The struggle over raw milk is intensifying in two neighboring states–Minnesota and Wisconsin–in different scenarios.
First, Minnesota, where authorities have launched a quick and aggressive counter-blitz against raw milk consumers.
I’ll admit, Miguel’s imaginary farm situation of a few days ago, trying to determine how a farm and a child had a genetically matching pathogen, had me both chuckling, and squirming a bit: “We search our minds for some way that the farm had become contaminated.Ah yes, people can carry this bacteria just as well as cows can.We know that people who drink raw milk can carry this pathogen and infect others with it.There is this guy, Gumpert,that comes faithfully every week to pick up his milk.
“So later that week at 4:00 in the morning Gumpert’s house is surrounded with police cars and while he stands in the front yard in his pajamas a mob of epidemiologist descends on his house and yard taking a hundred or so samples. Samples from the dog manure in the yard,the toilet,the trap under the kitchen sink,the garbage container,the dirty laundry basket,you get the idea.Back to the lab and what do you know we have a match!…Gumpert is now busy trying to figure out what he did wrong to somehow get this deadly pathogen in his house.”
What had me squirming some more was today’s report from Minnesota Public Radio (thanks Don Wittlinger) that the Minnesota Department of Agriculture executed a search warrant on a home that served as a drop point for dairy farmer Michael Hartmann. In my experience, drop points for buying clubs and herdshares are typically private homes that volunteer a refrigerator in a garage or on a porch to be used as a temporary storage place until individual consumers come by to pick up their milk. In the process, they become informal gathering places for raw milk consumers–a version of the water cooler or general store, where people chitchat and exchange gossip…and build community.
As Bob Hayles points out, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has assured us in its response to the suit filed by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund challenging the ban on interstate raw milk shipments, that it’s not interested in going after consumers. It’s milk sellers. Intriguingly, that’s pretty much the line I was given by a spokesperson from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture earlier today, when I inquired about the reported search. He said he couldn’t comment specifically because it was part of “an active investigation,” but he said that as a matter of general policy regarding potential breaches of dairy laws, “The target of the investigation is the seller, it is not the buyer…We would not pursue a case against someone who is buying raw milk.”
In addition, the state is understood to be investigating Traditional Foods Minnesota, an outlet for natural and nutrient-dense foods. Seems it somehow may have promoted raw milk.
Michael Hartmann has been consistently defiant of the regulators, issuing statements challenging authorities that they have failed to find E.coli 0157:H7 in any of his milk. On Wednesday, he said in a statement, “Is this just the whine of a constant complainer who has taken a beating because he won’t follow the rules? Absolutely not! Not if you consider the fact that the State’s forensic experts at the Department of Health have not produced a single positive e.coli O157:H7 test of any edible product from the Hartmann farm.” In making such statements, he seems to be challenging the epidemiological and genetic linkages of the E.coli 0157 found in raw milk consumers and among some cattle and other animals. (Thanks to Ron Klein for his latest detailed explanation following my previous post of how genetic linkages in pathogens are determined, and why they are compelling evidence.)
Still and all, Hartmann Farm customers have remained loyal to the raw milk producer. I spoke with a customer a few days ago, with the understanding I wouldn’t reveal his name, and he said his family has continued to drink milk from the dairy, and he understands others have as well. Or, at least, they did. According to a statement issued by the Hartmann Farm, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture has shut down dairy sales. “The State of Minnesota Department of Agriculture returned to the Hartmann Farm with another search warrant (Wednesday) and this time they issued ‘cease and desist’ orders which last week they said they lacked the legal authority to issue.”
When might the Hartmann Farm be able to resume sales? The spokesperson for the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, while declining to comment specifically on this case, said that “in a type of case in which the farm has had illnesses, they are allowed to resume operations when they can demonstrate they have addressed the problem and can operate in a sanitary fashion.”
The decision by Minnesota authorities to target a consumer is significant, in my view. It signals that authorities are ratcheting up the pressure in the ongoing raw milk war by going after individuals who serve as deliverers of one sort or another. Wisconsin authorities have been after Max Kane, who runs a delivery service, for over a year now; FDA and Georgia authorities targeted a delivery service last fall and forced the dumping of 110 gallons of raw milk (he’s a plaintiff in the FTCLDF suit); Massachusetts authorities have issued cease-and-desist orders against four buying clubs in that state. Now Minnesota has targeted one or more consumers who, from all signs, aren’t even running a buying club, but rather serving as a milk drop-off point.
