What are we to make of an academic conference in Canadathe most anti-raw-milk country on the planet that actually included serious and open discussion from a wide range of attendees about the benefits of raw milk and ways to make it legal?
Im not sure. Certainly the scene at the University of Guelph in Ontario last week couldnt have made top public health policymakers either in Canada or the U.S. especially happy. I wasnt able to attend, but a report from a Canadian raw milk activist, Margo McIntosh, highlights a number of occurrences at this Science to Policy Symposium on raw milk that could have been especially troublesome, including:
- Unlike symposia on raw milk that have been held in the U.S., where presenters were 90 per cent or more in favor of raw milk, this one featured speakers and attendees from the public health and academic communities who were 90 per cent or more against raw milk.
- By the end of the day, there had been a significant increase over an opening tabulation among the 90 or so people attending that individuals should have the right to choose raw milk for themselves. (I dont have the actual votes.
- A dean at the University of Guelph, Sylvain Charlebois, spoke out in favor of finding a way to make raw milk available safely to the niche market in Canada that clearly wants it.
- A New Zealand public health professor, Jeroen Douwes, recapped the research out of Europe indicating that raw milk has a protective effect against allergies and asthma; he said he has a grant for a team to examine further the relationship between raw milk and health.
- A Quebec cheese maker, Marie-Chantal Houde, reported that the number of raw milk cheese producers is down from 110 to 6 today. She lamented differences in regulations between Quebec and other countries that make it easier to bring in imported raw milk cheeses than to produce them in Quebec.
- Ben Chapman, a professor at North Carolina State University and a contributor to the anti-raw-milk Barfblog, chided raw milk supporters for ignoring public health warnings, but also referred to himself as a Libertarian hippy who believes people have the right to make their own choices, so long as they have appropriate information.
- Ontario raw milk farmer Michael Schmidt presented as well, and spoke about raw milk standards in Germany, where he grew up, as a potential model for Canada.
According to McIntosh, There was respect and due consideration given to what each of the speakers said from both sides of this debate. Never before has there been this chance for open dialogue with people who can influence policy making in this country when it comes to raw milk.
Will it make a difference? Yes, eventually. The question is, when is eventually? I remember accompanying a government-business mission to Cuba back in 1978, led by the Lieutenant governor of Massachusetts, and including about 50 corporate representatives. There were meetings with Cuban business directors. The group even had a personal audience with Fidel Castro at a huge dinner reception. The thought was that a thaw in Cuban-American relations was finally at hand, nearly 20 years after the countries broke off relations. That was more than 30 years ago, and relations with Cuba arent a great deal different than they were back in 1978.
If nothing else, the tone of discussions at the University of Guelph was different. The attendees were different. Hopefully, it was the beginning of an important shift in attitudes and views that will result in more constructive dialog, and decision making in both Canada and the U.S.
“Ditto for University of Guelph food scientist Prof. Art Hill, a leading authority on milk safety. Some 50 years ago on the family dairy farm on Manitoulin Island, he drank unpasteurized milk as a matter of course. Thats all he knew.. So why is he now suggesting people avoid it at all costs?. Well, thats because he and other researchers have learned a lot about raw milk in the past five decades.. And as far as he can figure, raw milk is at least 1,000 times riskier to drink than its pasteurized counterpart.. Let me repeat that statistic: at least 1,000 times riskier. … So on April 22, he and others are staging a one-day raw milk symposium at the university called Science to Policy.”
– http://www.realagriculture.com/2014/04/raw-milk-worth-risk/
You are very correct, David. Canada IS the most anti-raw milk nation on the planet, and you can be certain that this “statistic” will be accepted as gospel by the majority of Canadians – who religiously trust our government because that’s Canadian culture for you – exactly as our “public health experts” intend them to accept it 🙁
From now on I will think quite differently about heat and milk.
