminated meat
S.T.O.P. hosts groundbreaking medical conference on long-term health costs of E. coli O157:H7
S.T.O.P. co-produces a brochure with Centers for Disease Control to inform parents of small children about foodborne illness risks
S.T.O.P. President Nancy Donley is named Community Champion by Civil Justice Foundation and receives Consumer Federation of Americas Golden Carrot award
1997-1998
S.T.O.P. holds five-year memorial service for E. coli O157:H7 victims
S.T.O.P. wins mandatory consumer health warning labels for udnpasteurized juice
S.T.O.P. convinces USDA to release accurate cooking information to consumers
S.T.O.P. investigates and exposes problems with the history-making Hudson Foods recall
S.T.O.P. members win passage of Lauren Rudolph Food Safety Act in California
S.T.O.P. organizes a meeting of victim advocates with decisionmakers at Centers for Disease Control
S.T.O.P. is named by Meat and Poultry magazine as one of the Top 10 Influential Powerhouses in the Meat and Poultry Industry
1995-1996
S.T.O.P. sponsors Congressional briefing in Washington DC which features victims testimony and noted consumer advocates
S.T.O.P. presents 100,000 signed postcards to Congress in support of safer meat
S.T.O.P. participates by invitation in a White House press conference opposing deregulation of the food industry
S.T.O.P. wins the first national meat and poultry inspection reforms in 90 years
1993-1994
Foodborne illness victims and friends found S.T.O.P. to fill void in national food policy arena
S.T.O.P. holds Congressional Symposium on Meat Inspection in Washington DC
S.T.O.P. wins safe handling/warning labels on all meat and poultry products
S.T.O.P. opens national clearinghouse providing information and help for victims and consumers and establishes toll-free hotline for foodborne illness victims at 1-800-350-STOP
One has a far greater chance of getting hit by lightening than drinking contaminated raw milk and becoming ill.
If this is true this guy should give up epidemiology and go to work for Mr. Nifong, who prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse case. His perp picture IDs consisted ONLY of Duke lacrosse players. QED.
I) Mary goes to the market skeptical of purchasing raw milk. She sees it on the shelve and puts it in her shopping cart then puts it back as she has said. Did Mary do this at the produce section with lettuce? Or the meat counter with hamburg? We know that meat and produce are the LARGEST source of E. Coli in the food chain. Why was she skeptical of the raw milk and not the meat counter?
2) Are we to believe that the only food or activity that her son was exposed to was raw milk? She states "My son drank raw milk and got E Coli."
3) What were the hospitals lab credentials for testing E Coli
as it has not been determined their credibility. Lab techs are
notorious for miss handling and wrong diagnosis. E Coli O157.H7 testing is still evasive and in development.
I do believe this story is only beginning to be told and needs
much further none emotional reporting. Please carry on this important discussion.
Thank you for the epidemiological analysis.
You must be a late-comer to this discourse. If so, welcome aboard.
Please take the time to read past postings and commentary–I suggest you start with January’s writings. You will find, I’m sure, much of what you are looking for.
Now, for the record, I am a strong and vocal supporter of raw milk. I own a family cow, consume raw dairy all the time, and even raw dairy products for health reasons. I am also convinced that Mary’s son was infected by e coli 0157:H7 from raw milk, just as she said.
The issue we are addressing is not whether one can become ill from raw milk–even with a strongly pathogenic microbe like 0157:H7–everyone with even a little knowledge agrees that it’s possible. The question is what to do about it–a subject firmly wrapped in risk/benefit analysis and other factors (which have been, and continue to be, discussed very well on this forum).
(Also for the record, though I have never met Mary, she is certainly a friend. And though I do not always agree with her about food policy, she is undoubtedly an ally in the effort to spread the word about natural food as an essentail building block for good health.)
Im not commenting on STOPs agenda or Marys traumatic experiences, only on the frame of mind and emotional state at which healthy decisions are best arrived. Getting at the truth of an issue doesnt involve my opinion so much as the truth behind the issue. (My opinion or actions may actually be different from a position that I support from a perspective of higher truth.) The issue holds a truth within. My task is to find it independent of my opinion.
