Sylvia Gibson poses a recurring question following my previous post: Why is it that our regulators and legislators come down so hard in following up on illnesses from raw milk, but do nothing when people become sick and even die from other foods like cold cuts, jalepeno peppers, and pasteurized milk?
I wish I could say it’s all payoffs by agribusiness; while that may be a factor (the payoffs being in the form of campaign contributions and highly paid lobbyists), I think it’s more complicated. Some parts of the answer can be seen in the back-and-forth between Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy Co. and a number of readers—following my previous post and my Dec. 29 post.
I’ve been a big supporter of Mark since I came to know him during the September 2006 shutdown of his dairy by state and federal regulators. I admire his courage in standing up to the state and federal regulators who have tried to drive him, and other smaller producers, out of business—not because I automatically oppose the regulators, but because the regulators have been uneven, and even unethical, in their enforcement of regulations affecting food-borne illness. One of the big reasons the regulators dislike Mark so passionately is because he stands up to them.
Yet one of the things that stands out to me in the latest back-and-forth between Mark and Elizabeth McInerney, Observer, and Concerned is the ideological nature of Mark’s comments. When you are beholden to an ideology, then there is no way to admit weaknesses in your beliefs.
So Mark argued, among other things, that that there have been no complaints to the state about his products, that there have been no pathogens detected in his animals, and that pathogens aren’t really pathogens to people who build up immunity to them. Similarly many would argue that the Weston A. Price Foundation in many of its arguments—especially its denial of the possibility that raw milk could have lead to illnesses at Dee Creek and Organic Pastures—is ideological as well.
To his credit, Mark eventually admitted in his most recent comments following my previous post that some of the arguments on his web site may be inappropriate, and says he’s removing them.
The fact that Mark and the Weston A. Price Foundation tend toward the ideological is unfortunate. But even more unfortunate is that the people Mark battles with—the California Department of Food and Agriculture, the California Department of Public Health, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control—are equally ideological. They continue to argue that unpasteurized milk is a more serious health menace than pretty much any other food around, and thus must be eliminated via all available means—regulatory harassment, legislative restrictions, and propaganda–as part of an ever-more-sanitized food system. Yet we know the arguments about the extreme dangers of raw milk are untrue by virtue of the fact that hundreds of thousands of people consume the product every day without becoming sick and because data show relatively few illnesses each year from raw milk.
They refuse to take part in serious public discussions and debate, as we saw clearly in the year-long battle played out in California over the ten-coliform-per-milliliter standard for raw milk that was secretly pushed through the legislature in late 2007. Then, though Mark managed to lead an effort to change the standard via compromise and discussion, the regulators refused discussion and the governor vetoed the change without engaging in any kind of dialog.
But this is the nature of ideological arguments. They aren’t worked through in an atmosphere of understanding and compromise. They are battles, with every piece of data and every example of sickness or recovery around raw milk seen as a piece of propaganda, to be used or misused in an ongoing war.
Yet, the question persists: If Mark and the Weston A. Price Foundation were less ideological, would it make a difference to the regulators and legislators? Would the establishment respond differently if Mark refrained from labeling the FDA as “corrupt” and passing around prescription slips for raw milk at farmers markets, or would it simply interpret a more conciliatory approach as a sign of weakness, and perhaps press its harassment efforts even harder?
Elizabeth wants to see more of an effort at conciliation, as she says so well to Mark: “You might be one of the leaders of this movement, but it is my movement too, and I’m afraid that in your zeal to promote OP, you will end up screwing it up for the rest of us.”
To which Mark responds: “As blogging observers and writers, please take a deep breath and consider that OPDC is under a microscope (literally like no other dairy) and we try our damned best. If you embrace choice and raw milk, try supporting OPDC as your champion. Critical bashing is just that.”
I’m not sure I’ve answered Sylvia’s question, but hopefully begun to frame the problem. Ideological battles usually end when one side or the other gives up or just collapses from exhaustion.