Now there is good science that says…the higher the heat, the more lethal the processed milk risk level. That’s right, the pasteurization industry be warned: When they turn up the pasteurizer heat 20 degrees F it turns the pasteurized milk into a product that feeds listeria like crazy. Listeria love it and the product becomes lethal. Yet the CDC has no incidences of illness asociated with non-heat treated raw milk…none. Science now says that an estimated 670 people per year ( scientists best conservative estimates ) could die from higher temp pasteurized milks. The authors claimed that 18 consumers already die each year from listeria under old lower temp heat regs.
That makes pasteurized milk and especially high tech modern “super guaranteed safe pasteurized milk” very dangerous!!! This entire issue stinks of NCIMS collusion, FDA corruption and abscent industry morals. As the old saying goes…the bigger the lie the easier the sell. This is a gigantic lie!!!!
Quote me here. Pasteurized milk is unsafe and the higher the heat the less safe it becomes. In fact it becomes high risk and lethal!! Just read the study….I did. One of my great PhD friends sent the peer reviewed published study to me today. This study shows the blatant industry disregard for science and the cavalier love affair that the FDA has with heat and kill steps.
I can blog about this all day long and it will soak in like water on Teflon. It will not matter. But…when the FDA continues to disregard my Citizens petition, the litigation that follows to compell their action will definitely contain this study showing the massive risk and enormity of death that is related to pasteurization. How will the FDA deny American peer reviewed published research?? Denial will not work…how will the FDA come up with deaths from raw milk to offset their huge number of dead Americans buried at the feet of pasteurization? Dead bodies do not volenteer.
This has become a real war and the truth is slipping through the well guarded cracks. From a guy that lives and breaths this data every day, this is directly pointing to CDC suppression of data and collusion between the FDA, industry, and CDC. I will expose this truth and this information will get the media attention it deserves. Their will be congressional hearings. I know a couple of senators that are getting this information from me this week.
I can’t tell you how many times I have heard public health regulators, academics, and even food safety lawyers say, “I grew up on raw milk, and I never had a problem, but things have changed since then….” In other words, raw milk was great for me, but I can’t allow you to have access to it now. Sorry.
Sometimes, those “friends” who somehow “get religion” later in life can become your worst enemies.
Shelly, the CDC reports that since 1998 there have been 8 deaths from pasteurized milk products, and more than 2,800 illnesses–this according to data posted on the realrawmilkfacts web site.
http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com/PDFs/pasteurized-dairy-outbreak-table.pdf
However, 8 deaths over 15 years is a lot different than 270 deaths over 15 years (18 deaths per year over 15 years). What we still don’t know for sure if those 18 deaths per year (just from listeriosis) are real recorded deaths or estimated deaths. I have a request in to the lead author of the study seeking clarification, but haven’t yet heard anything back.
Unfortunately, this math become ammunition for battle. I might add that it is somewhat stupid of authors to not think about this before letting this out of the peer published reviewed Genie bottle.
I can guarantee that this these 18 deaths per year from pasteurized milk estimates will emerge time and time again in every raw milk battle from this day forward. I can also guarantee everyone that “670 ( conservatively estimated ) deaths from bioterrorism botulism protected elevated temperature pasteurized milk is going to be a huge part of any future raw milk verses pasteurized milk debate. Guaranteed!! The hotter the milk the more dangerous the risk of death…ouch, that is going to sting!
This whole thing reminds me of the pasteurized almond debate. Industry jumped all over pasteurization as a resolution to their conventional practiced and salmonella issues and never studied the implications to consumers that soak their raw almonds. After the mandatory almond pasteurization rule went into effect, consumers began to soak their ” mislabeled raw almonds that were actually pasteurized” only to find out that fake raw almonds become moldy and wrotten when soaked. Fortunately, they can see the wrotten moldy almonds and not get sick and die…they just get confused and pissed and throw them out.
The investigators never did their work or dilligence with almonds and they never did their work with increases in pasteurization temps either. Now there is the uncomfortable and inconvenience of truth that comes visiting. There are serious consequencies to screwing arround with mother nature.