Count me as another re-thinker following the California court decision reinforcing AB 1735.
I have frequently made the argument that the incidence of illness from raw milk is so tiny compared to other food-borne illnesses that the opponents should leave raw milk alone, and go fight more important battles. I thought the logic was airtight. But I realize now that logic doesn’t count for very much in this battle.
Too many in our society—from judges, legislators, regulators, and news media types to ordinary citizens—can’t entertain such logic. Not in our gotcha, blame-based, fear-fed society.
All have been conditioned by the emotional refrain: “If there’s even a single person becoming sick or dying from (name the condition or threat or disease), then it’s up to us to do our best to stamp it out.”
Probably a number of factors contribute to this conditioning—everything from our Judeo-Christian heritage to the financial interests of agri-business apologists to the simple fact that comprehending the underlying science is more effort than most people want to invest. Then, if someone in your family is one of those few affected, or you have a neighbor who’s affected, or you read in the media about a tragic case, you become consumed by the refrain. I’m not sure it even matters any more from whence it originates.
The fact is that it’s a force that is nearly impossible to fight against. The notion of examining the repercussions of giving in to the emotions has faded away. No matter that, in the case of raw milk, at least, its elimination could well sicken and kill many more people than those made ill by the pathogens it occasionally carries. The refrain so easily turns into hysteria. And hysteria has a way of trumping logic.
The problem is that battling on the basis of “rights” is also an emotion-tinged battle. I think Kathryn Russell makes an important point. You’ve got to fight the battles over a variety of issues. I think she’s suggesting that the real key is education, and each of these court battles, legislative hearings, and news articles about the struggle furthers education.
I want to say this about the fear mongering. How many will die? All! We all are going to die at some point.(That’s the reason to get right with the Lord.) It is pure pride and foolishness for the government, or anyone, to think they can prevent it. USDA wants to stamp out all animal disease, FDA wants to stamp out all human disease. It is pure nonsense.
Who of you are terrified to get into your car each time you have to, knowing, KNOWING, that 54,000 people a year die in car accidents? Following the line of logic by Darth and others, you’d think they would be house bound with terror from all the potential possible risks that lie in wait out there in the world.
From Nursing 2006, February, Volume 36, #2, pp 35, "Clinical Rounds; Health Care Delivery; U.S. takes the lead in errors,":
"In a survey of six developed nations, the United States had the dubious distinction of racking up the highest incidence of medical errors."…errors involving mistake in treatment or care, wrong drug or dose, wrong test results reported or delay in notification of abnormal test results.
How would the same logic used with raw milk apply to medicine?
I, on the other hand, am just a dumb goat farmer who cannot be allowed to make mistakes. I MUST be protected against.
Bob Hayles
Actually, more fear about writing again here than leaving the house. It almosts feels like I need to apologize for something–having too much education as a scientist? Didn’t the raw milk experts at the hearing last month have diplomas too?
I can’t speak for others on the "dark side," but as said before, there is no personal fear on my part of trying some of Bob’s raw dairy next visit to that area. Would I have coonsidered consuming any raw dairy before following and participating on this blog–no way. It has been educational. But, maybe the education was a one way street. And, no apology for wanting to prevent illnesses–even a single preventable HUS case or death–while still finding ways to promote nutritious food. There will always be mistakes and not every illness can be prevented, but it would be a travesty not to learn from the mistakes and determine if they can be remedied so the next one is prevented. There is also no denying the many problems in government, industry, and society that make these goals challenging, but not impossible.
Darth
Consider what a free pass has been given the food importers – see link below on "Suspicions deepen on food labs
At issue: Were test results of tainted imports withheld?":
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-tainted-foodmay27,0,3491844.story?page=1
Whatever happened to "buy American"? I know, I know; follow the money.
Education doesn’t need to be a one way street. I think most if not all on this blog strive to prevent illnesses. I don’t think that is an issue.