I predicted last week that officials might well use the Hartmann case–the combination of Hartmann’s defiance and the public concerns about raw milk illnesses it produced–to launch a crackdown. I just didn’t think the crackdown would come so quickly.
***
There’s a big contrast to Minnesota in Wisconsin, where there are signs of confusion and deteriorating morale in the regulator camp.
The chief enforcer of that state’s campaign against raw milk, Steve Ingham, announced his resignation this past week. The campaign’s launch coincided with his arrival in late 2008 as head of the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection’s Division of Food Safety. For years before that, under the 17-year reign of Steve Steinhoff, Wisconsin had tolerated some sales under its dairy laws that allow “incidental” raw milk sales.
Now, a year-and-a-half into Ingham’s campaign, which has seen legal or regulatory actions against at least five farmers and a buying club, Ingham has apparently decided he’s had enough. His departure coincides with the civil disobedience by dairy farmer Vernon Hershberger, who removed DATCP seals from his dairy coolers a day after they were attached by DATCP agents.
It’s understood Ingham encountered difficulties convincing the state’s Department of Justice to take action against Hershberger. So he then went to the local district attorney, who hasn’t indicated whether she will prosecute the farmer.
As a result of conflicting determinations about the Hershberger situation, Ingham came into conflict with DATCP’s chief attorney, Cheryl Daniels, when Ingham suggested that Hershberger may not deserve to be prosecuted. That prompted Daniels to answer an email inquiry from a raw milk advocate by stating: “Mr. Ingham used an unfortunate choice of words. The Department is absolutely charged under the statute with having jurisdiction for enforcement of the statutes. However, when a person is unlicensed and absolutely refuses to come into compliance, prosecution is undertaken by the county district attorney’s office where the person resides or, under certain circumstances, by the Wisconsin Department of Justice.” (Her response was posted on the Raw Dairy listserve.)
According to a DATCP spokesperson, the only explanation Ingham offered for leaving his DATCP position is that he is returning to his previous position of teaching and doing research on food safety at the University of Wisconsin.
A further sign of what may be a siege mentality at DATCP has been the agency’s resistance in complying its Open Records law. This is the law that enabled Max Kane to obtain incriminating emails about his case from DATCP. Cheryl Daniels, in an email exchange with a raw milk proponent, also included on the Raw Dairy listserve, indicated DATCP would have to charge for her time in seeking out requested emails and other documents.
The recent struggle over allowing raw milk sales in Wisconsin may also have contributed to the stress felt by Ingham. A reader sent me two files of letters from various corporations to the Wisconsin governor urging veto. They’re worth reading to see if your favorite cheesmaker or other dairy producer is in the mix.
Finally, DATCP hasn’t yet announced a replacement for Steve Ingham. Given all that’s happened, that may be a difficult post to fill.
Maybe Minnesota decided to act quickly against raw dairy consumers rather than risk the long slow buildup of opposition that has occurred in Wisconsin, and threatens to roll back the entire offensive in that state.
Have you ever watched rats? If they are undisturbed, they are efficient…but disturbed they go nuts…running all over the place, disorganized, doing things that are at cross-purposes with each other…
Yep…I see rats in trouble…
Bob BubbaBozo Hayles
"Time to drastically change the century-old concept about bacteria "
"Disease-causing bacteria were the first to be systematically studied
The erroneous perception of the bacterial world can be explained. The first bacteria which were systematically studied were those responsible for the dreaded infectious diseases, main cause of mortality in the 19th century. The prestige of scientists like Pasteur, Koch and others working so successfully with infectious bacteria was great and their decision to consider different types as separate species was not questioned from about 1870 on. These strains were parasitic of human tissues and could be grown in the laboratory in sterilized, soup-like extracts of common meats. Once isolated, they grew well in pure cultures and could be further studied. Each type of strain isolated from infected humans or domestic animals was considered a species. "
"The significance of bacteria’s entirely original adaptive mechanisms was not perceived easily
It was only later that successive discoveries indicated that the bacterial world is original and more complex than initial observations on parasitic strains had led bacteriologists to believe. Early in this century, the soil microbiologists described a completely different way of bacterial life: soil bacteria associated in teams of many cooperative types of strains. Few of them (probably less than 1%) could be artificially grown and isolated in pure cultures from the companion strains of their natural habitat. These reciprocally supporting strains need each other and behave like the specialized cells of an animal. It was only gradually that soil bacteria, millions of times more numerous than the infectious ones, were accepted as specialized elements of a successful type of a local, complex "organism", the bacterial team. Still later, environmental bacteriologists came to realize that by their collective metabolic activities, individual bacterial teams stabilize their environment, fertilize the soil and, together, sustain the entire biosphere."