***
There’s lots of interesting discussion going on about food regulation at The Ethicurean, in response to a very favorable, almost fawning, assessment of food poison lawyer Bill Marler.
The Ethicurean writer seems to have allowed herself to become charmed by Marler’s glib explanations of why he supports local food producers. But Marler has a lot of difficulty accepting the criticism that, for all his suggestions that he supports local food producers, he really sees all producers as the same from a legal perspective, and doesn’t want to see meaningful regulatory adjustments made for smaller producers.
His difficulty handling criticsim comes out following the second comment on the Ethicurean post, from Sam Spade, who captures the Marler problem real well. To which Marler responds, (and I’m partially paraphrasing here): “You don’t know me…You don’t understand how much I care…” It comes across as dismissive, in a cavalier way. People who really do care will discuss any criticism, try to rebut, show inaccuracies or illogical thinking, and allow that possibly some of what the critic has to say holds merit.
My ideology is based on what 40,000 people every week share with me about drinking raw milk in CA. That pasteurized milk makes them sick and raw milk makes them well.
What is the FDA ideology…it is a culture of fear, sterile foods, intimidation, excused medical death and commercial drug pushing.
I would not compare the two ideologies on balance or in contrast. One is of nature, the truth and the people and the other is ugly, greedy and criminal.
Mark
It takes a big and open minded person to admit things could be improved upon and at anothers suggestion, make those changes; it speaks volumes about a person. I haven’t looked at your changes yet Mark.
I would also hope that anyone researching anything would seek out many web sites/areas, not just a select few to aide them in becoming informed.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/specials/honey/
I get my honey at the Sunday Farmer’s Market, he doesn’t have a lot. It’s raw, unfiltered and local.
I wish that we had enough money to conduct a credible study that shows the health benefits and the economic benefits of drinking raw milk. Mothers know in their wisdom that this is true, but that will never make raw milk legal.
You can try to please regulators, but they don’t hold the majority of children in their hearts. They are after the teeny tiny minority, for reasons I don’t understand.
-Blair
In 2005, Mark flew out to Colorado on his own expense to defend our right to choose. The herdsahre bill passed, thanks to his passion and cogent testimony – at the time there was one legal dairy in the state, with a 1-year waiting list. Now there are 36 legal raw dairies in Colorado, and hardly any one has to wait.
I think any imperfections on his website are vindicated by his vision and activism. You can take your perfect vision of raw dairy and put it where the sun don’t shine. sorry – I’m angry about your previous post…..on a political blog about raw milk, you should have known better. We all are human. We do the best we can, and consumers know that is better than 99% of the crap the other guys want to feed us. Get a grip, will you? Shame on you, and Amanda, for trying to make Mark perfect. I wish all men would lead as Mark leads. And David – quit the friendly fire. these guys are healing me.
-Blair
18 months ago the head food safety "expert" at the PDA testified before the Pa. Ag. committee " No child nor the eldery should ever consume raw dairy for any reason ever" Atmosphere of understanding and compromise? Not here!
"Food is power we use it to change behavior some may call it bribery. We do not apologize" Catherine Bertini former UN World Food Director and US Assistant Ag. Sec.
The food police use guns, badges and courts to enforce their will on peaceful farm famlies producing a healthy natural product called raw milk. No compromise or atmosphere of understanding there!
The new Ag. Sec. reportedly is very close to Monsanto and other GMO companies thats not good news.
The above is just a few examples of what the raw dairy folks are dealing with and would have to comprised with. How can someone comprise with someone that is out to destroy and control them?
Perhaps our only hope is for massive amouts of people giving up on what is making them sick the SAD and switch to real food. I hope that happens before we go totally bankrupt, yesterday the new faces announced that they will start off with a $1 TRILLION dollar budget deficit and yearly TRILLION deficits into the future. SIMPLE MATH will not let that continue for long. "Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value zero" Voltaire 1778
Thank you Mark as well, I don’t have to agree with everything you say and do. I appreciate that you are on the front lines making progress and helping keep the issue alive. It isn’t easy being a target.
