Many readers here are rightfully distinguishing between large producers of raw milk like Organic Pastures Dairy Co. and small producers, which usually have fewer than 100 cows. A few individuals with a regulator perspective have attempted to make this distinction as well. But do the regulators?
To my mind, both the larger and smaller models are worth exploring and considering. That’s why I didn’t automatically criticize Mark’s suggestion to the Western Dairymen in my previous post.
But, honestly, I don’t think the regulators, beginning at the top with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (which directs the state ag lackeys), want to make such a distinction. The key point to keep in mind is that, as far as the regulators are concerned—and I’m talking about regulators in the large states like PA, NY, and CA—it doesn’t much matter. For these regulators, a raw dairy is a raw dairy is a raw dairy…and as such is subject to full regulation—in fact, to harsher regulation than conventional dairies. Private arrangements between consumers and farmers be damned…In fact, these are considered dangerous techniques for “avoiding the law.”
A good example of the result of all this is the soul searching currently going on among Pennsylvania’s raw milk producers.
Do they abide by the Pennsylvania’s Department of Agriculture’s requirements that they obtain raw milk permits, and leave themselves vulnerable to ever-more-questionable findings of pathogens in their milk? Or do they ignore the permitting requirements, and instead sell their goods entirely through private membership organizations like the Communities Alliance for Responsible Ecofarming (CARE), in opposition to PDA’s stance that CARE’s farmers must hold raw milk permits?
I attended the CARE annual meeting on Saturday in Bird-in-Hand, along with some 200 other members. I joined CARE last April, when I attended the trials of two Pennsylvania farmers, and learned how the PDA ignored CARE’s careful attention to positioning itself as a private organization that makes raw dairy products available only to members.
At the meeting, members heard two perspectives on the issue.
First, there was that of Dennis Wenger, who with his wife Joanne (pictured above), milks fifty cows and sells raw milk to dozens of regular customers who come to his farm to make their pickups after placing phone orders. He spoke on the topic, “Close Encounters with PDA.”
He described how he obtained a raw milk permit a couple years ago. “My concern is, we wanted to be legal. We did get a permit, which may have been the wrong thing to do.”
His problems with the state began last April, when the PDA said its lab found listeria in his dairy’s milk.
“We had to discontinue all sales of raw milk. That evening (after getting the order from PDA) I spoke with our inspector. He told me our name would be on the television and in the newspapers. I asked him if they could hold off, since we don’t sell—people call us.” Wenger wanted to be able to alert customers personally.
The next day, “Our name was put out, and started showing up in various media. Only the county paper even attempted to reach us. I was milking. I called back twice, but the reporter never returned my call.”
Wenger saw a red flag in the state’s report when the state also said his milk had a somatic cell count of 1.1 million. The dairy to which he also sells bulk milk for pasteurization, had taken a sample of the same milk, and reported a somatic cell count of 150,000. “And remember, the dairy pays a bonus for counts under 250,000, so they have no incentive for reporting a low count.”
Wenger called his state senator, who called the PDA on his behalf to object, but none of that did any good. He says Bill Chirdon, the PDA’s director of the bureau of food safety and lab services, responded to Wenger’s description of the somatic cell count discrepancy by saying, “I have been head of this lab for two years. I have never seen this lab make a mistake” But he did agree there was a large difference.”
Within days, the state did additional tests, and Wenger had a split sample sent to a private lab, and this time the state found no pathogens (as did the private lab).
Wenger says he only lost one customer because of the state’s finding, and he’s since had several new customers come board because they read the state’s press release about the listeria discovery, and took that as an endorsement that he was a quality dairy.
His conclusion: “If you hear the state secretary of agriculture say, ‘We support the sale of raw milk,’ do not believe it. They do not support raw milk.”
A second view came from William Taylor Reill, a constitutional law expert who has advised a number of CARE farmers facing PDA proceedings. “The true cost of apermit is almost always freedom and liberty,” he told members.
He argued, that, under the Pennsylvania constitution, “No permits are required for private individuals doing private business with private contracts,” such as the CARE model.
In the event consumers have problems in such situations—say, they aren’t happy with the quality of food they receive–they can do what any individuals unhappy about fulfillment of a contract do: seek help in the community, such as from the Better Business Bureau, or file a civil lawsuit.