"In conclusion we invite reflection and sollicit comments on the following :
1. Bacterial evolution has been entirely original compared with that of other living beings. It favoured solidarity and interdependence between bacterial cells to the point that they are now operationally (although not structurally) the equivalent of the differentiated cells of an animal or a plant. There is a great genetic variety in bacteria. It is kept in a dynamic state by generalized "horizontal" exchanges added to the "vertical" transfer to siblings. Horizontal exchanges are efficiently done on a temporary basis mostly by self-transmissible plasmids and prophages, the most typically bacterial innovations. Strictly speaking there are no individual bacterial species.
2. Temporary associations of different cells in bacterial teams, and active, generalized exchanges of genes have resulted in a global bacterial communication system which helps bacteria to adapt to changing environmental realities in a computer-like way.
3. Bacteria are the major biological factors in the maintenance of global homeostasis.
4. Bacteria have participated in the origin of eukaryotes and, subsequently, through a number of symbioses have allowed them to realize amazing and momentous evolutionary innovations.
5. Bacteria represent a highly evolved form of life. Taken together they constitute a global superorganism, the most influential biological entity since life exists on our planet. They also were Nature’s very first genetic engineers"
Bacterial Complexity: More Is Different on All Levels
Bacteria are not the simple, solitary creatures of limited capabilities they were long believed to be. The impression that bacteria act as unsophisticated, solitary creatures stems from years of laboratory experiments in which they were grown under artificial conditions. However, under the harsh conditions in the wild, or in the laboratory under growth conditions that mimic natural environments, these versatile organisms work as a team and employ chemical communication to form highly complex colonies of 10 to 9th power10 to the 12th power bacteria each [111]. Such colonies behave much like a multicellular organism with cell differentiation, distribution of tasks, and, in some cases, even modules that act like reproductive organs.
Milky Way, answering your question in the previous thread, about E. Coli in cheese.
Yes, that could be an indicator of unsanitary cheese production. It could also be coming from unclean milk. Coliforms (of which E. Coli is part — and remember, most E. Coli is harmless) do cause gas and rancid off-flavors in cheese. The presence of high numbers of coliforms is generally considered an indicator of hygene issues.
The cheesemaking process has a selective effect against these bacteria, but so much of it depends upon the way you make the cheese — the types of cultures you use, how aggressively you acidify the milk and curd, and the temperature of the cook.
Cheddar has a pretty steep pH curve, and most modern cheddar starter cultures are very rapid acidifiers. So it really would take pretty gross contamination, or improper handling of the milk, to find a large E. Coli populations in normally produced cheddar.
On the other hand, if you are making a lactic curd cheese, such as a brie or a chevre, in which there is a very long incubation time at a higher pH, before the acid really begins to build, you need to have some pretty squeeky clean milk. One Coliform will multiply into 50 coliforms, or 50 into 2500, by the time your starter culture has dropped the pH below 5.0.
If you age the cheese long enough, eventually the E. Coli will perish. Between the lack of nutrients, the acidity, and the salt, 99.9% of the bacteria in harder cheeses (cheddar, gouda, swiss, etc…) perish with enough age. In fact, it is this expiration of the starter cultures which gives aged cheese its flavor. The cells explode releasing proteolytic enzymes, which breakdown protiens into peptides and amino acids.
E. Coli will expire faster if you age the cheese at warmer temperatures, and if you cure the cheese aerobically (cave or cellar enviroment) in which there is moisture loss. As opposed to under cryo-vac plastic in which there is no oxygen or competative aerobic cultures (molds, yeasts, b. linens, etc…), no moisture loss, and at near-freezing (refrigerator) temperatures. Of course, if you are open-air curing the cheese, it is still important to practice good hygene, though once the cheese has formed a rind, hygene issues are not as critical because the rind is somewhat of a barrier to any contaminants.
