There’s been lots of excited talk on a number of foodie blogs about how wonderful it would be to have germ lawyer Bill Marler as Under Secretary for Food Safety at the U.S. Department of Food and Agriculture.
“Marler’s wealth of practical, theoretical, and scientific knowledge about every aspect of food safety from plow to plate–including bioterrorism–makes him an ideal candidate for Under Secretary for Food Safety,” gushes the influential La Vida Locavore
I can appreciate the excitement on one level: the vision of the hard-headed cowboy riding into Washington and dispensing with the Washington incompetence in the food safety arena. There even seems to be this sense that Marler would stand up for the small farm against the excesses of agribusiness.
Marler can be a charming and entertaining guy with his tough-guy talk on going after incompetent bureaucrats and dishonest executives, who are lax in enforcing safety standards. When the melamine contamination scandal broke in China last year, and some contaminated foods were getting into the U.S., he observed, “Where is the FDA and our famous ‘food czar?’ My guess is they are all watching the stock market and their government retirements flush down the food safety toilet.”
His blog is an excellent resource on food-borne illness. He actually did a literature review of both the pro and anti raw milk studies. And he acknowledged that several studies convincingly demonstrate that raw milk helps strengthen children’s immunity, which is pretty progressive by regulatory standards today. In the end, though, he was dismissive:
“A number of studies, mostly among children in various European countries, provide convincing evidence that a protective effect is associated with unpasteurized milk consumption during childhood. However, the underlying mechanism for this observation remains unclear and the overwhelming consensus among authors of these papers is that because of the potential health hazards from foodborne pathogens (EHEC, Salmonella, etc.) consumption of raw farm milk cannot be recommended as a preventive measure for allergic conditions.”
In point of fact, Marler was a bit too dismissive. If you look at the largest of the European studies, the PARSIVAL study of nearly 15,000 children, the authors’ conclusion is considerably softer. It notes that “raw milk may contain pathogens such as salmonella or EHEC, and its consumption may therefore imply serious health risks.” But it adds in the next sentence: “A deepened understanding of the relevant ‘protective’ components of farm milk and a better insight into the biological mechanisms underlying the reported epidemiological observations are warranted as a basis for the development of a safe product for prevention.” In other words, let’s pursue the promise here and figure out a way to make this product more widely available.
But that’s not what Marler wants, no way.
Marler showed his true stripes on both local farming and raw milk last fall, when it came to helping a couple of small dairies that produce raw milk in California, via SB 201. This legislation was really a serious attempt to allow more flexibility to smaller producers that were making honest efforts to work with the regulators. Despite overwhelming approval from California’s legislators, Marler pushed eleventh-hour opposition. In a scathing letter asking the governor to veto SB 201, his message was clear: Flexibility isn’t acceptable. If I don’t like you, there are always more steps I can find for the regulators to take to track down germs.
In one of the fawning blog pieces, from Ethicurean, he is even quoted as saying he would prefer to see sustainable farms involved in Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) be more regulated. Unfortunately, the naïve Ethicurean writer didn’t get the import of Marler’s statement: “Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) groups and food co-ops need to demonstrate knowledge and practice of food safety, and be inspected.” The perfect assistance measure for sustainable farms: more inspection.
So that’s my problem with Marler. He might give the media some good quotes, but he’d be more of the same, or possibly too much of the same, pushing us even faster toward irradiation of the food supply as a technological fix.
The fact is that, despite intensive government regulation and inspection, we have a food-borne illness problem that has become so huge that the CDC estimates that one in every four Americans, some 76 million each year, become ill. And while Marler rails against companies that carry out less than optimal sanitation, the reality is that we don’t fully understand why there is as much food-borne illness as there is. We don’t know why some people get sick and others don’t. We don’t even know why people get sick from E.coli 0157:H7 and cows don’t.
I happen to think that Miguel, Dave Milano, and Hugh Betcha are on the right track in pushing for an emphasis on building up a proper internal balance of good and bad bacteria. But in Bill Marler’s universe, such ideas wouldn’t get the time of day. Instead, we’d have more germ police out there, and most likely, ever-growing rates of food-borne illness and chronic disease. Paul Hubbard put it very well in a comment on my previous post, questioning my suggestion that the FDA’s campaign against raw milk is incompetent. The bureaucrats “have very competently injured or destroyed competent leaders in the raw milk/raw foods movement with very little collateral damage in the press.” I think the bureaucrats could feel safe in bringing Marler into their ranks. He is one of them.
A true food safety visionary and leading thinker would look at these three food safety elements and in this order and priority:
– host immunity
-food chemistry and biology
-and then lastly pathogens.
If host immunity was strong the next two do not matter or matter less.
If food chemistry and biology was correct then pathogens would not grow in them ( lactobacillus kills the majority of food born pathogens ie…fermented and living foods …raw milk does not support the growth of pathogens and pasteurized milk does )
Lastly…yes it is important to make sure that pathogens are excluded from our food systems. But…this is done by using competitive bio-controls not sterilization. We know this because sterilization does not work as demonstrated by our current failures and outbreaks. These failures are seen in the host immunity weakness, in food chemistry and with creation of resistance in pathogens when killing is attempted.
