I would like to begin by acknowledging Regulator’s “gotcha” request of me following my previous post concerning split samples (two or more samples from the same bulk tank) of raw milk yielding different results on pathogen presence: “Please support this statement with even one instance when a split sample tested by both PA’s state lab and a private lab resulted in PA’s state lab reporting a positive pathogen finding and the private lab reporting a negative pathogen finding. You will not be able to. It has never, ever happened.”
Regulator is correct. I don’t have any examples of split samples that have resulted in a positive test for a pathogen by Pennsylvania regulators and a negative test by an outside lab. The best I can do is in New York state, where it occurred with Lori McGrath. In Pennsylvania, Dennis Wenger recounted at the CARE meeting that when he finally did a split sample, at the time of the state’s second test for pathogens, both tests came back negative for pathogens, but with significant discrepancies for standard plate count.
Now that I’ve answered the question for Regulator, I’d like to ask him/her a couple of related questions: How often has the state sought the confirmation of a state-sanctioned private lab to confirm a finding of listeria or salmonella in Pennsylvania raw milk? How often has the state taken this tiny precaution prior to shutting down a raw dairy, depriving it of all income for an indefinite period, and permanently tainting the dairy by publicizing the state’s finding on the Internet? I’ll venture that the answer is the same: “It has never, ever happened.”
Per Steve Bemis’ 11 Great Thoughts, “single pathogen positive” isn’t the most conclusive pathogen-testing protocol—most conclusive is the “Confirmed Pathogen Positive (two Single Pathogen Positives from split samples or from two samples separated in time).”
A key point here isn’t that testing by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture is flawless (no person or agency is flawless), but that it and other regulators (state and federal) are much quicker to shut down raw dairies than, say, peanut butter factories. Beyond that, they are much quicker to use strong-arm tactics against dairy farmers (i.e. Mark Nolt) than, say, corporate producers.
And that really gets to the heart of the issue here. It would be nice to be able to say, “Gee, if only we could get the regulators, raw dairy producers, and raw milk consumers to sit down at a table together and hash things out—have rational arguments like the tone of the comments following my previous post, maybe we could solve some real problems.
One of the encouraging things about my previous post was that three individuals with the regulator viewpoint—Regulator, Lykke, and CP—were actively engaged in the discussion. Yet even among these individuals comfortable enough to engage in discussion, there is a sense that Regulator’s standoffish approach dominates: “This dialogue can only be advanced if there is an understanding that a sample from Farm A can contain a particular pathogen and a separate sample of milk at Farm A from a different tank, different day, and even same cow but separate milking, can be negative. That is the nature of cows, milk, pathogens and milking equipment.” This statement was made in part to explain split sample testing, but what Regulator is really saying is that the “dialogue can only be advanced” if we accept the science and health establishment view that drinking raw milk is inherently dangerous.
It’s a difficult proposition to accept when an estimated half million or more people are consuming raw milk each day, and there are at most a few dozen illnesses each year from raw milk. It would take maybe ten years for all of America’s raw milk drinkers to have as many illnesses as Peanut Corp. of America had over the last few months. (For an insightful analysis of how the FDA muddies the data about raw milk illnesses, take a look at Mary McGonigle-Martin’s 2007 comment.)
Milk farmer says it well: “There is an agenda here, and it’s not ‘making raw milk safer for everyone’. Acceptance by the regulatory community is the only way that the raw milk community will ever ‘play ball’….Russian roulette, and the misinformation that is constantly put out by the ‘authorities’, creates a wall of distrust that shows no sign of being broken down.”
Because the regulators are more focused on stamping out raw milk than figuring out how to make it safer, re-consideration of the Germ Theory paradigm becomes impossible. I love reading assessments from Dave Milano and Miguel (“A reasonable goal would be to have a healthy(stable) gut microbial community that can absorb a few insults of invading bacteria or toxic chemicals and recover quickly…”), but who in the public health/medical communities is willing to have a serious discussion about that issue?
I don’t want to paint this as an entirely hopeless situation. Steve Bemis’ eleven Great Thoughts would be a good starting point, if the regulators ever decided to start negotiating rather than resisting. If they don’t want to do that, I think there is another option–perhaps a preliminary step for eventually getting to Steve’s blueprint–that could satisfy the conflicting needs here, per the description of Colorado’s situation by Blair McMorran and this observation by Violet Willis , “Very few outbreaks of disease are found on small farms where animals are raised on lots of pasture, clean housing and fresh air.”