Meanwhile, I would also like choice about organic almonds. I laid in a large supply just before the new regulations, and am almost out. Is there a source for true raw organic almonds? If anyone can help, please contact me privately. ldfeldt (at) holisticwisdom.org
Thanks to everyone who is making it possible for me to enjoy raw milk, as well as the many other health choices I make that are not yet approved/accepted by the main stream.
**
Shame on you, and Amanda, for trying to make Mark perfect. I wish all men would lead as Mark leads.
**
I suppose I should read the previous post, but I make no apologies for expecting my food products to fit their label claims. I expect it of big food producers and of small. It sounds like you and I have different standards for our men, Blair.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski220.html
Firstly, let me say how very thankful I am that you have dedicated so much of your time to creating this website and helping us to sort out these issues. Secondly – Mark – let me also say how thankful I am that you are fighting this "ideological" battle for raw milk (I met you at a VICFA meeting about two years ago). Finally, let me be brief. I do not believe that this is an ideological battle. It is a political battle, but it is not ideological. Just last year I struggled with the thought that the FDA/USDA might be corrupt – in the classical, ordinary sense. Now, since I am an establishment man; that is, a twenty year career as a Navy flier, a short post-retirement career as a police officer, and now a candidate for orders in the Anglican Church, it was +ideology+ that made me so reluctant to understand what was going on with these milk wars. Now I believe it +is+ corruption. I called it "Sheehan’s Jihad" on the Weston Price Chapter Leader’s discussion group a while back. And I still make that claim.
As for the pathogens. I’ve had to overcome my inhibitions about drinking "raw milk" just like everyone else. But after four years of watching it work miracles in my family and experimenting with "dirty milk" just to see if I could make myself sick – I issue a challenge: Let the government of California mail me any sample from Mark’s dairy which they claim to be tainted with pathogens and I will drink it in the presence of a Notary Public (here in Virginia). And we shall see. I make this challenge for two reasons 1) I am utterly convinced of Mark’s integrity and 2) I believe that it would be virtually impossible to get sick on OPDC milk .
This is not about ideology. This about corruption and truth.
Don
—————————-
Salmonella outbreak spreads to 42 states, CDC says
Jan 7, 4:06 PM EST
ATLANTA (AP) — Health officials are investigating a salmonella outbreak that reportedly has sickened nearly 400 people in 42 states, but they do not yet know exactly how the bacteria has been spreading.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has not named all the states, but Ohio health officials have reported at least 50 people in 18 counties have been sickened by salmonella bacteria since October.
Most people infected with salmonella develop diarrhea, fever and abdominal cramps 12 to 72 hours after infection. The illness usually lasts four to seven days, and most people recover without treatment.
Officials say steps to protect against the illness include careful handling and preparation of raw meat, and frequent hand washing.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MED_SALMONELLA_OUTBREAK?SITE=FLDAY&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
David,
My answer to your question is no. This issue (like so many others) is a battle between the individual rights of citizens (in this case farmers and consumers) versus the government’s desire to have control over what we get to put in our bodies.
In my opinion, Mark MacAfee is correct: The FDA is corrupt. Protecting the market share of agribusiness IS the major reason that government is moving against the producers of raw dairy.
There is a fight going on. The power is on the side of the bureaucracy. Mark’s farm/home is at ground zero. I don’t blame him for being riled up. Some American and Canadian farmers have been subjected to a disproportionate level of force in the execution of ADMINISTRATIVE search warrants at family farms!
I’m all for being polite but sometimes the truth is ugly. You should not be damned for being honest. The opposition will not respect our individual rights no matter how nice we are to them.
Why go quietly?
Robert Monahan
Dr. Kwiatkowski has an eloquent perspective.
Don N.
I didn’t see anything on the evening news about any outbreaks. Wonder why they haven’t said anything? You are right, had it been raw milk, it’d have been plastered in the news and shut down.
I’ve been bombarded all day with news clippings and blogs covering the Salmonella outbreak. Bummer that public health cannot figure out the cause of an outbreak in 1 hour like a CSI TV episode.