Marler is a student of the "Germ Theory" and this phylosophy is last century thought. We must have visionary leaders that "see the terrain and not just the germs" ( forest for the trees ).
Marler has been fattened by tearful jury verdicts won by exploitation of the weak immune systems of children and blinded by huge settlement checks drawn from the accounts of the Hartford, Burlingon, Liberty Mutual, Lloyds of London, AIG and other liability insurers. There is no way that Marler would be any different than FDA lawyer John Sheehan. Sheehan was monocultural thinking, biased, blind and corrupt. He did not even know about Russians and their foods when he said that "drinking raw milk was like playing Russion Roullete with your Health"….Most Russians will not drink pasteurized milk because they know it makes you sick. Marler believes he must be right because he has been paid hundreds of millions and he is feared. That does not make him right…it makes him rich and feared….but not right.
Marlers passion and single minded sense of destiny is remarkable….but it is also wrong minded and not solution oriented. It is based on greed to the exclusion of good science or thoughtful concern for balanced solutions.
I suggest Joe Mercola for DHHS secretary. Joe is tough, solution oriented, knowledgable, passionate and would clean the house of big pharma, GMO and Monsanto…one can dream.
Mark
*I am curious if folks and their children that follow the "nutrient-dense" diet including raw dairy have lower rates of obesity?*
This is ONLY our testimonial. But we attend a Nourishing Traditions potluck each month with between 40 and 60 other attendees and conversations sharing similar experiences are not uncommon.
My wife & I eat Nutrient Dense foods, including raw dairy. She cultures her milk. We have increasingly been doing this for the last five years. We are both in our sixties. I am 6 feet and she stand 5 6?.
My weight used to fluctuate between 205 and 215 pounds. Hers used to go between 150 and 160 – and shortly before Nutrient Dense foods came into our lives, it got up to about 165 (I think). My weight now fluctuates within 5 pounds of 180 and she maintains around 135.
However, weight reduction is only the beginning of the list of health improvements. I no longer have minor arrhythmia attacks, have improved bowel movements, sleep better, am a better sex partner, generally get up from the table satisfied, have far less cravings for sweets, typically have a pleasant body odor (even while bathing less frequently), and having had terrible dental health, the pockets between my gums and my teeth have decreased very significantly.
My wife also lost her arthritis, has improved bowel movements, is a better sex partner, sleeps well (including not snoring), is more comfortable speaking with people (although this is very hard to directly connect to what she eats and health), experiences a marked decrease in yeast infections, and has almost no acne.
These changes did not happen simultaneously or overnight, but they have all occurred within the last five years.
There have been no other significant, long-lasting changes in our lives or lifestyle during this time.
We have four adult children. The youngest and her children eat "nutrient dense" and raw dairy. They have few health problems and no weight proiblems. Her husband has been a smoker and has a stressy job. He has maintained old eating patterns and has been paying the price. He’s now beginning to get it.
A son and his family have been eating nutrient dense but not raw dairy. He lost weight after changing his diet and now is pretty svelte.
The other two do not eat nutrient densely and have assorted health situations and one of them is constantly fight ing his overweight.
I hope this helps.
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/rawmilk2/sld039.htm
Just like in the U.S., a large % of raw milk outbreaks are associated with soft cheeses (Mexican) http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/rawmilk2/sld039.htm
You will all like this statement, During the production of fermented dairy products, the combination of competition with the starter culture, low water activity, and low pH prevent the survival and growth of L. monocytogenes.
What is interesting to note is this statement: However, the role of consumer education in France in the prevention of listeriosis has not been found to be substantial. Preventive measures at food processing plants were likely to be of much greater importance.
European countries are challenged with the same issues as the U.S. regarding pathogens in raw milk. Their solutions to the problem appear to be heading in the same direction as the U.S. (in states where it is legal)the focus being on sanitary practices. The tone of this study is more accepting of raw milk. There doesnt seem to be a never or a pasteurization only bias.
This study was focused only on one pathogen, listeriosis. Raw milk and raw milk dairy products are categorized as risk products and should not be consumed by susceptible people. Susceptible people are pregnant or immunocompromised persons. Nothing is mentioned about infants and children being more susceptible.
The study does list the number of deaths with outbreaks, but it is not broken down by age.
cp
But he won’t be held accountable, will he? His eye will be on the salmonella poisonings, and all those "dirty little farmers" that escape regulation. He’ll do the FDA’s job much better than they do. He’ll ban raw milk for sure. (But he won’t stop consumption. We’ll all be criminals.)
He wants to make food safe by rendering it lifeless. I will never forget his vow to "own" Don’s farm. Anything he says in support of small farms is clouded by that statement.
Me too – lost 35 pounds on nutrient-dense foods and raw milk. The asthma diagnosed in both my sons disappeared on nutrient-dense foods and raw milk. Doctor visits are a thing of the past. Much better dispositions, too – a calm descended on our home. My husband, who travels a lot and ends up eating in restaurants has had some health issues. But he still looks slim, healthier and younger than his siblings, who live on fast food and soda.
