The more I write about the raw milk wars, the more convinced I am that the issue has as much to do with economic development (read “jobs”) as it does rights…and has very little to do with food safety and public health.
The unfolding saga on the new Massachusetts front provides a vivid illustration of how easily the regulators sacrifice jobs for what they say is food safety and public health, but for them has much more to do with politics, ideology, and likely other things they don’t want to talk about.
I wrote a few days ago about the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources issued cease-and-desist orders against three buying clubs that deliver raw milk from farms to consumer drop-off points around the state. (These buying clubs range in size and approach from a few raw milk consumers organizing themselves and neighbors into car pools to pick up milk to more formal businesses in which the owners charge membership fees in exchange for milk delivery; from a legal perspective, the milk consumers are designating the club operators or owners as their agents to pick up and deliver milk.) At the time, the DAR’s commissioner, Scott Soares, insisted that his agency only very recently became aware of the buying groups, even though at least one has been in existence for eight years, and has had contact with key officials of his agency. He also insisted that the intended shutdowns had nothing to do with pressure from another agency, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Finally, he said that the intended shutdowns were the result of public health concerns stemming from fast-growing demand for raw milk.
I should point out that Scott Soares has for several years positioned himself as favoring the expansion of raw milk production in Massachusetts by licensed dairies, as a way to provide economic opportunities to the state’s few remaining dairies. I’ve had a number of conversations with him in which he argues articulately on behalf of raw milk as one way to encourage the economic viability of small dairies. When the raw milk issue came up in December and January before the Framingham Board of Health and its consideration of whether to approve a dairy in the Boston metropolitan area for raw milk sales, the DAR came out solidly in favor of the farmer, Doug Stephan. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health adamantly opposed the approval, arguing that raw milk is a serious public health threat. (Doug Stephan now reports he will begin selling raw milk next month.)
The clash between the two agencies is one of the few times the public gets to observe first-hand the often-private clashes between agriculture and public health officials over raw milk.
Just to step back a little, Massachusetts developed a reputation over the last couple decades of last century as a high-tech and venture capital center, serving as the East Coast’s version of Silicon Valley, creating lots of high-paying jobs. But the last decade has been an economic development disaster for the state—it is just completing ten years of what the Boston Globe labels a “lost decade” because the state wound up with fewer jobs than it started with.
Jobs, of course, are a huge problem for the country as a whole. In a country that has more than its share of big problems, the challenge of creating enough jobs for a growing population may be the biggest, and the country has in recent years been shedding jobs more quickly than it has been creating them. Indeed, it’s not a big leap to say that jobs are a much bigger problem than food safety.
Moreover, it’s well known among business researchers that it’s the smallest businesses—newly forming companies and growing smaller companies with fewer than twenty employees—that create the lion’s share of America’s new jobs. Way more than the big corporations.
The official U.S. unemployment rate has hovered around 10%, and a number of experts feel it is higher than that because unemployed people stop being counted as unemployed if they stay out of work more than a year. One site that analyzes government statistics feels the real rate is likely over 20%.
If you notice, all the public health people who cry crocodile tears about food safety rarely bring up statistics. The only place you see stats even occasionally is at the MarlerBlog, but even there they are far from conclusive, such as in comparing illnesses from raw milk versus pasteurized milk. That’s because the stats for food safety are a joke—CDC says there are 76 million illnesses a year, yet actually reports fewer than 25,000. Even if you figure a multiplier of 40 unreported illnesses for each reported one, you’re talking about less than one million illnesses a year.
Which brings me back to Massachusetts. The state hasn’t had a reported raw milk illness since the late 1990s, and even that is an exaggeration. Some boy scouts visiting a farm drank raw milk intended for pasteurization—milk that would never have been sold to consumers. There’s nothing, zilch, in terms of a public health problem from the state’s rapidly expanding raw milk business.
We do know it provides all kinds of economic benefits (not to mention potential health benefits, but that’s a separate subject). NOFA-MA did the most detailed assessment of the economic benefits and found that not only do the dairies selling raw milk improve their financial status, so does the local community.
Yet the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, watching over the state’s citizens like worried parents, felt compelled to write a letter in January to an official of DAR. “Massachusetts, as well as other states nation wide, is grappling with an increased demand for the availability of raw milk. Unfortunately, this demand is being fueled by economic incentives and is being promoted by unfounded health claims.” Yes, that would be unfortunate if Massachusetts farmers succumbed to “economic incentives.”
The letter names two buying clubs that it thinks DAR should crack down on, and adds, “The result is that consumers are being supplied with a product that is known to be dangerous…” So dangerous Massachusetts hasn’t had a single illness in more than a decade.
