There has been lots of upbeat news about raw milk over the last 18 months or so. Research out of Europe and the U.S. continues to suggest that raw milk strengthens the immune system so as to provide a protective effect against allergies, asthma, and other illnesses. Indications are that dairies certified by the Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI) are successfully using very low coliform and standard plate counts to reduce the risk of illnesses. And raw milk seems to be growing significantly in popularity, as aggressive federal enforcement actions against raw dairies around the country appear to have slacked off.
So encouraging has the news been that a few raw milk supporters have begun to wonder if, maybe, just maybe, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) might be impressed enough to relent a tad in its hostility against raw milk and the people who produce and consume it.
Well, I cant, unfortunately, report that the FDA is about to relent in an ongoing way. In a new assessment of raw milk, the agency concludes: FDA remains of the view that there is a demonstrated association between the consumption of raw milk and the outbreak of disease, and that raw milk can contain a wide variety of harmful bacteria
And the FDA isnt about to lift the ban on interstate sales and shipments of raw milk, according to the director of its Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Michael Landa, in the same assessment, a detailed 47-page response to a Citizen Petition from Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy Co.
However, the FDA isnt nearly as hostile as it was in a response it provided nearly two years ago, to a similar petition from McAfee. Indeed, the new response to McAfee, completed late last month, actually contains what may be the first-ever positive statements the FDA has made about raw milk: FDA acknowledges that milk allergy is an important food allergy of concern in the United States, especially in children. We also acknowledge that there have been studies examining infants and young children mostly from rural areas and finding that those infants or children with reduced incidence or manifestations of allergic disorders or asthma were more likely to be raw milk consumers rather than non-raw-milk consumers. In some studies, the association between raw milk consumption and reduced incidence of allergic disorders/asthma was found to be independent of other farm-related factors or living on a farm, and individuals reported to consume raw milk were found to have evidence of certain protective immune markers as a possible explanation for this association.
Well, the positive remarks end there, on page 7, and beginning in the next sentence, its back to business as usual: Notably, however, these studies do not always distinguish between raw milk and pasteurized milk. The document then descends into denial and rejection of any positives about raw milk, including the following:
- Rejection of the large-scale European studies, the PARSIFAL and GABRIELA studies. One reason: The subjects of the larger studies, children and infants from rural European communities, may have a different genetic make-up and more diverse environmental exposures compared to children growing up in non-rural areas outside Europe.
- Rejection of the notion that RAWMIs approach of using strict sanitation and other standards to reduce coliform and standard plate count readings and thereby reduce the risk of pathogens. Low CC and SPC readings cannot ensure raw milk safety, FDA states. That is because .these milk quality indicators .are general indicators of animal health conditions and the level of sanitation that exists as milk is being produced and stored. These quality indicators do not provide any information as to the presence or absence of harmful bacteria. Raw milk with acceptable SPC and CC numbers may still contain deadly pathogens.
- Rejection of McAfees contention that the public has displayed huge support for raw milk. It rejects the finding from a survey by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control in 2007 that indicated 3% of the population consumes raw milk, saying it considers an estimate by a CDC researcher that less than 1% of the American population regularly consumes raw milk to more accurately reflect usual or regular raw milk consumption. Why? FDA doesnt say, but it doesnt matter, in FDA logic. Even if 3 percent of the U.S. population consumed raw milk regularly, FDA would still find that (the ban on interstate sales/shipments) continues to be justified. That is, the level of consumption of raw milk does not call into question FDAs concern that raw milk may contain dangerous pathogens. In other words, we think youre wrong about raw milks popularity, but the matter is moot because we are convinced raw milk is too dangerous and our opinion is the only one that counts here.
Theres more, but you can review the document yourself if you enjoy rigid ideological thinking and double-talk. Still, I am going to try to take the glass-is-half-full approach. The FDA actually has something positive to say about raw milks apparent healing powers, however tentative it is. But beyond that, the FDA analysts gave the evidence in favor of a relaxation of its interstate shipment ban a thorough going-over. I have to think that if they are reading all the positive developments, some of it, maybe just a very small amount, but some of it will sink into the agency’s collective consciousness. At some point, its officials may decide they dont want to be alone in rejecting reality.
Meanwhile…fluid pasteurized milk consumption falls another 4% nationally this year. I does not appear that the public is voting in lock-step with the FDA. They can deny raw milk all they want…but consumer dollar voting tells the greater reality. Pasteurized fluid milk is dying!!
I say this: continue to make lots of noise, build huge undeniable raw milk markets with safety and farmer to consumer connections leading the way. Deny the FDA any targets to attack by denial of any food safety issues.
This is all about time and retirement by attrition at the FDA. The old guard will retire and the new will hopefully listen to reason and be able to read a study and appreciate its greater value to our society.