David you say we don’t know why some people get sick and others don’t. But *I* do. I *know* why I don’t get sick. I drink kefir, I eat grassfed meat, I eat for my body. If I think my fat content has been a little low, I’ll have a spoonful of butter or coconut oil, straight up. My husband thinks this is appalling. But all I have to say is "Look honey, no doctor bills!"
-Blair
No offense, but that is so dumb. Marler is one of the only food safety persons willing to engage with the local food movement. Shoot yourself in the foot.
David, K.
Too much information (kiddin) – thanks for sharing things about weight, bowel movements, sex life, and body odor. Seriously, I think it is great that you and your family have found benefits with the nutrient rich diet. I’ve tried different diets for weight loss, and discovered that it is best to embrace whole foods (not enough space here to give a definition). Personal experience shows that eating "low fat’ foods supports a sad quagmire of disappointment, frustration, weight gain, and health problems. This morning, ate whole fat yogurt (pasteurized) with berries and raw honey from my hand-raised bees. No need for snacks till the next meal. Whole fat foods tend to be "filling" and perhaps reduce the desire to indulge in over-eating?
Wow, Blair’s opinon is dumb? What school did he go to to be a "food safety" person? I thought he was just a lawyer. One with blinders on at that.
Blair I love your statement "Look honey no doctor bills"
DW and I can top that Look Medicare System, look young tax payers, look Congressmen, No Medicare bills, No drug bills and that can be documented by lack of bills!
David Kendall our story is the same except that all my life I was underweight but after nearly 5 years consuming raw dairy and real food my weight is near normal.
The Ponzi scheme called Medicare is unsustainable, unfettered access to raw dairy and real food could extend its life and lower costs. However there is little hope in a real solution even being tried since the bad germ possibility trumps our rights in the so called justice system.
What school did he go to to be a "food safety" person?
Food safety advocacy and expertise is not limited to certain educational degrees. Most people in the field have specialized degrees and jobs in microbiology, epidemiology, food science, MDs, DVMs…but, JDs are in the mix too (fewer numbers). I believe John Sheehan is a lawyer.
That is a very good question.I would say we want to keep things clean and in the case of milking equiptment we want it as sterile as possible without contaminating the milk with chemicals that are hard to rinse out.Rinseing with 180 deg water immediately before milking is an acceptable sanitizer for commercial dairies.When making cheese,I rinse my hands off every time I touch anything that might possibly contaminate the cheese.There is a lot of difference between keeping foreign bacteria out of the milk and sterilizing the milk.We also want to avoid contaminating the milk with anything that will kill bacteria.Soap and milkstone acid are needed to keep pipelines and milking units clean because the fats and minerals don’t come off with hot water only.Plenty of hot water as a rinse after using soap or acid should keep the milk from being contaminated.Keeping your hands clean is not the same as keeping them sterile.Dairy farmers and cheesemakers need to enjoy washing dishes and keeping everything clean.That is the biggest part of the job and it never ends.
I’ll add a bit to miguel’s answer about dairy practice, concerning handwashing.
All of us should be clean of course, but there is a big difference between clean and sterile. We should avoid attempts to kill natural, balanced bacterial colonies on our skin and elsewhere. One common way to do that is to use biocidal household cleaners, including anti-bacterial handsoaps. (Such products will not wipe out all bacteria anyway. Inevitably they merely select out certain bacteria, and cause dangerous imbalances.)
Here’s a quote from an abstract of a presentation by Dr. Stuart Levy, at a medical conference on infectious disease in 2000:
"The recent entry of products containing antibacterial agents into healthy households has escalated from a few dozen products in the mid-1990s to more than 700 today. Antibacterial products were developed and have been successfully used to prevent transmission of disease-causing microorganisms among patients, particularly in hospitals. They are now being added to products used in healthy households, even though an added health benefit has not been demonstrated. Scientists are concerned that the antibacterial agents will select bacteria resistant to them and cross-resistant to antibiotics. Moreover, if they alter a person’s microflora, they may negatively affect the normal maturation of the T helper cell response of the immune system to commensal flora antigens; this change could lead to a greater chance of allergies in children. As with antibiotics, prudent use of these products is urged. Their designated purpose is to protect vulnerable patients."
You can read the full text here:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no3_supp/levy.htm
Interestinly, "vulnerable patients" are those with already imbalanced microbial communities.
When this sort of information appears in the standard medical literature you can bet it will cause a ripple in the pond. I am sure that we will see more and more similar data appear over time, and can only hope that our medical community will begin to connect the dots and realize the extent of damage done to us and our environment by concentrating on identifying pathogens for extermination.
I think it is a similar case with many in the Connecticut DOA. After all, with a dwindling number of farms in Connecticut, there is becoming less and less for them to do. But if you are looking to move up to the federal level, what better jewel could you add to your resume than that you killed retail sales of raw milk in one of the remaining states where it is still permitted.