Some examples of news coverage…
USA Today
CDC activates emergency group to find salmonella source
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-01-07-salmonella_N.htm?csp=34
Reuters
Salmonella outbreak sickens 388 across U.S.: CDC
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE5066E420090107?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews
AP
Salmonella outbreak spreads to 42 states, CDC says
California officials report 51 cases as of last week
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090107/ap_on_he_me/med_salmonella_outbreak
You do not know me and do not know the extent of my efforts to support both raw milk and local food. "shut up" is also offensive, not something anyone deserves to hear, indepedent of how you feel about them.
I happen to be very thankful for everything that Mark has done. I enjoy most of his posts. I find them to be very colorful and full of enthusiasm. I have never met him, but have the feeling that I would like him if I did.
However, this whole thread started with an objection I had with CP’s assertion that probiotics are an acceptable substitute to raw milk. She is also very adamant about warning labels. I tired to understand, voiced much frustration with these antii-raw-milk positions, asked a question, and in the process, figured out that CP is probably Mary Martin, a mother who feels her son was seriously injured by OP milk, and who has repeatidly asked Mark, on this blog, to fix his writings. At the time (2 years ago?) I thought her requests were reasonable and assumed they would be made. I was shocked to find out they had not.
Mary is a well spoken person who writes well, does thorough research, and has a compelling story to tell. She is also, I believe, suing Mark. It is very important to the raw milk movement that Mark is vicorious in this law suit and that both Mark and the Weston Price Foundation give Mary as little ammo as possible when she writes her book, which I have no doubt she will do.
I will admit that I could have been less sarcastic in my requests to Mark. I am very very tired of the whole OP/Sept 06 issue and I believe that BOTH Mark and Mary are responsible for it dragging on. However that does not excuse sarcasm on my part and I will try to control myself in future posts.
"It is your choice, and with raw milk (exercise, good hydration, a whole-food diet, and plenty of love) you need not become ill, ever."
I tried re-writing it, but I guess I would just take it out. The problem is that if an immune-compromised person were to start everything on the same day, and also be unlucky enough to encounter a pathogen in their first sample of raw milk, they might become ill.
I think we also need clarification on Amanda’s assertion that the pathogens introduced into your milk did not die out. Your sentence about that implies that they did. I do not have the report in front of me, so I can’t comment. I would like to see you come to an agreement with Amanda on that one. Actually, it is important that CP has by-in to these revisions too.
Elizabeth
The salmonella outbreak was not broadcast on the local TV stations in Sacramento. I’ve no doubt it will eventually make it to our local news. An hour like CSI? <snickering-never happen with the govt> Those poor people have been suffering since Oct.
Elizabeth,
If he were to change the wording to something like: It is our belief that…."It is your choice, and with raw milk (exercise, good hydration, a whole-food diet, and plenty of love) you need not become ill, ever." However, we believe you are responsible for researching any changes you plan…..yadayada. People are responsible for thier choices.
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE5066E420090107?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext/INF-DA/ExpwSalmonella.pdf
What a visual of the feedlot dairies and how the cows are "cared" for.
We still have about 16,000 pounds left and will ship them direct to you. Yum!!
We are also very excited that Cornicopia is kicking the USDA’s butt on the mandatory almond pasteurization rule and the mislabing issue with raw almonds. Many almond growers have joined into the legal fight. We will know lots more this year and it appears we can win and show our power as growers against the machine and for the consumer.
I spent an hour with Senator Dean Florez and Christine Chessen ( president of California Raw Milk Association CREMA ) today in Sacramento. His new office is awsome now that he has earned the position of speaker of the CA senate. Christine and I both drank raw milk and ate delicious microcupcakes inside the state capitol. Times they are a changin!! We discussed raw milk issues and going progressively forward legislatively in 2009. I can not share the details yet…but lets just say…it is going to be a great year in CA. The base of support has grown for the legislative effort we have chosen and it will be a great day for more than raw milk.