He is encouraging “all permitted farmers to consider returning their milk permits”—ideally at the same time, “to protect the farmers.”
Up until now, farmers have been able to demonstrate only occasional individual acts of resistance, and those brave ones have left themselves open to severe retribution by the agriculture authorities. Retribution would be a lot more difficult for the goons to accomplish in the face of mass resistance of the type Reill is proposing. If he does pull it off, it could serve as a model for states around the country.
Remember, for most of the regulators, a good raw dairy is a dead raw dairy.
Last week there was a case of salmonella in Pa…if I remember correctly…the results came back 8 days after the milk was sold….no one got sick, but the aspersions were cast in the public forum, supposedly for the benefit of the ‘health of the citizens’…hate to break it to the low lifes that regulate, but after 8 days most of that milk has been drunk…so any reasonably intelligent person would come to the conclusion that the testing (if indeed it is done above board) is not put in place to protect the public…but instead solely to indict the producer. And the have to sogn up for it, voluntarily???? Insane.
And Lykke wants better communication…..lol
Doing what is right, is it’s own reward…and following the raw milk laws in most states…..isn’t.
Please allow me to pick a nit with you. In light of the very sensible point made on this blog by miguel and others, and by constitutinal law expert William Taylor Reill at the CARE conference, that permitting is a form of contract and cannot be forced on any person, I think the term "permitting requirements" must go way.
We are fighting here to hold on to indiviual freedoms, endowed by our creator and guaranteed by our constitution. Discussions with regulators over how many unconstitutional links should be forged into our chains concedes defeat in that battle before it has begun. Of course constitutional challenges can be difficult in the extreme–pursuing one can be overwhleming, especially when, as in this case, regulators, sometimes with the assistance of the courts, in ignorance of constitutional principles, act violently to stop those who try to exercise their freedom. But the constitution and natural law is where we find our base freedoms delineated, and we cannot win them back without embarking onto that battlefied.
God bless Mark Nolt and all like him.
On the light side you all know a barber is required to also have license to cut hair I would therefore assume it is to protect us from getting a bad hair cut maybe?
NAIS: NOT ABOUT DISEASE!!
hhtp://naissucks.com/index.php?con=nais-not-about-disease
Here is another sobering gutsy article by Linn Cohen-Cole on our present state of affairs.
http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/environment/agriculture/news.php?q=1232995867
i would/will support pa farmers plan to turn in their permits enmass. i’d like to see and help nj farmers do the same.
this type of action is whats needed to restore liberty to farmers. i’m 100% for it… now how do i connect with nj farmers to organize the same kind of proactive action?
can the farm to consumer legal defense group help coordinate a national movement? weston price?
david, could you ask them for input, ideas?
http://naissucks.com/index.php?con=equine_licenses
Be sure to scroll down to see some interesting quotes.
WASHINGTON: FDA inspectors find many problems at peanut plant
27.jan.09
Associated Press
Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iH_omeaDBaB1UKxFZ4QGmvPKuuQQD95VPMQ01
WASHINGTON — The Georgia peanut processing plant at the center of a national salmonella outbreak had a history of problems it failed to correct, federal health officials said Tuesday.
Officials said the Peanut Corp. of America plant had shipped products that the company’s own initial tests found to be positive for salmonella. They retested and got a negative reading.
Peanut Corp. also failed to take some standard "good manufacturing" steps to prevent contamination within the Blakely, Ga., facility. officials said.
"There is certainly a salmonella problem in the plant," said Dr. Robert Tauxe of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The latest findings renewed concerns about federal inspections of food facilities, which are few and far between. In this case, the Food and Drug Administration relied on Georgia authorities to inspect the plant. But state agricultural inspectors did not uncover what now appears to have been a festering problem.
"Inspections are worthless if companies can test and retest until they receive the results they want," said Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich, who heads a congressional panel conducting its own inquiry. He’s introduced legislation to end such "lab shopping" and to require companies to submit all test results to the FDA. Officials said Peanut Corp. did not initially disclose the test results that found salmonella.
Meanwhile, the recall list has grown to more 390 products, from ice cream to dog biscuits. More than 500 people have gotten sick, and the outbreak may have contributed to eight deaths.
