Politics in America has become ugly and divisive, leading to a blandness
among candidates fearful of being caught saying or doing the "wrong"
things. But behind the scenes, their lieutenants look for smear material
against rivals. it’s happening nearly every day between Hillary and Obama,
between Giuliani and McCain.
Is a version of this politics by smear going on against raw milk farmers?
In a comment on my posting a few days ago about the politics of raw milk,
Podchef speculates that regulators are intentionally harassing raw milk
farmers. Much as I generally hate to be conspiratorial, I must agree.
Too many farmers with spotless milkhouses and clear agriculture records are
being smeared with the listeria accusation.
How do the politicians fight back when hit with charges? Minor or major,
they hit back. They counterattack. It’s helped create the ugliness I
referred to, but for them it works, in the sense that it keeps them from
being re-cast by their opponents.
I think that’s why I find the legal defense fund so intriguing. It enables
farmers and consumers to counterattack.
But farmers and consumers need to be able to counterattack in other ways,
as well. They need to be able to counterattack in the court of public
opinion. This is where the regulators are scoring punches on a regular
basis, by casting raw milk farmers as purveyors of disease. The regulators
are sowing fear, which is their most potent weapon.
I’ve said before that the best weapon aside from the legal one is the
light of publicity. The regulators’attacks need to be publicized and
explained. Maybe a web site that highlights each regulator action as it
occurs, with the farmer’s side of the story?
I’m not sure the exact form the counterattacks take, but they need to
occur, to take back the momentum that had begun to build in places like
Michigan, Ohio, and Maryland.
I went through the slide show. What stood out for me was the amount of illness due to raw cheese from Mexico. This cheese is called suitcase cheese. It is brought over the border and sold by street venders. No one on this blog would support eating this cheese. The source is unknown and knowledge about transportation across the border is unknown (refrigeration?). It is unfortunate and misleading that this data is mixed in with raw milk data from the U.S. 45% of the illnesses documented between 2000-2005 came from suitcase cheese. Slide 37 lists the pathogen, # of events, # of persons affected, # of hospitalizations, # of deaths and # of states involved. Slide 39 lists the pathogens and whether the contaminated food was raw milk or raw cheese.
On slide # 37, there were 19 events of contaminated raw milk or raw cheese, involving 16 different states. During this 5 year period, 6 pathogens were documented, 473 persons became ill, 40 were hospitalized and there were 7 deaths.
I removed all the suitcase cheese incidents from this data and this is what occurred with only U.S. produced raw milk: 7 events affecting 183 people with no deaths. Of this 183, 123 people in 4 different states became ill from Campylobacter. No one was hospitalized and there were no deaths. According to this data, Campylobacter seems to be the greatest risk for contamination in raw milk. There was one event from Salmonella and 2 events from ecoli 0157:H7
Heres the data I subtracted from this FDA report.
62 cases of rabies (no one became ill)
152 cases of Salmonella (raw cheese from Mexico)
40 cases of Mycobacterium bovis (raw cheese from Mexico)
36 cases of Listeria monocytogenes (raw cheese from Mexico)
Of particular interest to me were the illnesses from ecoli 0157:H7. This was the Dee Creek Farm incident in December of 2005; a cow share program that produced raw milk for 45 families. 19 people became ill. This was listed as 2 events, but I believe it was 1 event involving 2 states because of where the farm is located (near the border of each state). In this 5 year period, there were no other documented cases of ecoli 0157:H7 from raw milk produced in the U.S.
What was most surprising about this Powerpoint presentation were slides 56-59. I wasnt expecting to see Chris and Laurens cases listed as I was clicking through the slide show. I had an instant emotional reaction. I started crying. It hit me like a slap in the face. It was easy to stay detached when I was breaking down the previous data, but it was a different experience reading about Chris and Lauren. The memories from this horrific experience came flooding back. Bacteria contamination from raw milk can be life threatening. I learned something new, or the information on the slides is inaccurate (which I think is the case). The FDAs information has four kids becoming ill and all four contracting HUS. We were told that Chris and Lauren were the only children that developed HUS. They did not list the time frames for Chris and Lauren drinking the milk, but they did for an 8 year old girl in San Diego. She drank the milk on 9/2 and 9/3 and became ill on 9/6. Chris drank the milk on 9/3 & 9/4 and became ill on 9/7. The timeframes are identical.
Slide 41 states that in this same five year period there were 44 illnesses associated with pasteurized milk, but of course these illnesses are not broken down into categories so it is impossible to make a comparison of illnesses. What types of illnesses were reported due to drinking pasteurized milk? I would like to know this information.
After analyzing this data, there were 183 people who became ill from drinking U.S. produced raw milk vs 44 people who became ill from drinking pasteurized milk within a five year time frame from 2000-2005. 67% of the 183 people became ill from Campylobacter.
Does this data warrant the extreme actions against raw milk? In a perfect world, I would like to see an educational campaign outlining the health benefits of raw milk along with cautions to take before drinking raw milk.