My attention is also drawn to Marys comment that most of us had been unaware that these microbes even existed. I suspect that the truth behind this issue is that these extremely lethal versions of these bacteria did not exist until our enormously negligent, irresponsible, and un-human way of industrializing food production created them like some Frankensteins monster. And now we are the villagers chasing with torches to set the fiend afire.
It appears that our current methods of food production is where the real blame lies and that those institutions should ultimately be held accountable for the tremendous suffering that has ensued from their apparent greed and disregard.
To continue to render more and more foods deader and deader feels like getting a bigger hammer to fit the square peg in the round hole. Nature hits back harder each time humans get a bigger hammer and she has a much bigger hammer than us. It is a well documented health edict that to sustainably heal disease, one must address the root of the illness and not continue to apply topical ointments for temporary or superficial relief.
I agree with everything you say about the cause of the problem. You stated it beautifully!!! This organization is responsible for bringing attention to the fact there is a problem with the meat industry. The majority of their focus has been on the meat industry and attempting to hold them accountable for this mess. This deadly pathogen is in our food supply and no one is safe unless they grow all of their own fruits and vegetables and slaughter their own animals. The next best step is buying food from your neighbor or a company (beef, chickens) that uses humane methods.pasture feed, no antibiotics, free to roam, etc Organic produce purchased in a store is not exempt from e-coli contamination, especially the packaged produce. All it takes is a little contaminated poop.
If you reread the accomplishments of this organization, most of it has to do with education regarding foodborne illnesses in general and changes within the meat industry. Is it a negative thing that this organization exposed the ongoing distribution of recalled meat (meaning it was contaminated with 0157:H7) in the school lunch program and that they also helped with the introduction of microbial testing and a zero tolerance policy for pathogens in school lunch meat? I believe these are good, sound safety policies. How would you feel if your son or daughter ate a hamburger at school, developed e-coli and then HUS? Later you find out the meat was recalled for e-coli contamination but the school chose to ignore it. I think you would be quite angry and would want to make sure this never happened to another child or their family.
Ive worked in our educational system for 13 years. Its frightening what our middle school students eat for their typical diet. Parents send lunches (not that the lunches they send are that much better), but kids mooch food off of their friends. I personally would never feed my son any food sold at a school, but other children are vulnerable, especially our kids on the free lunch program.
I would love to see this organization take the agenda a step further. It would be great if they started focusing on healthy food in general and that part of the equation regarding e-coli contamination is a healthy immune system. How can we teach the general public methods for improving their immune systems? Probiotics should be a household word and its not.
Just out of curiosity, where do you think these probiotics come from?
I didn’t intend to criticize STOP or you, but only to point out that 1) Anger is not a good place for making decisions 2) No band aid will cure the underlying illness in our food production system and 3) The industries that have created the conditions which have allowed the super bacteria to flourish should be held responsible for the illness and death that they have apparently inflicted due to their gross negligence.
I had hoped to state that clearly at the beginning of my post, but apologize if it appeared that I was on the offensive.
This group is putting our entire centralized food system under a microscope. They’re not looking for band aid cure.
This organization is no different than organizations educating people about the cause of autism. Just a different mission. Channelled anger can produce something positive.
I have quietly endured, for over 6 months now, L.A. Times staff writer Mark Araxs Evanescent E. coli raw milk hypothesis. In his December 3, 2006, L.A. Times Magazine feature article, Mr. Arax insinuates that Mark McAfees Organic Pastures Dairy Company (OPDC) shipped out bottles of raw milk contaminated with lethal E. coli O157:H7 bacteria just long enough to infect and nearly kill 2 kids, then poof!it mysteriously disappearedjust in time for OVER 600 TESTS of the farm, the cows, the pasture, the milking equipment, and milk products, to find zero pathogens of any type anywhere. Specifically, no E. coli O157:H7 was anywhere to be foundnot even 1 single cellall test samples were negative.
Well, today is the day I stop enduring this ongoing Mark McAfee-bashing agenda; I ask to be allowed to finally have my say, especially as my family and I drank that same raw milk.
