bigstockphoto_Supreme_Court_Reports__265852.jpgThis is the time of year when prognosticators look ahead and try to make predictions. One of the more interesting ones I read recently was a Reuters prediction of the top health issues of 2008. Guess which was #1. You’ve got it, raw milk.

I had kind of put the article out of my mind, since I tend not to take journalists’ prognotications all that seriously—after all, I know how many of mine actually turn out correctly. But Mary McGonigle-Martin’s observations on my previous posting about the Food and Drug Administration’s raw milk presentation got me thinking…Why would the FDA change its presentation after the fact, and remove details of illnesses supposedly caused by raw milk?

Sometimes it’s in the little things that you learn a lot about governmental intentions. I remember when Soviet experts used to try to read between the lines of the old Soviet newspaper, Pravda, for insights into real government intentions. We’re kind of at that point in the American experience, I’m sorry to say.

 

This may sound far out, but I think the reason the FDA took out the specifics of Mary’s son and the other children supposedly made ill by raw milk is that it’s a first step in eventually deleting out the entire affair. The problem the FDA faces is that not only was the connection not proven, but one of its partners, the California Department of Food and Agriculture, actually disassociated itself from the claim.

 

Last July the CDFA paid Organic Pastures Dairy Co. $11,418.50, to settle the dairy’s claim against the agency for invading its farm and slapping a quarantine on the dairy for two weeks in September 2006. The action cost OPDC many thousands, but the fact that CDFA decided to settle at all—“to resolve the issue of the propriety and value of that loss” and get OPDC to release the state from any future claims, according to the one-page settlement—was a legal acknowledgment that its suspicions were wrong. It couldn’t make the connection between the illnesses and OPDC, and by settling, was formalizing an admission it made the previous October in statements to the media.

 

(An aside: in the “Stipulation and Release” agreed to by the CDFA and Organic Pastures last July, the two parties agreed that “both CDFA and OP shall not publicize this resolution beyond those necessary to effectuate the agreement.” Despite agreeing to keep the document confidential, Mark McAfee of OPDC decided to distribute to the media the text, along with a copy of the check he received from the state, after AB 1735 was secretly passed and both CDFA and legislative officials suggested the measure was implemented because of the children’s illnesses the previous September.)

 

The FDA will have difficulty continuing with the same claim about the children’s illnesses if a sister agency legally agreed to the exact opposite, especially with a major court case possibly upcoming in California. Everyone will need to get their ducks in a row because documents and public claims can be used as evidence in the suit by OPDC and Claravale Farm.

 

The fact is that Mary and Dave Milano, and I and the FDA can all think what we want about what caused the California e.Coli 0157:H7 illnesses last September, but the evidence for a courtroom proceeding isn’t there. It doesn’t begin to approximate the evidence in the Massachusetts pasteurized-milk listeriorsis cases now unfolding.

 

And this leads into the larger point in all this: the coming year is likely to be one dominated by legal cases involving raw milk.

Such machinations as in California suggest to me these battles are going to be knock-down bare-knuckles battles. Consider the pre-court maneuverings now going on in the suit by Barbara and Steve Smith and Meadowsweet Dairy LLC against New York agriculture officials over the herdshare concept.

 

Over the last week, the plaintiffs’ lawyer (and also the lawyer in the CA case), Gary Cox of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, has been trying to adjust the schedules of two NY hearings because he is a single parent and his children’s mother will be out of the country and unavailable for a two-week period in January. Such adjustments are routine in most legal cases, no matter how acrimonious the parties. It’s just professional courtesy among lawyers, who will re-schedule hearings on a moment’s if an opposing lawyer’s spouse is coming down with a minor headache. But nothing doing in this case. Lawyers for New York’s Department of Agriculture and Markets refused to make any changes, prompting Gary to email the lawyers yesterday:

 

“As a former public servant myself for 14 years prosecuting polluters with the Ohio Attorney General’s office, and as a practicing attorney for nearly 20 years, I can honestly say that you two are the most unprofessional attorneys I have ever worked with.  Please tell your client that the gloves are off and no more Mr. Nice Guy.  You and your clients deserve to be publicly humiliated for your arrogant, vindictive and unprofessional attitude.  I hope you have school-age children who have to be left alone unsupervised for two days without the love and comfort of their parents.  Your behavior is outrageous.  Shame on you both and your client.”

 

There’s another message in all these machinations. The federal and state bureaucracies are taking this raw milk situation very seriously. They are running scared, and for good reason: they are fighting for the wrong cause.

***

Setting the record straight: The Boston Globe followed up on the four cases of listeriosis in pasteurized milk (described in my previous post) with two additional articles. One was a question-and-answer piece about listeriosis. After having written probably half a dozen articles-updates about the fact that two people died and one woman had a miscarriage from consuming pasteurized milk, here is the reporter’s one reference to raw milk: “Can anything be done to prevent catching the disease {listeriosis} in the first place? Avoid unpasteurized milk…”


As reported previously on this blog, the Centers for Disease Control’s own report on illnesses from raw and pasteurized milk over the period 1973-2005 shows zero illnesses from listeriosis in raw milk…and 138 from pasteurized milk.