Peanut Corp. issued a terse statement on Tuesday, saying: "PCA has cooperated fully with the FDA from day one during the course of this investigation. We have shared with them every record that they have asked for that is in our possession, and we will continue to do so."
The FDA said it will post its inspection reports on the Internet on Wednesday.
how does this reflect badly on private labs? did you read what you posted?
this reflects the corrupt, greedy, morelless, unethical low life corporate type. profit at any cost. they’re all personally held harmless of any justice. their insurance will pay any costs and if the plant closes… so what… these scumbag executives will leave with pockets full of money and move on to their next victim, um, er… job.
the lab result first reported was positive, with their history of the SAME problem they should have stopped cold all processing and shipments. with no exceptions… and maybe even recalled recent shipments (just to be sure, no?)
instead, these brainiacs seem to have re-sampled and maybe several times??? looking for a clean sample maybe?
unbelievable…
p.s. we’re not stupid.
It appears that the company made a very bad decision (going on reports from the media and the government agencies). But, they can do what they want with private lab tests, which are proprietary. There are no regulations or requirements for the company to take action on private lab tests. In contrast, when a local/state/federal lab has a positive finding, they can take action (like a recall). If the story is true, this company really screwed up, and there are several deaths attributed to the Salmonella outbreak. The example shows how a possibly unscrupulous (or ignorant) company ignored or manipulated their private lab results (or tested until they got the desired result: a negative pathogen test). This might be a major disadvantage to private lab pathogen testing, which has been proposed with some recent raw milk legislation – no accountability (regulators have no access to this data)…until the lawyers show up after an outbreak.
As raw milk gets "bigger and broader" in its distribution, it seems worth considering more deeply how private lab pathogen testing is handled. Due to the nature of the tests (the uncertainty), the labs will report "presumptive positives" on a quick test screen, which later may be confirmed negative, or rarely, true positives. The interpretation can become complicated and time consuming, which is a disadvantage for a perishable product like raw milk. How do you think preliminary results from a private lab should be interpreted – when do you decide not to market a raw dairy product based on a private lab result (or even do a recall)? Vs. how this peanut company responded, or apparently did not respond.
You got it wrong again.
Here is an article from the Washington post:
Peanut Processor Knowingly Sold Tainted Products
It Found Salmonella 12 Times
By Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 28, 2009; A01
The Georgia peanut plant linked to a salmonella outbreak that has killed eight people and sickened 500 more across the country knowingly shipped out contaminated peanut butter 12 times in the past two years, federal officials said yesterday.
Officials at the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which have been investigating the outbreak of salmonella illness, said yesterday that Peanut Corporation of America found salmonella in internal tests a dozen times in 2007 and 2008 but sold the products anyway, sometimes after getting a negative finding from a different laboratory.
Companies are not required to disclose their internal tests to either the FDA or state regulators, so health officials did not know of the problem.
The peanut butter and paste made at the company’s Blakely, Ga., plant are not sold directly to stores but are used by manufacturers to make crackers, cookies, energy bars, cereal, ice cream, candies and even dog biscuits. Some of the country’s biggest foodmakers, including Kellogg and McKee Foods, which produces Little Debbie brand snacks, have recalled more than 100 products made with the tainted ingredients, and the listkeeps growing.
Federal investigators also said yesterday that they had found four strains of salmonella at the Georgia plant, including one in a sample taken from the floor near a washroom. Only the Typhimurium strain of Salmonella enterica has been linked to the outbreak.
"There is a salmonella problem at the plant," said Robert Tauxe, deputy director of the CDC’s division of food-borne, bacterial and mycotic diseases.
The outbreak, which has spread to 43 states and Canada, is ongoing, but the pace has slowed "modestly," Tauxe said. Half the people made ill have been children.
Major-label peanut butter is not suspected to be contaminated with salmonella and is considered safe to eat, according to the FDA. The makers of several major brands, including Peter Pan, Jif and Smuckers, are worried that panicky consumers will stop buying their products, and they have been taking pains to point out that their peanut butters are not part of the outbreak.
Though Peanut Corporation of America, based in Lynchburg, Va., was not required to inform regulators about its internal salmonella tests, Stephen Sundlof, director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said it appears that the company violated federal law. "Foods are supposed to be produced under conditions that do not render them damaging to health," he said.