It is essential that individual voices and choices are preserved and protected. That means your choice to drink raw milk or drink what ever you chose.
This is the very foundation of freedom and being America. I respect and will defend all of the voices here as long as those voices protect other peoples private rights and choices.
Sadly…the FDA has actively denied the rights of citizens in Nevada and our surrounding states to access raw milk. Much is happening right now to correct this injuctice and FDA denial of our rights to eat food of our chosing. I will details share soon.
Mark
"The California campaign, funded largely by the Humane Society of the United States, featured images of hens and other livestock in cramped cages and crates. Voters had a visceral reaction.
People tend to know little about how meat and eggs are produced, Rollin said, "And when they’re presented with it, it’s jarring."
This is in regards to Proposition 2 that was voted in last fall. Too bad they didn’t appear to educate on the difference between "cage free" and free range. I believe that using tactics such as these (or more detailed) would educate people about the factory dairies and the previous link I posted from UCD; the living conditions of the cows, would touch people and give them a clear visual of where thier milk comes from. It may not sway any towards raw dairy, yet it may open eyes and force a change for the better with the factory dairies. I think a visual picture would last longer than mere words in peoples minds.
"The more corrupt the state the more numerous the laws" Tacitus 56-120 AD
Does that ancient statement have any meaning for us today?
I had a very good friend over for dinner last week – she was in town visiting family. She is now an infectious disease investigator for the CDC. When she saw my bumper sticker from the FTCLDF on my fridge saying , "Don’t mess with perfection – drink raw milk." She said "do you know how much money is spent dealing with raw milk outbreaks?" We went on to discuss outbreaks ‘from raw milk’ and the expense. She admitted that even if the outbreaks weren’t caused raw milk, the implication that it COULD BE from raw milk justified making it illegal. She stated she would never fight for allowing raw milk to be legal, just because of the expense it would cost to investigate and write up all the outbreaks that would ensue (that MIGHT be caused by raw milk).
It makes me wonder what sort of brainwashing the CDC does to its new investigators. I almost feel like no matter how much evidence (scientific or anecdotal) are presented, these investigators are brainwashed and reprogrammed into some sort of system. It’s like the blind leading the blind!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123136276829062033.html
I would imagine some who normally post on this blog are busy trying to track this down.
In 42 states, from a common strain (salmonella typhimurium), it’s not likely from any raw milk source; consequently, it is also not likely that whoever/whatever is responsible will be shut down.
Ive been drinking raw milk for the last 50 years and I have no inhibitions to overcome. I would be more then willing to join you in your challenge since its imperative that I live up to my wolfman status.
Elizabeth,
You as well as Mark are an invaluable asset to this site.
In acknowledging the illusive chameleon like nature of bacteria as well as their symbiotic importance to life and living it is short sighted on our part to label specific organisms as merely pathogenic. Pathogenicity is relative and it is not the be all and end all with respect to the complex nature of disease.
As Ive stated several times organisms will do what they have to do to survive. All organisms including viruses, bacteria, fungi and protozoa are beneficial and all have the potential of becoming pathogenic. The virulent nature or intensity of a specific organism is relative to its environment, the obstacles it is confronted with, and the overall health and susceptibility of each host. Our current preoccupation with this insane quest for dominion over disease is based on a logic whose underlying concept is flawed and incomplete.
To paraphrase Milton Friedman, Every friend of freedom must be as revolted as I am by the prospect of an army of enforcers empowered to manipulate the lives and invade the liberty of citizens on slight evidence.
Ken Conrad
"A hen is only an egg’s way of making another egg." -Samuel Butler
Similarly, in many significant ways (like health good/bad and health’s near-term payoffs life/death) we are each vessels within which our friendly/unfriendly 4-8 lbs of gut microbial companions make their way. If we are smart enough to foster and reward the ones which will benefit us, we have health and live; if we foster and reward the ones which don’t benefit us, we get sick and die. Ultimately, "a human is bacteria’s way of making more bacteria."