I don’t know enough about the Hartman situation to speak to how E. Coli supposedly got into his cheese. It is not uncommon to find a few generic (non-pathogenic) E. Coli even in pastuerized milk cheese, because someone working in the cheese plant didn’t wash their hands well after going to the bathroom or taking a lunch break. If the number is unusually high, it may be wise to hold the cheese for a while to let those numbers dwindle with age.
Where do they get the Constitutional authority to do this? Statutory even? Or do they just because they can? How can such an order be just when they have yet to find any contamination in his products?
That his consumers continued buying despite the supposed health problems is a good indication of the validity of the states actions.
There is an inherant conflict of interest when the party whose approval you need to resume raw milk sales is flat against the sale of raw milk. Justice cannot possibly be done. Situations like these have be and can be expected to be abused in order to drive producers out of business.
Everything comes back to the soil and how we treat it. Bacteria acting operationally as a greater multi celled organism is a very intriguing concept. Makes our conventional agricultural practices look like little more than assassination, murder. The senseless killing of that which sustains us.
Yet this violence against nature and ourselves is the primary methodology and recommendation of TPTB.
Keep up the good work, all you brave farmers and buying club coordinators! We must remain united during this struggle.
Thanks for the fascinating look into cheesemaking. It is like a combination of science and art. The nuances with pH, temperature and other conditions relating to different types of cheeses and their potential to have imbalances with microbial populations seems very important to these discussions. While soil and animal husbandry are obviously an important part of the holisitc approach, things don’t stop there – fresh cheese making perhaps epitomizes the importance of the whole system including all the details of processing conditions?
Minnesota found shiga-toxin producing E. coli in the Hartmann cheese. If I interpret your answer correctly, these strains shouldn’t be in fresh cheese, so something likely broke down in the system. The idea of feeding it to pigs/recycling sounds great when something goes awry. I played around with making plum wine once and ended-up with some really unpleasant vinegar, ack (not sure even pigs would want it).
miguel,
I like your posts and the discussion about the bacterial genetics, etc.. One thing you might consider would be to only include the hyperlink/title, and not all the text on the blog. Those of us engaged in the discussion can follow the link and comment back; and, those who are not interested don’t have to scroll a long way to read the next comment.
MW
suspend all disbelief
open your mind to a new way of seeing
imagine all the bacteria of the world are the cells of one gigantic super organism
the different strains of bacteria are specialized organs of this super organism
like our blood cells,the specialized organs of this super organism
are dispersed everywhere throughout the body of this super organism
each strain of bacteria carries out a different function of this super organism
although dispersed throughout the super organism the cells of one strain are all part of the same organ of the super organism
All the cells of one strain perform the same function for the super organism where ever they are found.
because we can find matching cells in two different locations does that mean that the strain of bacteria moved from one location to another?
think about it
Your ideas on bacteria are intriguing. What about other microbes? Bacteria are only a small part of what is in the soil. Fungi, from what I have read are the dominant species and account for tremendous mass. Likewise, in humans, we have much more than just bacteria as part of our symbiotic system. I’m curious how particular microbes might be able to disrupt this symbiotic balance to cause illness of the host. Obviously, if a particular unfriendly microbe can take advantage of an opportunity and multiply disproportionately, it might cause problems to the host. There are bound to be many ways an unfriendly microbe or microbes can proliferate at the expense of the host and other friendly microbes.
It seems likely to me that contaminated food with very high concentrations of unfriendly microbes and/or their toxins could be one way to introduce illness to the host organism. If a large concentration of unfriendly microbes are introduce into a host organism, is there not a high chance the host will become ill? I can see how the circumstances might affect the outcome. Some hosts would likely offer much more resistance than others to a given dose. And likewise the route of exposure should likely play a role, as well as the health of the host.
Seems to me there are never any easy answers when it comes to disease. But the evidence seems clear to me that raw milk from healthy pastured cows with proper handling should pose only a very tiny risk to consumers. The relative risk is likely to be so small compared to most other foods as to be negligible. The biggest danger I see is from raw milk from CAFO cows being passed on to consumers. I think Mark McAfee is right about two milks in America. One is only fit for pasteurization and even then very questionable for healthy human consumption. The other is a miraculous food developed by evolution to be the perfect food for health.