Sundlof said he could not say whether the company might face criminal charges.
Stewart Parnell, the company’s owner and president, was not taking calls yesterday, and his spokesman did not return telephone messages.
The company e-mailed a statement saying it "has cooperated fully with FDA from day one during the course of this investigation. We have shared with them every record that they have asked for that is in our possession and we will continue to do so."
The company halted production at the Blakely plant once the FDA confirmed it was the source of the outbreak. FDA officials said the company is free to restart production but will have to first address a list of manufacturing deficiencies, which federal officials intend to make public today.
FDA officials said they still do not know the how the plant was contaminated and how the bacteria got into the peanut products, although state inspection records show a pattern of unsanitary conditions over several years. In each case, inspectors flagged the problems but said they required routine follow-up. There is no evidence that Peanut Corporation of America was ever closed by the state or otherwise penalized.
The FDA has never inspected the plant, instead delegating that duty under a contract to the Georgia Department of Agriculture. The federal agency has said it does not have enough inspectors to visit the country’s 65,520 domestic food production facilities. In fiscal 2008, it inspected 5,930 plants.
State inspectors last visited the Georgia plant in October, while the contaminated products were being produced, according to inspection records first obtained by the Associated Press. But they did not test either the factory or the peanut products for salmonella. "We do pull product samples from time to time, but we can only run 4,500 samples in a year, and we have 16,000 food-processing and food-sales stores in the state," said Oscar Garrison, Georgia’s assistant agriculture commissioner for consumer protection.
Michael Rogers, director of field investigations at the FDA, said that his agency is reviewing the state’s inspection process and that it is unclear if Georgia officials would have found the salmonella if they had tested. "All inspections are a snapshot in time; they only reveal what is happening at the firm at that particular time," Rogers said.
But Jean Halloran, director of food safety for Consumers Union, said if the government was adequately protecting the food supply, the outbreak could have been minimized or even prevented, and lives could have been saved. Major reforms in inspections and regulations are past due, she said.
"The average plant is inspected once every 10 years," Halloran said. "This one was getting inspected a couple of times a year by Georgia, but neither they nor the FDA were taking enough enforcement action."
Salmonella is carried by animal feces. Foods can also become contaminated by infected handlers who do not wash their hands with soap after using the bathroom. The bacteria generally thrive in a wet environment, such as meat and eggs. But after a 2007 outbreak at a ConAgra facility in Georgia that makes Peter Pan peanut butter, food safety experts realized that salmonella can exist in a dormant state in peanut butter and then reproduce when ingested by humans.
Salmonella bacteria can cause an infection that often produces diarrhea, fever and abdominal cramps within 12 to 72 hours. The illness usually lasts four to seven days. While most people recover without treatment, infants, elderly people and those with compromised immune systems can develop severe illness that can be fatal if not promptly treated with antibiotics.
Fact is if they had to feed a little bit of every batch of peanut butter the made to their kids, things would be different. That’s why the best guarantee of quality is to find a small scale raw milk farmer who does.
This ordeal is so different than the trauma incurred with the raw dairies in various states. Was it NY (I know this happened in many states) that sent thier samples to a private lab and the states lab was vastly different? I believe I’ve read in the past where it has happened elsewhere. I believe it is very prudent of a dairy farmer to do thier own testing from the same samples that any govt entity takes. There has been too many differences. The media also is not fair/balanced when reporting issues.
here’s a regulator dodging responsibility by quoting 4500 sample capacity vs. 16,000 "food-processing and food-sales stores" i would bet that 16,000 includes all 7-11’s and mc’donalds.
how many food processing plants are in the state? is the gda pulling samples from retail sales stores? if so isn’t that akin to closing the barn door after all the horses are loose?
here’s another example of corporate caring:
Studies find mercury in much U.S. corn syrup: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090127/sc_nm/us_mercury_syrup_2
"Dufault said in a statement that she told the FDA about her findings but the agency did not follow up."
read this part closely: "The Corn Refiners Association challenged the findings.