Though he says he wasn’t influenced by public health officials, it’s now clear that when MDPH said, “Jump,” Scott Soares answered, “How high?” (A spokesperson for DAR told me Friday the agency is “reviewing” the MDPH letter and may have a response next week.)
Why did Scott Soares bend so easily? Maybe he needs MDPH’s support for the next job on his journey up the bureaucratic ladder. Maybe he is looking for some FDA money. There are dozens of maybes, and hopefully he’ll say more.
In places like California and among Pennsylvania’s private buying groups, raw dairies do help create jobs. Honest jobs producing honest food. What more can you ask for?
But in Massachusetts (and Wisconsin, Georgia, New York, etc.) the focus is on administrative orders and legislative lobbying designed to stymie job creation. Scott Soares, with his cease-and-desist orders, is wiping away an untold number of jobs, in a state and a country that are hemorrhaging jobs. In that survey last year by the Northeast Organic Farmers Association of Massachusetts, half the 24 dairies selling raw milk said they make use of buying clubs to help distribute their milk. Putting these organizations out of business not only puts their owners out of work, but threatens the viability of farm jobs.
I wonder if Priscilla Neeves, director of MDPH’s Food Protection Program, as well as Scott Soares, would do what they are doing if they had to face the buying clubs owners and farmers they are threatening to put out of business. Would they still wield their big sticks, and lie about the dangers of raw milk, if they had to look the people in the eye and tell them their jobs are gone?
On a related note, Bill Marler’s commentary on Wyoming’s proposed Food Freedom Act, it’s in the same spirit as what’s going on in MA, WI, and other states. It’s anti-economic development. In fact, Bill Marler is acting like a bully. He’s got some influence, and he’s blustering, “You don’t do what I want, and I’m going to sue you…Heh, heh, and watch the jobs I get rid of in the process.” It’s the same as what he was doing in PA in trying to intimidate Whole Foods into not carrying raw milk from Edwin Shank’s dairy, and thereby trying to crimp that business. Why does he want to squash poor small farms? I know the speech about seeing sick kids in the hospital, but we’re not talking about illnesses. We’re talking in Wyoming about an idea to give the smallest farmers and food producers very limited breathing room to sell food–by producing food for a wedding or a roadside stand or farmers market. Why can’t the state try to encourage farmers to sell privately in such limited and direct ways, without the costly burden of licensing and excessive regulation, so to create jobs and local community revenues? The fact of the matter is that he (and any other lawyer) can sue a food business whether it’s licensed or not. Since when is the American capitalist spirit about spreading fear, and clamping down on business development? Where have we gone so far wrong?
Or maybe the economic development is supposed to happen at the ag agencies and departments of public health. The more fear they can spread, the more jobs they create in their agencies.
***
I’d like to respond to Amanda Rose’s concerns about Organic Pastures Dairy Co. and her suspicions that it is outsourcing at least some of its milk and cream. As she says, the matter has been discussed extensively on this blog and elsewhere. I wrote about it in my book, The Raw Milk Revolution, along with other aspects of Organic Pastures’ history and business practices.
I’m inclined to agree with Steve Bemis and Ken Conrad, that Mark McAfee should be as transparent as possible, for the sake of credibility in the campaign to encourage wider acceptance of our right to consume raw milk. Part of his challenge stems from his business success.
Because Mark McAfee has been so effective in tying himself and OPDC to the raw milk rights movement, it’s sometimes difficult to separate the company and the movement. It’s important to keep in mind that the governance of Organic Pastures is entirely in the hands of Mark McAfee and his family. Organic Pastures is not part of the Weston A. Price Foundation. I have absolutely no role in it.
Mark benefits greatly from the identification of the movement with his company’s brand. From a business perspective, he’s done a masterful job of tying his company’s brand to a group of unbelievably loyal and engaged customers. Many companies would pay a lot to accomplish what Mark has accomplished.
On top of all that, he has what is essentially a monopoly position. It controls 70-80% of the California raw milk market. The reasons for that have a lot to do with the tough regulation of raw milk, which scares most competitors away. It isn’t as if Mark McAfee hasn’t encouraged other dairies to get into the business, but they haven’t. So while he may be a benevolent monopolist, essentially, from a business viewpoint, Mark McAfee can do as he pleases in the California marketplace.
With the benefits of marketplace leadership and customer loyalty, though, come responsibilities. I agree with Amanda that Mark has a responsibility to be more forthcoming than he has been, that he should provide an accounting. He is so engaged with his market, and demands such transparency from the regulators and public health community, that he must set a standard, even if they don’t.