Two material facts specific to OPDC have apparently either been forgottenor ignoredin this ongoing important discussion:
1. Every single batch of OPDC raw milk, including that batch from September 10, 2006, is tested BEFORE it is ever shipped out for retail sale, and OPDC keeps detailed batch records. If I remember correctly, OPDC invested a lot of money in highly sensitive, state-of-the-art, rapid on-site testing instrumentation that can produce a lab result in a matter of hours, including revealing whether any E. coli O157:H7 is present in a batch of fresh raw milk. So records of that batch and its bacterial status before it ever left the dairy surely exist. I am sure that Mark McAfee would be happy to detail OPDCs extensive raw milk safety program, if anyone wants to dig into the facts and supporting evidence in this case.
Keeping this first key material fact in mind, it appears that staff writer Mark Arax hijacked the well-known pathogen challenge test in his L.A. Times feature article to explain why all those state investigators could not find 1 single cell of E. coli O157:H7 in any raw milk sample they tested after the E. coli O157:H7 food poisoning cases were reported. Mark Arax was also aware that Mark McAfee had previously demonstrated in a pathogen challenge of his own products that even when a large quantity of pathogens (10,000,000 counts/mL!)including a test trial using E. coli O157:H7are dumped into his grass-fed, fresh, unprocessed raw milk, that the pathogens could not grow. Instead, they steadily died off, thanks to the competing beneficial probiotic bacteria and anti-pathogenic enzymes present in raw milk. (Pasteurization destroys these raw milk safeguards.) In the case of salmonella, none could even be detected less than 24 hours later.
This additional information presents a problem for the Evanescent E. coli crowd. Since the particular raw milk batch in question, like every other batch before and every other batch since, tested negative for E. coli O157:H7 while still at the dairy, and then tested negative again for E. coli O157:H7 days later when the investigators took raw milk samples from that same batch, how are we to accept the corrected Evanescent E. coli hypothesis? That is, Not here today, then here for a few days, then gone tomorrow once again?
I am just not getting how this could have worked.
I drank from this same batch of raw milk and felt better for it. In fact, me and my recently-post-Crohns-disease-tender intestines drank about 1 GALLON of that same batch of Raw Milk dated SEPT 10 (2006), along with a few pints of Raw Colostrum, and about 2 pints of Raw Cream. (This was, and is, an actual typical consumption pattern for me. My partner consumed about the same amounts as I did. We have been high-volume weekly OPDC customers since June 2005 without any disruptions, except for that traumatizing experience of deprivation during the Fall 2006 OPDC crisis. For me, OPDC Raw Colostrum is my life insurance!)
Therefore, shouldnt I be at least considered as Chief Intestinal Canary for that batch of OPDC raw milk, given my own near-fatal medical history of Crohns disease, (incorporating inflammatory bowel disease and ulcerative colitis)?
One more thing: Commenters here cannot accuse me of not knowing what it is like to nearly die from an intestinal disease.
So, back to the Arax-mediated Evanescent E. coli innuendo. The only way I can think of to stretch out this thin hypothesis even longer is to postulate that there were 2 separate, nearly simultaneous incidents of some sort of cross-contamination of clean OPDC raw milk with other surfaces harboring E. coli O157:H7 somewhere along the food handling chain AFTER the raw milk left the dairy.
And my second point about forgotten or ignored material facts in this case:
2. Even if people still wish to cling to the Not here today, then here for a few days, then gone tomorrow once again raw milk pathogen hypothesis, please explain how the E. coli O157:H7 completely disappearedin over 600 testsfrom the farm, the cows, the pasture, the milking equipment, and the milk products! How could it, because none of these other surfaces possess the same powerful pathogen-killing capabilities of raw milk, such as probiotic bacteria and anti-pathogenic enzymes? So exactly how did every last one of these potential pathogen reservoirs, including the cows poop and all the dirt in the farm, go out and do a spotless speed self-cleaning in record time, unprecedented in dairy history?
As far as I can tell, this blog journey, Getting at the Truth About the Danger of E. coli [O157:H7] in Raw Milk, thus remains a task that has not even begun to scrape the shiga-toxin-muddied surface of this matter.