I agree with Tim Wightman’s idea that it is lack of minerals in our food that is really the problem in disease.Minerals are necessary to buffer the waste products of each cell so that those waste products can be transported to a place to be excreted.For lack of minerals the cells suffocate in their waste.We find bacteria at the sight of this disaster because they are the great recyclers of dead cells into material which can be used or a least more easily excreted.Each strain has it’s own specialty. As in the soil,bacteria are given the job of taking damaged proteins and breaking them down into nutrients that can be used to support life.When enough minerals are not present to buffer the disassembled cell components and there is a lot of this material to clean up and excrete it is a very difficult job.Think of minerals as the trucks that haul wastes away from the disaster sight.
In essence the process of mapping genes or developing blueprints is driven by our arrogant desire to control. For those preoccupied with control genetic mapping is indeed a dream come true.
Do we have the wisdom and humility to use this technology constructively and ethically or will it become our worst nightmare?
Ken Conrad
Tell all the Truth but tell it slant—
Success in Circuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth’s superb surprise
As Lightening to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind—
Your plum wine probably turned into vinegar (acetic acid) because it was aged in aerobic conditions. In other words, it was exposed to too much oxygen while it was aging or fermenting.
It is also possible that it is not acetification which happened to it, but rather, lactic fermentation which is an anaerobic process, because there was too much residual sugar not being consumed by the yeast and so an opportunistic contaminant took hold of the fermentation.
There are definete differences in aroma and taste between acetic acid and lactic acid. Lactic acid is softer on the palate, while acetic acid has a strong vinegar aroma and is more harsh.
If your goal is to make an alcoholic beverage, it is important to pitch a healthy population of yeast to aggressively consume the sugars, and then properly store and age the beverage under anaerobic conditions (unless you are trying to make sherry or tawny port… or vinegar).
Though other "contaminants" may be present from the raw products, they will be out-competed and will simply contribute to subtle complexities of the finished products. If you let the "contaminants" dominate, though, you may have problems.
It is possible to build up starter cultures purely from raw products, without using modern commercial freeze-dried or liquid starter cultues, but that takes some skill and experience. The end product will be superior if you are successful at making native starters from raw products, but if you are unsuccessful it will be pretty lousy. For begginers, it is easiest to use the commercial starter cultures. This applies to all things fermented — cheese, bread, beer, wine, etc…
I can only think of one example of something which doesn’t really require a robust starter culture, offhand, and that is sauerkraut and other types of fermented cabbages/veggies (kimchi, cordito, etc…). Lacto-fermented pickles certainly benefit from a starter culture (I use a slice of sourdough bread) though it is not neccessary.
MW
In my view if one is not preparing their own fermented veggies their own kefir their own yogurt etc. and watching the absolute marvels of what takes place and can be done with raw milk they have no right to attack me or my raw dairy farm with guns badges court orders search warrants and such to force upon us their SAD [made in America diseases}.
RAW MILK IS THE KING OF ALL FOODS AND THERE IS NO OTHER!!!
And from age 68 to becoming 74 soon I have the dramatically changed health to prove that! NO DRUGS AND NO MEDICARE COSTS FOR THAT TIME PEROID I hope there are others my age can tell a simular story but I know none.
I tell my customers the unrefrigerated shelf life is over a year, and to refrigerate it after opening. For myself, it never sees a refrigerator, even after opening, as long as there is enough "juice" to keep the kraut covered. Of course, once opened, a quart of kraut doesn’t last long around my house. I go through about 2 quarts a week…and BTW…the juice is very healthy as well. I drink about a quart a day.
Makin’ kraut: http://www.juicymaters.com/foodrecipes/?p=16
Bob BubbaBozo Hayles
I’d rather see the moderator block those who appeal to authority while hiding behind an anonymous username. I just hope readers remember that, for all we know, all the people with anonymous usernames could be the same person.
http://www.marlerblog.com/2010/06/articles/legal-cases/chris-martin-raw-milk-e-coli-victim-sports-a-wwwrealrawmilkfactscom-tshirt/
cp
A very stramge incomplete yet value added concept. Tomorrow I visit the only dairy in Denmark that is allowed to sell raw milk to the public ( this from a creamery operator that gave me the information ).
My gratitude to David Cox and the team of heros at FTCLDF for the 66 page treatise on freedom and health. Their work of legal art defines clearly the present civil rights nutritional freedom struggle. You rock!!!
Today I was once again reminded of the immune deficiency of the Danish children ( could be any first world families breafast table ). While sitting at breakefast I saw moms feeding UHT milk to coughing and sneezing kids with snotty noses.