"This study appears to be based on outdated information of dubious significance," the group said in a statement."
notice the term "outdated information"
"Wallinga and colleagues said they believed the mercury got into the food during manufacture, at plants that use mercury-grade caustic soda produced in industrial chlorine plants, although his team was unable to show this.
"Our industry has used mercury-free versions of the two reagents mentioned in the study, hydrochloric acid and caustic soda, for several years," Audrae Erickson, president of the Corn Refiners Association, said in a statement."
for several years…. how nice of them…. it sounds like an admission that mercury used to be in corn syrup and they knew it….
but heck, according to the commercials they are running you would be stupid to avoid corn syrup "in moderation" forget the fact that corn syrup is in most processed foods due to corporate led taxes on real sugar which let corn syrup appear a bit cheaper per pound. forget that the average american eating the standard american diet (SAD) eats some 60 POUNDS of the poison every year.
No, I was not blaming the lab, but questioning the system of how lab tests are reported and used by industries and government. I agree, this is an extreme example, and not directly comparable to raw milk. But, since many raw milk "woes" revolve around state lab test results (e.g., degrades, recalls), it seemed worth discussion. It is already pretty clear reading this blog that raw dairy producers and consumers are highly suspicious of lab results from government testing programs. But, what about my question regarding how raw dairies use/interpret their private lab test results. For example, what action is/would be taken if the private lab reported a positive Salmonella, Campylobacter, or high plate count, especially if the product had already gone to market? Would you notify the consumers?
There is ample evidence that government labs have screwed up test results for raw milk and elsewhere. And why not? They are, whatever rhetoric they spew to the contrary, human, just like the rest of us. There is absolutely no reason to think that the FDA or the PDA or any government lab is inherently less error-prone than a good private lab. (In fact, recent history of raw milk testing seems to indicate the opposite!)
But the first government commandment is, Thou shalt not leave the citizenry to their own devices. If a fault is found, government puffs itself up and takes control. No matter that the history of government is strewn with waste, inefficiency, and freedom-stealing. The best and only idea in government is to have more of it.
That is what is happening now in the raw milk world. Oh, the occasional dust-up here and there among the little people can gum up the works, and sometimes even cause the powerful to pull in their hornsfor a few moments. But make no mistake, they will not shrink from their base attitude. And they will always be ready to grab power back, and in the momentum, expand again. There is only a short step, for example, between making FDA labs mandatory, to disallowing split sampling. (Oh, my mistake, the government labs already disregard such test results…)
Remember, the federal tax rate of a hundred years ago was 1% to a high of 7% for the wealthy, and that was long before the modern concocted avalanche of state and local taxes, and fees and fines at all levels, took hold. Now, after expansion on top of expansion, our government is bankrupt (saddling many generations to come with a debt that is even now being increased so aggressively that it cannot even be calculated) and the fix-it plan is for that same bankrupt government to take hundreds of billions more from what is left of Amercas productive sectors, and transfer it into sectors of their choosing. That is called a stimuls package (what a friendly label!). Yay! we say. Please do it quickly!
Do we want that system to continue? And more to the point for this forum, do we want it to take control of the most basic of all human needsfood?
The only sane path of course, is to do what Lykke hinted at earlierdecentralize. Massive government and massive business offer no more protection from bad health, starvation, financial collapse, or anything than decentralized systems do. There will always be foibles and faults and enigmas. They will never go away. The only difference is that the decentralized systems offer more freedom, more efficiency, and more security for the masses, and unlike centralized systems, when they collapse, they do not shake the whole planet.
To raid peaceful small raw dairy farms with police in black suits with guns drawn in the name of food safety is the epitome of depravity and dupilicty while no illness occured. At the same time the regulatory system approves small amounts of melamine in baby formula, they also from what I read have approved 80000 chemicals that may be added to food consumed by Americans. Is it a crime to feed people poison?
1st problem is that there is just too many people.
2nd problem is that corporate food will never relinquish their strangle hold on the market.
3rd problem is that the vast majority of people are clueless about what is going on. and our captured media & gov’t will never tell them the truth.
all i think we can hope for is to push back against these newer tactics of swat team raids on small farmers, maybe we can insist that small farms be exempt from gov’t control, at best it’s only those few who really care about food issuses that seek out farmers markets and/or farms to purchase food from.
funny thing is food should be #1 homeland security issue, decentralized small farms are the only answer to meaningful food security, yet not a peep about it from anyone in gov’t.
funnier is food should be #1 health care issue, good food, grown in healthy soil is far superior to health then any factory processed alternative, yet never a peep about this foundation of good health as it relates to healthcare.