Please, do not continue to ignore material facts and supporting scientific evidence, or I shall be forced to refer to some folk here as ideologues, for whom no amount of additional facts are going to change their minds as to what actually occurred during the Fall of 2006. For example, it is incorrect to assume that only E. coli O157:H7 and Shigella bacteria can produce shiga toxin. Read this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/safe/o157.html
You are absolutely correct about OP dairy.It is amazing! Mark runs a clean ship!
Thanks for the great article on E-coli. It appears that the Shiga toxin has been found in other strains of E-coli, not just 0157:H7. This is terrifying because it is mutating. Thank you for clarifying this information. We were told by the nephrologists at Loma Linda University Childrens hospital and only two bacterias cause HUSE-coli 0157:H7 and Shigella. If there are other Shiga producing strains of e-coli, they may not be as deadly as 0157:H7. But who knows. It only takes the first child to develop HUS from another strain to denounce that theory. It appears that this situation has not occurred yet.
Diane, did Mark ever tell you they found e-coli 0157:H7 in one of his milking cows and two dry heard cows in late October of 2006? I personally received this information from the person that was involved with the investigation.
Also, the date on the milk was Sept. 10th. The milk wasnt pulled from the shelves until around September 16th or 17th or maybe later. The CDC came to talk to us around this time. How could they test milk from Sept. 10th? It wouldnt have been on the shelves.
Of the 4 children possibly infected from the raw OP milk on Labor Day weekend, 3 tested positive for 0157:H7 and it was all the same blueprint (meaning it came from the same source). This is why it was classified an outbreak and the dairy was temporarily shut down. Im happy for everyone that enjoys raw milk that the dairy was reopened.
Please correct me if Im wrong, but I believe the media attention on this subject brought OP dairy more business. I recently read an article that Mark has a new distributor and will now sell to 500 different stores. He was able to capitalize on negative publicity. Maybe this entire incident was a blessing in disguise for OP dairy, but it certainly wasnt a blessing for my son.
Im sure you realize that 4 people in the same family can eat food contaminated with 0157:H7 and only one can become ill. Individual immune systems play a role in how the body responds to this pathogen.
Also, I have every right to my opinion as to what caused my son to become ill. Can you think of another food that could have caused 4 children living in 3 different Southern California counties to contract the same e-coli blueprint? The only thing the children had in common was drinking OP milk. It really dont matter what I think, its not going to hurt Marks reputation or business. Your raw milk is safe.
I stand corrected about the different e-coli serotypes that can cause HUS. I found an epidemiologist that is helping me find some data. He emailed me this morning. He stated, Most of our HUS comes from STEC, the Shiga-toxin producing E. coli serotypes like O157, O26, O108 and O111.
From all the reading that Ive done, it appears that the most common serotype involved with HUS is 0157. Ive not come across any literature that has mentioned the others.
You keep talking about "blueprints", a non-scientific term for what I believe to be PCR tests. Who has this data, and why can’t it be printed here?
I think the real tragedy here for everyone concerned is the lack of a prompt E. coli test on Chris. Without a rapid testing protocol we will never learn how this pathogen gets disseminated and who is most susceptible. Obviously, this strain of E. coli was rampant in the area at the time, and can be transmitted from a huge number of sources. Unfortunately, the lack of a positive test for E. coli in the milk or Chris renders any conclusion as to the cause or source of Chris’ illness as speculative.
Also, I’d like to point out that the milk was off the shelf very quickly from the standpoint of most recalls – just check the USDA website Some lots of tainted meat stay in circulation for months – years in the case of the recent peanut butter recall. I think this was pursued so vigorously because it was a small producer and it was raw milk.
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fsis_Recalls/Open_Federal_Cases/index.asp
The CDC has this information. Since my child’s bacteria was never isolated, I don’t know if I can obtain this information. I have no idea if it is considered confidential. If it is, maybe Melissa can get it.
I will contact the CDC today and see what I can find.
As for Mark McAfee testing the September 10th milk…..I forgot we called the dairy a few days after Chris became ill, so he had lots of time to test his milk with that date. It was still on the shelves. The recall happened a few weeks later, but I don’t know the exact date.
Thanks Kirsten for pushing me to do this. Its been on my list of things to do.
Mary, Im curious to see what you find out. Although no matter what you find out, the people here will rebut it with SOMETHING.
Thanks for all of your hard work and if you need me to get any info, let me know.