Lykke begins to acknowledge the problem: “I also think you are valid in questioning how the legal system is applied with regard to small farmers (and unpastuerized dairy) compared with large, corporate entitites.”
So here’s a suggestion: Why not exempt dairies of a certain size from some or all of the inspections and pathogen testing requirements of big dairies? Maybe those with fifty or fewer cows. The federal and state governments provide exemptions or favoritism for small businesses (those below a certain number of employees, say 50, 100, or 500) in the areas of plant safety, government procurement, and government loans, among others. At a minimum, you’d get a dialogue going. That, however, could be the biggest threat.
On another comment about mother’s milk containing antibodies, it doesn’t make sense that a cow would make antibodies for salmonella for instance if the salmonella does not affect the cow. That’s really the problem — these pathogens don’t make the cows sick. Sorry. baby crying
The salmonella doesn’t make the cow sick because it’s immune system is mature and it has been exposed to salmonella.The calf is the one who gets the cow’s antibodies through the milk.Without these antibodies it would very likely get sick from most of the bacteria it is exposed to.
The purported raw milk illnesses that come to my mind are almost all from pretty small scale producers. I’m doubtful the statistics support an exemption for small scale. But maybe the small scale suitcase cheese cases are throwing me off. Does anybody have a good idea of how the number of illnesses vs. the size of the producer stacks up
Amanda, RMAC takes their samples from bottled "consumer ready" jars.
Dave Milano thanks for your sampling info; I’m going to pass this on!
-Blair
Firm tied to salmonella ran unlicensed Texas plant
A peanut processing plant in Texas run by the same company blamed for a national salmonella outbreak operated for years uninspected and unlicensed by government health officials, The Associated Press has learned.
The Peanut Corp. of America plant in Plainview never was inspected until after the company fell under investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, according to Texas health records obtained by AP.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jeLgwCG-FEEYH8KZ7Tt45zOdSIKgD963VQ800
I know that cows pass antibodies on to their more immune-depressed calves. My question is whether they do so in the cases of salmonella strains (or other pathogens) that make humans sick and not cows sick. Cows live with human pathogens not because they are all healthy but because those strains are not pathogenic to cows. This is at least what I think I know. Is there a vet in the house?
Amanda
Antibodies play an important role in protecting calves from Salmonella, which can cause severe illness. High quality colostrum given within the first hours after birth is crucial in preventing bacterial and viral infections in calves.
# Pasty diarrhoea which becomes bloody and watery with an offensive odour
# Calves become dehydrated, collapse and die.
# Calves may also die suddenly with no previous diarrhoea
# Pneumonia, stiffness, joint-ill and meningitis are also seen
Here’s a link to information on calves, scours, and colostrum…
http://www.vetmed.wsu.edu/courses-jmgay/VMADCalfScours.htm
And, a paper I found that describes Salmonella Dublin in calves (Dublin is a cattle-associated strain of Salmonella that can cause disease in both humans and calves):
Salmonella Dublin infection in young dairy calves:
Resistant calves had either acquired maternal antibodies through colostrum or they have recovered from previous infection and had a high level of antibodies directed against Salmonella Dublin possibly protecting them from becoming infected again until the level of antibodies had decreased to sufficiently low levels.
http://tinyurl.com/dzyvar
Antibodies are not the whole story though with "foodborne" pathogens in food animals. I’m oversimplifying, but one theory concerning the lack of disease such as HUS in cattle colonized with E. coli O157:H7 is that they do not have receptors on their cells for the shiga toxins the bacteria releases. In contrast, humans carry these receptors on their cells, and some (especially children) are unable to fight off the infection/toxin production, and may thus go on to develop HUS and/or TTP…(antibiotics are not "required" for the toxins to cause HUS, but may increase the liklihood of this complication).