Lastly….a judge is going to get a chance to review all of this. We will see what he or she says about the FDA and their absolute denial of the facts presented. The FDA response is arbitrary and very much capricious. When RAWMI LISTED dairy data was presented….the FDA referred to one of the many studies of conventional CAFO farm milk tanks and the prevalence of pathogens in them. How brain dead does a person have to be to see that as a slap in the face. We know the difference between RAWMI LISTED practices and PMO FDA pre-pasteurized milk production practices. They are different worlds!!! The FDA avoidance of the proper response to this RAWMI data from LISTED dairies…absolutely shines the brightest light on their weakness. They did not respond to LISTED dairies data…because it is undeniable and compelling. They instead they just punted using a complete distraction….missing the goal completely.
Any attempt to rationally think through the FDA response to this matter will put a sane person over the edge. It is irrational.
We will see what a Federal Judge has to say about all of this.
Mark, if the FDA hadn’t used the PMO pre-pasteurized milk data on pathogens, then it would have come up with some other excuse–your data doesn’t go back far enough, or it doesn’t include enough dairies, or you haven’t done a double-blind comparison, or the herds weren’t diverse enough, or similar enough, or the dairy owners were all under 30 and thus couldn’t be trusted. They did that with the entire document, found an excuse or objection to every single assertion you made, no matter how obvious or innocent.
I hope you get in front of an enlightened judge. but I fear the judge will hear only the words “pathogens,” “risk,” and “protection,” and not look any further. That’s what most have done till now.
The FDA loose words will come to a dead stop with a gavel…when they have to make excuses for why their Guaranteed Safe pasteurized milk has killed 77 people since 1972….and when the judge asks the FDA to explain why they placed 49 deaths from dairy products in the “raw category” when it was the Jalisco Cheese incident in 1985 and everyone knows that “Jalisco Cheese was pasteurized” not raw!!
There will be a glory day for raw milk…in CA, Pennsylvania and all across America it is already happening.
That whatever this thing or stuff is that we now (sort of) like has been there for like the last 6,000 or so years is not something the Grass-to-Grass Pastoral Tribe (or anyone else, please) should mention. Ever. Thank you. Have a merry Christmas.
Breaking News!!!! The CDC & FDA come out in support of organic raw milk for all American babies!!
The CDC and FDA come out against pasteurized milk for babies and strongly recommend organic raw milk instead!!! The World Health Organization steps in to discourage mass marketing of pasteurized milk for babies and strongly encourages organic raw milk for all babies!!
Mark, I just looked through the document, and I see lots of solid encouragement for breast feeding, lots of advice to avoid infant formulas for as long and as much as possible, but I don’t see anything about encouraging organic raw milk or avoiding pasteurized milk. It’s a long document, though, and maybe I missed it. Or is it by implication?
A mother’s breast milk would be both raw and organic, would it not?
And a mother’s heart is warm, right?
And the truth will set you free.
If you know the truth.
Have a wonderful day, all,
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
Probably not organic. What is and has the mother consumed? Has she received vaccinations? Other medications in her life?
You can use any vessel and if not cleaned correctly, you leave a pathway for contamination. These baby bottles are a perfect example. Does TPTB take this into consideration when they spew the infant mortality stats?
I think hygiene was a huge factor, and the lack of sanitation added in there, plus poor nutrition of whole families. My mom had a few aunts that died of Typhoid as adults. One had heart problems, probably because she had rheumatic fever and/or strep throat as a child. Dad had a cousin who was @ 14 yrs old who died of pellagra (niacin deficiency) at @ 1935.
I think those 3 things : nutrition, hygiene, sanitation are the major factors in maintaining good health. (You know I do not mean to be a germaphobe either- good common sense.)
http://www.babybottle-museum.co.uk/murder.htm
http://activerain.trulia.com/blogsview/2383108/victorian-baby-killer
Good to see a Wisconsin paper finally acknowledge that there’s a big difference between pre-pasteurized and real raw milk.
“There’s a big difference between milk that’s prepared for direct consumption, from the farm, and milk that’s sent to a processor for pasteurization — a process where it’s heated to a high temperature to kill pathogens, according to raw-milk backers.
“If a dairy farm has a business selling raw milk, and there’s an illness, they seem to be identified. But if they’re a dairy that sells milk to a commercial processor, it seems they’re not identified. It’s a double standard,” said David Gumpert, a raw-milk advocate and author of the book “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Food Rights.”
John
John, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article I linked to identifies two incidents involving pre-pasteurized milk making people sick–the one in Durant in October, and another in Racine County in 2011. The Racine County incident may have involved a parent unrelated to the farm owner taking milk from the bulk tank and bringing it to school for a birthday party. I don’t think we know the reason the farm name was withheld, though. The Wisconsin DATCP has never given a reason for why the farm names were withheld in either the Durant or Racine County situations. There may be more to come on both these situations.