Lykke, lets suppose you’re a small dairy selling real milk from your farm, or even in your local food stores, lets suppose you get a test back that says positive for something bad. since you know many of your customers personally (it’s the nature of the business) what would you do? also lets assume you’re aware that most real milk you sell is consumed within the week you milked it, yet the test takes a week or three to give results. lets also assume you drink your own milk as do your kids and extended family too.
lets assume you know your farm and your cows very well also, since you probably do most or all of the milking. what would you do?
lets assume you split the sample and had your own private lab run the same tests the regulators ran, lets assume the results or both tests were on different sides of the spectrum. lets assume no one mentioned getting sick or even feeling off.
we can assume until the cows come home. what’s important to know/learn is just how low these risks are when milk comes from well tended cows fed a proper diet of mostly grass/hay and allowed to live a natural (on farm) life.
if you’re expecting 100% safety (like cp does) then you need to live in a glass bubble somehow, but even that isn’t 100%. if you are willing to accept a .012% risk then we can talk… in the real world of american food today the cdc says the risk of getting bad food and being pretty sick for a week or so is 25%.
until this entire argument can be put into proper prespective there is no way i would or could ever agree with the system’s stance. the funny thing is though, if this issue was put into proper perspective by both sides there would be no issue.
Secrets of a Lunatic Farmer
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_16567.cfm
I hold no illusions about the difficulties, nevertheless I would not say that we can’t get from here to there, only that we cannot get from here to there QUICKLY. You know, it took generations to get here, why shouldn’t we expect to take many generations to fix it?
On the positive side, there’s nothing like the marketplace to create positive change. Government slows down or stops that by selectively supporting some systems, and selectively crushing others. (They have so far squashed sustainable food production by helping industrail ag systems hide their externalities.) First step is get government and agribusiness out of the way of small farms, and let those small farms become profitable. Then we sit back and watch as small farms multiply in rural areas, then begin to show up in suburban areas, and finally, show up in and alongside urban areas. Eventually, and I freely admit we are talking about a long, long, time here, small farms and market gardens, and even household gardens (chickens and goats in the suburbs?) will integrate more thoroughly into our landscapes, and we will have some semblance of local, sustainable, food production.
That is a best-case scenario. Alternatively, there could be an industrial food system collapse, and then a scramble to turn every scrap of land into a food producer. Either way we get the same result.
Im not afraid to give an answer to my own question about lab testing (am still curious about others point of view, too). I dont produce raw dairy, so will give a different example that I think has some parallels. Raw sprouts is a product that I have some experience with, and similar to raw dairy, public health investigations have shown raw sprouts are more vulnerable to pathogen contamination. So, if I was a sprouter embarking on a testing program, first, Id spend considerable time researching and deciding on a private lab testing approach that was affordable, but still reliable (a big challenge). I would also coordinate this out-of-pocket testing with the state lab testing program (knowing also that either lab might screw up sometimes).
A response plan for presumptive and confirmed positive test results would be developed in coordination with the regulators. Hopefully, routine tests would catch a problem before a contaminated batch of sprouts left the farm. But, since sh*t happens (and no food is zero risk), it is important to plan for the worst case scenario: a positive pathogen test from the state or a private lab in product that already went to stores/consumers. Some of the regulators Ive met are sh*t happens in and of themselves, so I know the limitations, but would still do the best possible to work with themcertainly would not just ignore a positive pathogen test(s) as it appears the peanut company did with Salmonella.
So, if there was an unfortunate event, and a possibly contaminated product had already gone to market based on a positive lab test, Id do a press release. Heres an example this doesnt say if Salmonella in the seeds was found by a government or private lab, but lets say it was a private lab and the sprouts were distributed to multiple stores. Id work with the state to write the release and inform customers:
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/HEALTHINFO/NEWS/Pages/NR2008-13-KowalkeSprout.aspx
If instead, distribution was extremely limited (like a cow share or private co-op), and every customer could be personally contacted, a wider press release may be unnecessary. But, Id call the customers and let them know about the positive test, recommend discarding any leftover product, and encourage them to inform friends/family members that were exposed. Then give the spiel about symptoms of salmonellosis, risk groups, etc.