Cattle lack vascular receptors for Escherichia coli O157:H7 Shiga toxins
Escherichia coli O157:H7 causes Shiga toxin (Stx)-mediated vascular damage, resulting in hemorrhagic colitis and the hemolytic uremic syndrome in humans. These infections are often foodborne, and healthy carrier cattle are a major reservoir of E. coli O157:H7. We were interested in knowing why cattle are tolerant to infection with E. coli O157:H7. Cattle tissues were examined for the Stx receptor globotriaosylceramide (Gb3), for receptivity to Stx binding in vitro, and for susceptibility to the enterotoxic effects of Stx in vivo. TLC was used to detect Gb3 in tissues from a newborn calf. Gb3 was detected by TLC in kidney and brain, but not in the gastrointestinal tract. Immunohistochemistry was used to define binding of Stx1 and Stx2 overlaid onto sections from cattle tissues. Stx1 and Stx2 bound to selected tubules in the cortex of the kidney of both newborn calves (n = 3) and adult cattle (n = 3). Stx did not bind to blood vessels in any of the six gastrointestinal and five extraintestinal organs examined. The lack of Gb3 and of Stx receptivity in the gastrointestinal tract raised questions about the toxicity of Stx in bovine intestine. We found that neither viable E. coli O157:H7 nor Stx-containing bacterial extracts were enterotoxic (caused fluid accumulation) in ligated ileal loops in newborn calves. The lack of vascular receptors for Stx provides insight into why cattle are tolerant reservoir hosts for E. coli O157:H7.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=27023
1ht
This discussion brings two questions to mind…stream of thought.
1) do the beneficial properties of cow colostrum translate into benefits for humans drinking that animal product? How close are the species in terms of immunity factors?
2) given that colostrum is a time-sensitve, and limited commodity produced by the cow after giving birth…is there enough of this product to harvest for human consumption? Or, are the calves being deprived of this precious product in order to market it for human consumption? Obviously, I admit to an animal welfare bias asking this question, but wonder what you (or others) with more experience think.
"Does anybody have a good idea of how the number of illnesses vs. the size of the producer stacks up"
I’ve never seen statistics on illnesses based on size of herd, but there are plenty on comparisons between grassfed and Confined Animal Feeding Operations. (www.eatwild.com , Union of Concerned Scientists )
The dairy industry has studies showing that reducing herd size can improve milk output and therfore revenue. Artificial hormones can increase milk production, but consumers don’t want that in their milk.(tsk tsk Monsanto!) CAFO’s have notoriously high rates of e.coli 0157:H7, stillborn births and fertility problems (not to mention downer cows with a short lifespan.)
It just follows logically that smaller herds are healthier, easier to manage. Do we need a study on this? Sigh… probably.
We (RMAC) almost had a study w/CSU comparing production practices of (RMAC, primarily pasture-based) dairies that produced raw milk intended for human consumption to dairies that produced raw milk intended to be pasteurized. It was cancelled due to time constraints, and the issue of not being able to find enough comparably-sized dairies that produced milk intended to be pasteurized. They needed at least 20 dairies of each category to make the results statistically significant.
In other words, they couldn’t find enough comparable small dairies that produced pasteurized milk. If CSU couldn’t find them, I assume that there aren’t very many out there.
If they compared small pasture-based raw dairies to other medium & large pasteurized dairies, it would have been an unfair comparison; a flawed-design study that would have immediately been discredited by the scientific community.
-Blair
This is long,about quorum sensing,the details are a bit overwhelming but the summary at the end explains a lot about how microbes communicate both interspecies and intraspecies.
A bacteria like ecoli 0157H7 only produces the shiga toxin when it senses that there are enough other ecoli 0157H7 around.Interestingly other bacteria in the lactobacillus species have the ability to interfere with the communication between the ecoli and therefore inhibit the production of shiga toxin.Although bacteria appear to be independent single cell organisms,because they can communicate both within species and between species,they act as a group or as a huge multicellular organism.
All of this serves to reinforce my belief that we need to have an abundant and diverse community of symbiotic microbes to maintain stability or health.
As for dividing pathogens into those that affect cows and those that affect people,It helps to look at what is happening from a bacteriocentric point of view.Bacteria live on or in a cow or person the way we live on the earth.To them ,moving from the soil ,to a plant,to a cow and then to a person isn’t much different than being born in Wisconsin,moving to Idaho and then on to Afghanistan. If humans do really have vascular receptors for shiga toxins and cows do not,as a human, is there nothing I can do to protect myself from shiga toxin?I would prefer to believe that eating probiotic foods is going to protect me somehow.