It’s about choice, my right to choose what I feel is best for me. If any entity is going to give advice, then they should give fair and truthful information. I think many on this blog have encouraged others to read everything from all areas so you can be informed. Marler’s blog, Weston Price, Realmilk and the other web sites all have good information. (That doesn’t mean you are required to agree with any or all of the sites). Being an informed consumer is important. I don’t think that is in dispute. Again, unfortunately most people just buy food without knowing anything about it, and don’t care until something happens.
Consumers are not informed, and it appears that is their choice. It also appears this is changing, albeit slowly. There seems to be a growing number of consumers that are turning away from processed foods. That is a good thing! The down side is; it will make the big Corps fight harder to keep the profit margins high.
Food Labs Asked To Provide Info To House On Import Tests
http://www.foodpoisonblog.com/2008/05/articles/food-poisoning-watch/food-labs-asked-to-provide-info-to-house-on-import-tests/
FSnet May 27/08 — II
BLOG: "If there’s even a single person becoming sick or dying from raw milk…"
27.may.08
The Complete Patient
http://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/en/
archived at
http://archives.foodsafety.ksu.edu/fsnet-archives.htm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2008/05/28/national/a060521D93.DTL
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/10/04/cdifficile-meat.html
"Weese and his co-authors admit in rather cryptic terms that they think they know the answer to the first question.
"Although C. difficile is not considered a foodborne pathogen, it has been identified in retail meat from grocery stores in Ontario," they wrote in their article, to be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases."
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.business.agriculture/browse_thread/thread/2f98547501b09e2a
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/livestock/swine/news/marapr08a6.htm
"Clostridium difficile is a bacterium that is an important cause of disease in various species including humans. Recently, large outbreaks of C. difficile-associated diarrhea in hospitals have been reported internationally. C. difficile is also a cause of disease in one to seven day old piglets, where infection can result in diarrhea or sudden death. The incidence of disease in pigs seems to vary geographically and the role of C. difficile in the Ontario swine industry is unclear. There is concern that the use of antibiotics, particularly ceftiofur, may be associated with C. difficile in pigs.
Contamination of retail meat with C. difficile has recently been reported. One area of concern is the ability of C. difficile spores to survive normal cooking temperatures. However, considering the high prevalence of retail meat contamination (20-60% of samples tested), it is clear that exposure to C. difficile in food does not necessarily result in disease. Concerns about C. difficile in meat have recently been heightened because of increased suspicion that C. difficile is an under-recognized cause of diarrhea of people in the community. However, the involvement of meat is currently unproven.
Because C. difficile can be found in a large percentage of older pigs and because C. difficile spores are highly resistant in the environment, eradication of C. difficile on farms will be difficult if not impossible. Therefore, it is probably more valuable to implement measures to reduce the level of disease in pigs and thus reduce meat contamination."
Resident public health person chiming in again (and needs to get a life outside this blog, LOL). No doubt that driving to the store (with or without children) to buy your raw milk is more risky than drinking the Kool Aid. I have strong personal and professional feelings that not enough dollars are spent on vehiclar safety (is that even the term–sadly, there isn’t a catch phrase for dangerous driving/drivers beyond drunk driving-and it goes WAY beyond that day-to-day). Billboards should be plastered across the freeways about safety–can you tell I commute with the crazies?
However, just because one problem is "bigger" in numbers/deaths than another doesn’t negate efforts to promote prevention across all areas. The public health practioner tends to specialize in one or several areas. They use that expertise hopefully in good faith and through dedicated work to prevent illnesses. They DON’T develop a list of risks and cross out the ones that don’t have enough deaths to warrant concern. Granted, the funding, politics, media, society, etc. sets these priorities in the long run (and maybe raw milk has ended up in an unexpected place on the list). But, every death that can be prevented is important to the individual who cares about that particular risk factor (and the family that suffers the loss). I know someone now working on suicide prevention and trying to collect data. Tons of resistance to working on that problem. Raw milk is not the only controversial issue in public health.