We are subjects of the world in which we live; the whole "dominion" thing leads down many blind alleys. A wise ruler knows the limitations of dominion, because without the consent of the governed, the governing won’t last.
"If he were to change the wording to something like: It is our belief that…."It is your choice, and with raw milk (exercise, good hydration, a whole-food diet, and plenty of love) you need not become ill, ever." However, we believe you are responsible for researching any changes you plan…..yadayada. People are responsible for thier choices. "
I don’t see how this is much different than what he had. "You need not become ill, ever" is a statement that, to my ears, blames the victim. Also, I can imagine there are people who are so immune compromised, that no amount of exercise, good hydration, whole food and love will fix their guts well enough to withstand a dose of ecoli 0157H7 if it is in their first sample of raw milk.
How do you think the parents whose children were permanently damaged in Sept 2006 feel when they read "you need not become ill, ever"? I don’t have the FAQ page in front of me right now, but I believe there were some concessions in there to the effect of "mistakes are always possible". This gives the impression that it is ok for OP to be imperfect, but not for its customers to be imperfect (ie have imperfect immune systems).
I feel that "you need not become ill, ever" is inappropriate.
Regarding Mark’s web site. If he is going to use a definition of pathogen which is different than a commonly accepted definition, then he needs to make that clear right up front, at the top of any page discussing pathogens. Otherwise, the discussion that follows can get deceptive and appear to give assurances which are not there.
I like your Milton Friedman phrase. However, a less eloquent response that comes to mind for me is "Two wrongs don’t make a right". Heavy handed tactics by govt officials on one side do not make it ok for the other side to mislead people.
The cdc blames the consumer or alludes the pathogens are there because the consumers don’t wash. Asking, recommending or suggesting that he change some of his wording and he did, has shown he’s willing to change. Bet the cdc wouldn’t change thier wordings. Those who are immune compromised wouldn’t tolerate ecoli 0157H7 obtained from any host.
As for those kids that were ill in 2006, I haven’t seen proof that it was OPs milk, only speculation and the trial hasn’t started yet to my knowledge. A story I’ll not bother rehashing as it has been beat to death here. We all make choices and we live with the consequences of those choices. People believe that McDonalds burgers are "good for you" too. Go figure, it is ok to stuff your body with added chemicals /adulterated foods yet people scream about raw milk. I did have the words "scream about raw foods" but really haven’t heard any bandwagons about any other raw food than milk. Wonder why that is?
I am very grateful to Mark for making the changes he has made and thankful that he is the kind of person willing to make changes. I feel that more are needed. He won’t know that if I don’t provide that feedback. I may be the only person in America who objects to that line. If so, then obviously, it doesn’t need changing.
Whether or not the CDC is willing to make changes to what they write is irrelevant. The leaders of the raw milk movement have held themselves to higher standards than the CDC (not too hard to do) and I am simply asking for that to continue.
I agree with this sentence of yours and think it would make a great addtion to Mark’s web site;
"Those who are immune compromised wouldn’t tolerate ecoli 0157H7 obtained from any host."
" I did have the words "scream about raw foods" but really haven’t heard any bandwagons about any other raw food than milk. Wonder why that is? "
If you followed my posts on the 12/29 entry, you will know that I agree with this and that I share your frustration.
"Heavy handed tactics by govt officials on one side do not make it ok for the other side to mislead people."
I completely agree with you.
I do believe if you object to something then speaking up is the way to go. It’s the other persons choice to change or not. We all read/hear words differently. Mark or anyone else may not realize how others are interpreting thier words. Some care and some don’t.
http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2008/12/29/is-regulator-alerting-us-to-real-raw-milk-issues-or-excuses.html
The following Great Thoughts are offered here as "targets" for further discussion (sorry about the detail and length of all this; it’s coming from a lawyer). They are an attempt to synthesize some of the major issues and discussion currents which have been flowing:
1) The FDA Petition should be broadened to exempt sales OR OTHER DISTRIBUTION of raw milk and raw milk products, which sale or other distribution is legal in both the originating state and in the consuming state.