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/
I found a resource where it states why children are more vulnerable to developing HUS. Its in a book titled Pediatric Hospital Medicine. The chapter on HUS begins on page 369. Gb3 receptor cells are discussed on page 370.
http://books.google.com/books?id=sV6-ifUGoMYC&pg=PA370&lpg=PA370&dq=gb3+hus+children&source=web&ots=22NSLzXL7T&sig=mBcoeVTznboAH2seLT7T71kkrHQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA371,M1
If children simply attending a community stock show can contract E.coli 0157:H7 and infected children can pass it to other children, then children drinking raw milk are certainly at risk of contracting E.coli 0157H7.
cp
That is probably the most elegant description I have yet to see on quorum sensing/bacterial communication. Spot on.
Of course, we differ on thoughts about how to apply the information.
"I would prefer to believe that eating probiotic foods is going to protect me somehow."
What is the "somehow?" Public health officials cannot discount the risk from pathogens and embrace the testimonials without scientific evidence. No number of testimonials will make a difference in terms of public health policy…
Regardless, what you prefer to believe about the probiotic effect or other benefits is your right. I can respect that. As cp often points out, education is the key. For raw dairy consumption, balanced information about the risks and purported benefits should be presented by those marketing the product IMHO. Question – would the raw milk websites calling for testimonials ever post a "negative" or "neutral" testimonial? That is the flaw in testimonials – they can be cherry-picked and lack a "control" group for statistical comparison.
Blair – it is disappointing that CSU wasn’t able to conduct the study you described. The data from such a study would be very helpful in these discussions. Perhaps the study could be conducted if more states were involved, in order to obtain a sample size large enough to be statistically significant.
If you want scientific evidence that agricultural practices do great damage to the life in the soil and that the mineral content of our food has declined seriously,that the antibiotics routinely used in animal agriculture do great harm to our own immune systems,it is easy to find.The approach that public health officials take to make our food safe is the problem.They prescribe the use of more and stronger ways to kill microbes.The microbes are so far ahead in this contest that it is time to look at things from a different perspective.Lets try looking at things from the microbe’s point of veiw.I’m sure they don’t intentionally try to harm us any more than we intentionally try to do damage to the earth.
What do ecoli 0157:H7 have in mind when they all start to produce the shiga toxin at the same time?Most of the time they are responding to some kind of threat,like the appearance of an antibiotic or food preservative or sanitation chemical.They would like to evacuate the area as quickly as possible.They irritate the digestive system in order to make their escape.To them it is a matter of survival.They aren’t thinking about the damage it does to us.It is only common sense to find a way to control the numbers of ecoli 0157:H7 without taking the risk that we will startle it into exercising this option.The best strategy is to create an environment that is unfavorable to the ecoli 0157:H7.We can do this by carefully choosing the food we eat.Live foods from healthy soil and fermented foods that contain plenty of beneficial bacteria all help to exclude the ecoli 0157:H7 by competition and predation.Avoiding anything that is damaging to our commensal bacteria is just as important because damaging our commensal bacteria is what gives opportunistic bacteria like ecoli 0157:H7 the room to grow.This is exactly why the public health officials and the food industry cannot make food safe using more of the same old anti microbial chemicals and processes.
You say this:
"Of course, we differ on thoughts about how to apply the information [we have learned about bacterial communication].
[miguel says,] "’I would prefer to believe that eating probiotic foods is going to protect me somehow."
What is the ‘somehow?’ Public health officials cannot discount the risk from pathogens and embrace the testimonials without scientific evidence."
To me this is very much NOT about testimonials (although I believe testimonials are vastly underrated by a narrow-minded scientific community). It is about a question opposite to the one you asked. It is about wondering what the effect may be on human health when natural microbial balance is altered.
Physicians and scientists everywhere today are quite content to alter natural microbial balances with hyperhygiene, antibiotics, injected vaccines, and unnatural foods. You yourself seem very content with that approach. But you also agree that we know little about it. That to me is deadly dangerous. To me, you are the one with the blind faith that "somehow" you can be healthy while harboring an unnatural microbial balance.
Which is more sensible: Waiting for investigations into quorum sensing to advance? Or presuming that the "exquisite machine" can not be improved by our tinkering?