This is a different sprouter example where the state found the contamination, but appears to have worked with the sprouter to write the press release. Since sprouts have such a short shelf life, most product was probably gone, but consumers were informed; I assume the company is still in business despite having their name linked to a pathogen in several papers and TV stations. I saw this originally on an international blog.
http://www.datcp.state.wi.us/press_release/result.jsp?prid=2264
Also, I really like this companys website because it has a clear tab to information on food safety and their testing program. They also have nutritional information, but no huge claims of cures by sprout eating. It is a very credible site IMHO (no, I dont have any connection to this company).
http://www.sunrisefarms.com/food_safety.html
OMG! Perhaps I should consider buying land soon, instead of waiting 2 more yrs. We live in the city limits and some people have chickens, rabbits, and God knows what else in thier back yards around us. Dad isn’t the only one with a large back yard garden. The sinking economy will only add to home gardens.
"isnt 100% on board with all the WAPF philosophies and policies on how raw milk should be regulated"
I am not 100% on board with anyone but myself and even then my views change as I learn more. If you have mandatory lab testing then by all means there should be checks and balances. As stated, any lab can screw up, so sending out to a private lab is double insurance for all parties.
Check this out:
http://www.edibleschoolyard.org/about.html
it seems to me that there should be s sense of urgency for the issue of sustainable food that would make the manhatten project seem like a casual stroll.
when i look at civilization today i see it perched atop a tower of three legged chairs, all of which are wabbling.
food is that lynch pin chair about half way up which is most influenced by both forces acting on the tower. it’s the weak link.
it seems like we took civilization which was once spread across the country and world in small mostly self contained units and used government and technology to gather it all up into a single high rise building. over the years with no major tragedy we figured it’s working so well lets make it taller and thinner! and so we do.
now, we have 300 million of us in america and 6+ billion building their own towers as fast as they can ride a bike into the nearest city.
as a result 98%(?) of americans are specialists of some sort. they never had to learn how to live in reality (sustainably). we play as kids, we are schooled badly/barely, we focus on a career. we rely on other specialists for most skills that are really important to basic survival. sure many of us are smart people. many could farm/garden. raise chickens, … eat well. but most don’t. most would starve before they could grow meaningful sustenance.
when you can’t afford to have a leg kicked out you’d think youd do what you could to make sure it’s stable. but instead of addressing the real issues our gov’t is being led by the nose by corporations driven by power and greed who want to make the system still taller and thinner! which to them makes sense, since it gives them more power and profits.
heck maybe obama will fix it, why not. Im sure (sorta) that more amazing things have happened… i just can’t think of any…
i too think to really fix it will take decades/generations, i don’t think we have decades. not from fear of global warming or running out of oil or anything we can anticipate and react to. its the convergence of two or more impossible events that cause disaster.
meanwhile, whats most worrisome is the loss of liberty we are experiencing and the accelerating pace it is happening.
it doesnt seem like our demands. um requests, or are they pleas are being heard. its like nobody whats to address it because just focusing attention on it might cause it to fail. and actually it might
All – are raw milk advocates too afraid to address the issue of positive pathogen tests? That is disappointing. The silence is symbolic of the fact that companies and government have one thing in common: an inability to address the issue openly Time for this to go before the lawmakers (and lawyers) to force all sides tinto opening their records.
http://tinyurl.com/dgxqqj
Government should not "bury" reports that require extensive FOIA efforts to reveal; and industry (including raw dairy) should not be able to cherry-pick their private lab results to make them look favorable. So what if the farmer/producer/processor/buyer/retailer is a really nice guy/gal with great kids (and, being a raw dairyman/woman doesn’t automatically make someone "good"). If they are selling food, then they should be accountable – regardless if status…poor woman in Ventura or a big CEO in Georgia.
No offense, but the comments on this blog, of late, remind me of talking to a bunch of old people sitting in front of the fountain shop in a small town talking about how the sky is falling, and everyone is wrong exept them, and it was so good in the old days…
Ciao.