I will be home in a week and rejoin this battle up close and personal. The more I see of the EU the more I realize that what we have done with our raw milk revolution in the USA is a history making world class piece of history in the making. We are not only changing America we are going to change and lead most of the test of first world to a much better less snotty nosed and coughing sniffling place. The Nestles of the world have killed off real food and destroyed the family dairy. Miguel….you have all my support. Dr. Bonnie Bassler at MIT would probably agree with you. The "quorum sensing" theory and intercellular chemical langauges tend to support your concept. The earth is a fully integrated super organizism…..this is actually the secret to our RAMP food safety program at OPDC.
Blocking Miguel is like saying and insisting that the world is flat. It is worse than a joke. Miguel has captured the essence of mother natures biodiversity and those things we must learn more about. It is the force of this nature that is at very root of sustainabilty and health.
Blessings and health from Denmark….
Mark
When comments unavoidably divert from the content of the article & the discussion seems to wander away from any suggestions that could help us here in Wisconsin with more direct ideas in our fight, I feel a little frustrated and defeated.
Not saying I disagree with Miguels point of view. I guess I dont understand why he offers such voluminous comments on bacteria or pathogen testing, often straying far away from the content of the article. I have seen others suggest to limit his commentary, I was just not so polite about it. Maybe I haven’t read enough of his posts to understand.
I guess it will just take longer to sift through….but it would be helpful to read some discussion about galvanizing efforts to make change & an impact on Wisconsin raw milk regulation…..
Some day he too will curse those who exploited him.
Others, like miguel, focus on the safety aspect. To be honest, sometimes miguel’s posts make my eyes glaze over…but that doesn’t make the saqfety issue less important…just that he is fighting a different battle in th same war.
Bob BubbaBozo Hayles
I shoud have said,
"Chris Martin is to pasteurized milk what Norma McCorvey is to abortion."
Whoops! That’s what I get for typing while I have steam blowing out my ears.
Also want to add that I love Miguel’s posts!
cp
ARRRRRGH:
I apologize that I was not clear and I do not want to be misinterpreted. And I pretty much question just about everything coming from most labs–which is why I try to keep up with the literature and want to see primary data. My earlier comments were in regard to the discussion of gel electrophoresis.
The issue here is to not "trust the technology" in the hands of anyone. . . .but the focus on the questions that are asked, the preconceptions that are applied, and the controls that are used. Transparency is the key–What are the controls, how were samples taken and cultured ?, How were the samples handled,?Were they split and sent to different labs? Were results cross checked using different methods? Were markers consistent? Were the gel results digitized and/or scanned? Have the original data been cross checked..etc…… I ask for these data.
Miguel there are two kinds of scientists:
One kind sets up an experiment–gets a result and says: "AHA exactly what I predicted!!"
The other kind sets up an experiment-gets a result and then asks the question:"What are you (nature) trying to tell me?"
One has preconceived notions–the other is asking questions–science is a process of inquiry–sciencing–and transparency and openess to review is paramount…….
Article on Steve Ingham’s resignation as the head of DATCP Food Safety.
Good answer,The second kind of science is what I am asking for.I think that is what Steve is saying in his great thoughts.There are hints from the health dept(example:their choice of words in their press releases) that indicate we are getting the first kind of "science".
Lisa Jacobson,
Don’t be manipulated by those accusations(Lunies, ludites, conspiracy theorists, stupid hippies, etc, etc, etc.).The farmers are entitled to ask questions about the evidence against them and the health department has an obligation to answer those questions.My opinion is still that Gumpert was completely wrong to join in the accusations without even considering the validity of the evidence.Haven’t we seen plenty of questionable test results in other states? If you do really believe that the germ theory of disease is correct why on earth would you want to drink raw milk?
Ingham was never a dairy expert anyways, his field of study was/is pathogens in meat. I’ve always had a sense that some of the others mentioned above were pushing for the raw milk crackdown, and took the retirement of Steve Steinhoff (the previous head of Food Safety, who had a "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy towards raw milk) as an opportunity to push their agenda harder on the new impressionable department head.
One is only left to wonder who is going to want to filll this job, given how highly politicized it has become.
I think the reason Ingham is leaving is that DATCP has done some highly illegal things in their pursuit of the ‘raw milk problem’, and there are people who know this. I think he’s getting the (bleep) out of Dodge before he gets indicted along with the rest of ’em.