[Mark’s petition is modeled on Ron Paul’s original Resolution, which is still buried in the House Energy & Commerce Committee, and which should be broadened to free up interstate traffic founded in other legal arrangements (such as cow shares, which with all due respect Mark, are not "black market"). If, as I suspect, FDA at some level really would like to get out of regulating this tiny raw milk market, they would not really get out of the business if they implemented the Petition as it is presently drafted since the Petition bakes in a high level of both state and federal regulation; hopefully, FDA would at least approve the Petition for further comment, where these additional points can be raised.]
2) There should be some kind of consistent identification of raw milk and raw milk products coupled with standard warning language, whether basic such as current restaurant-style warnings, or more elaborate such as current California warnings.
3) Claims for health benefits may be made by any customer in the producer’s advertising or sales forum only if in the form of personal testimonials or peer-reviewed scientific papers; or by the producer in the producer’s advertising or sales forum only if in the form of a statistically accurate summary of unsolicited customer testimonials or peer-reviewed scientific papers.
3) Sales at retail (where the consumer by definition is remote from the producer) should be regulated under state law.
4) Transactions (whether sales, cow shares or otherwise depending on state law) direct from farmer to consumer whether on the farm or otherwise, or from farmers with herds smaller than a yearly-average [100] milking cows, should not be regulated other than by individual agreement.
[Model here for application to the feds, which should be ample precedent for a similar exemption of raw milk, is the federal Egg Products Inspection Act (Pub. L. 91-597, 84 Stat.1620 et seq.) which exempts eggs direct farm-to-consumer or any sales from flocks of less than 3000 birds. At the state level, some states permit sales to various degrees and at the other extreme, some few prohibit all kinds of raw milk transactions; these issues will have to be dealt with at the state level.]
5) Parents are free to feed their children whatever foods they choose.
6) Farmers and individuals who provide raw milk or raw milk products to "others" should have legal protection in litigation (absent reckless behavior or actual knowledge of pathogens or other significant risk factors) so long as the proper identification and warnings (as in, #2) were provided and, in the case of "others" who are minors, so long as the identification and warnings were effectively communicated to the minor’s parent or guardian prior to consumption.
7) Educational materials (directed to both producers and consumers) for the safe production, handling and processing of raw milk and raw milk products should be developed and widely distributed generally and in the producer’s advertising and sales media.
8) An open, collaborative, transparent and scientifically rigorous approach should be taken by producers, consumers and public health officials in all instances of disease outbreak with a common commitment both to protect public health and to protect continued viability of responsible producers. Public health warnings which are not connected to outbreaks of illness or which prove to have been unfounded, shall be followed by public health advisory followups which are communicated with the same level and extent of publicity as the initial warning, including exoneration of producers as appropriate.
9) Independent research (including analyses of testimonials and other real-life evidence as well as traditional reductionist studies) should be publicly funded to examine the nutritional value, environmental impacts of production, and the acute and chronic impacts on human health from raw and traditional foods and from industrially-produced foods.
10) Broader insurance availability for producers and other risk-sharing approaches should be developed as a counterweight to regulation-by-litigation.
[Farmers might consider voluntary production standards such as various kinds of testing protocols or simply rely on many years of problem-free operation, so as to induce insurers to write policies, otherwise the insurers will want to "go automatic" and insist on compliance with various regulations which is their current typical mode. Similarly, a litigation defense which is founded in compliance with the testing protocols of a voluntary standard or in decades of trouble-free operation by simply "looking at the animals and watching what’s in the filter," should help to defend against litigation, and ultimately, to reduce litigation’s attractiveness simply because problems are so rare. It is a truism, that what insurance companies want most, is to write insurance where it is not really needed, since that’s the most profitable way to write insurance. As David points out, since we don’t really know how many people drink raw milk, we really don’t have any idea of the denominator and thus cannot calculate the real incidence of raw milk disease outbreaks.]