Lisa,
Understanding bacteria is central to understanding why raw milk is so important. When people ask me what’s the big deal about raw milk, I ask if they’ve got an hour, because it isn’t just about food or farming; it’s about our paradigms of germ control, corporate governance, economics, the business of our health, and our freedom.
Isn’t it interesting that legalizing raw milk involves challenging so many social paradigms? This is what makes legalizing it such a challenge.
Raw milk is not for everybody, but the issues surrounding it should be taught
to everybody.
We could eat lacto-fermented foods, or buy questionable synthetic probiotics, but raw milk could be such a widely available, relatively cheap source of good nutrition and bacteria.
The very reasons we argue for raw milk (freedom to choose, whole food nutrition and balanced gut flora) are used by the FDA to ban it. Miguel understands this, and is seeking to teach us why we should question the "science" the regulators use to defame raw milk.
You’re probably exasperated by the new vocabulary. It hurts my brain too; I don’t understand the statistics, and some of the jargon used in these scientific studies. But Miguel understands our ignorance too; which is why he keeps posting different perspectives, links, videos, research and poetry – he knows it’s hit or miss whether we follow every link religiously, so he’s been patiently offering fresh approaches, applying the scientific language and concepts to help us understand it. Repeatedly – which most of us need. (I majored in languages – immerse yourself long enough and apply it practically, and you will learn to speak the language!) He wants us to be fluent in this language so we can think for ourselves and master the gobbledygook of regulator shut-downs.
The FDA ignores science that does not fit it’s policy; they insist they are right about bacteria and the nature of illness. (If they admit they are wrong, they will be subject to massive class action lawsuits, and the demise of Big Pharma would cost thousands of jobs – especially theirs….and imagine how guilty any administration would feel to admit they perpetrated this lie, and caused the collapse – "not on my watch; not this term"!)
If you don’t understand the "germ theory of disease" vs the" host theory of disease", get your head around that first. Then Miguel’s posts will begin to make sense – tho I have to say, at this point he’s got me thinking it’s not that simple….
I hope this perspective helps you understand why we consider Miguel’s research and teaching essential. It is essential to our freedom.
-Blair
MW
Conspiracy theory Those are your words not mine. I said the investigation was full of bias. Minus a few questionable assumptions the link to the farm cannot be made.
First assumption: The illnesses were caused by a certain strain of bacteria that was found at the scene of the disaster. Firemen are usually found at the scene of a fire .Did they cause the fire?
Second assumption: The suspect strain of bacteria can be traced back to something that the ill people ate.Why limit the investigation to such a small point source?WE live in an atmosphere and in contact with the earth which is alive with all kinds of bacteria.I think that recent discoveries in science support the idea that each strain of bacteria has a specific specialty.It’s DNA reflect this specialized function.Where ever this special ability is needed that strain of bacteria will be found in large numbers.It is not surprising that this strain of bacteria might be found in the soil anywhere and also in a stool sample which,after all ,is only our little bit of the earth’s soil that we carry around with us.
Third assumption: Raw milk is inherently dangerous and so it is the most likely source of the illness. Maybe we could call this assumption the real conspiracy theory.
The goal is to move forward,not to find a source of contamination,but to understand what causes acute illnesses.Mineral depletion of the soil is at the heart of this. The cells of our bodies consume sugars and excrete acid waste products.They take the sugar and other nutrients out of the blood and excrete the wastes into the blood,Up to the point where the blood cannot accept any more acid waste because it’s PH is too low.Each molecule of acid needs a mineral to neutralize is acidity.When the blood runs out of minerals for this job it refuses to take on more waste and the cells start to smother in their own waste products. This will eventually lead to a crisis.A crisis in which our bodies gather all of their resources to eliminate all of this excess waste at once instead of gradually as should normally occur.The way to avoid these crises is to eat a mineral rich diet so that our bodies can clean out toxins as a daily chore rather than putting it off until a crisis.
miguel, one still has to wonder about the unsanitary conditions on the farm. It is obvious that people who purchased milk from the Hartmann’s did not know their farmer. Is anyone else going to condone the unsanitary practices on this farm, or are you the only one that thinks it is O.K. to have cow shit all over the place as long as the soil is properly mineralized?
cp
MW
Can you provide any reason why we shoud have any FAITH in or BELIEVE anything the "state" says???
I really would like to believe something the state says really I would.
site:http://www.nfljerseyonline.com.
site:http://www.bagonhand.com.
site:http://www.sportshoes007.com