I’d be glad to report on the situation concerning Organic Pastures’ outsourcing. It hasn’t been highest on my priority list simply because it seems as if there are many more serious outrages going on in this arena. I admire Amanda Rose’s concern and persistence over this issue, and I’ll be glad to do what I can to clarify the situation. Guess the ball is, once again, in Mark McAfee’s court.
I think you are stretching reality by suggesting that public health and food safety people oppose raw milk sales due to business concerns. Many science nerds and government bureaucrats hardly know how to balance a check book (isn’t that obvious with the current budget situation in government…). It is pretty absurd to suggest that food safety people are pretending to care about prevention of illnesses, but in reality are devising ways to harm small farmers and protect agribusiness. Personally, if this debate was all about business and the constitution, I would rather watch paint dry than read or comment about raw milk.
A related story. This farmer’s approach is maybe more likely to be successful in getting public health to back off some and relax rules. He shows what appears to be a sincere concern about the public health concerns.
Plano dairy reaps benefits of raw milk movement
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-rawmilk_21met.ART.Central.Edition1.4bff64f.html
Interesting quote from the farmer:
Moore is elated at his raw milk sales and thinks the income could help keep the Plano farm as a working dairy.
But he agrees raw milk can be risky. He invites customers to check out his milking parlor and says he does his own safety tests on every raw milk batch.
"We welcome regulation. … If somebody gets sick and dies from raw milk, it’s over for everybody," he said.
Key words, "fast growing demand for raw milk". It must terrify those who are unable to produce it safely to sell for consumption. It is easy to see whose pockets the govt officials are in. Obviously they aren’t looking out for the people. If they were, they then would work to ensure that raw milk and any other item for consumption would be made/processed with at least basic standards, they’d be teaching and assisting the farmers. They don’t do this.
I used to live just south of that farm in Plano, When HCA was the only hospital in town, we had fancy suites on my floor,….yup lots of money in that town. Guess all those educated people are fools for consuming raw dairy (said sarcastically)….. Even Lance Armstrong went to Plano East HS not far from that farm.
If the deaths and illnesses from pasteurized dairy didn’t "do them in" then why would it be the end of raw dairy? Why is there a difference?
Please recall also my ideas on safer raw milk sales:
1. Raw milk should be sold only on farms that are certified by the state and inspected and tested regularly. Make ambiguous black market milk/cheese sales and "pet food sales" meant for human consumption clearly illegal.
2. Raw milk should not be sold in grocery stores or across state lines–the risks of mass production and transportation are too great; the risk of a casual purchase by someone misunderstanding the risks is too great, as well.
3. Farms should be required to have insurance coverage sufficient to cover reasonable damages to their customers.
4. Practices such as outsourcing (buying raw milk from farms not licensed for raw milk production) should be illegal.
5. Colostrum should be regulated as a dairy product, not a nutritional supplement.
6. Warning signs on the bottles and at point-of-purchase should be mandatory. An example:
"WARNING: This product has not been pasteurized and may contain harmful bacteria (not limited to E. coli O157:H7, Campylobacter, Listeria and Salmonella). Pregnant women, infants, children, the elderly and persons with lowered resistance to disease (immune compromised) have the highest risk of harm, which includes Diarrhea, Vomiting, Fever, Dehydration, Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, Reactive Arthritis, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Miscarriage, or Death, from use of this product."
From "What I would recommend." http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2009/11/what-id-recommend-raw-vs-pasteurized-milk/
As for a jobs killer, I am a big supporter of business who do not poison and kill people. With your analytical mind, how many jobs do you think I will kill at Cargill over this:
http://www.marlerblog.com/2010/02/articles/legal-cases/cargill-admits-its-e-colitainted-hamburger-caused-dancers-paralysis-yet-refuses-to-pay-past-medical-expenses/
http://www.marlerblog.com/2010/02/articles/legal-cases/happy-23rd-birthday-stephanie-smith-yet-another-victim-of-e-coli-o157h7/
http://www.marlerblog.com/2010/02/articles/legal-cases/will-cargill-a-mulitbillion-dollar-privately-held-company-face-punitive-damages-in-the-case-of-the-paralyzed-dancer-you-decide/
Bill the Bully
If people should be protected from my potentially dirty raw milk if I make a mistake, shouldn’t a farmer be protected from an ambulance chasing shyster who files a frivolous lawsuit?
BH
http://www.JuicyMaters.com
I agree that lawyers and the courts have not done a very good job of policing their own. There are too many lawsuits that are brought on skinny facts, however, there are, IMHO, far, far more frivolous defenses raised by corporate defendants and their insurance companies. Frankly, I would love to see more lawyers (both plaintiffs and defendants) disbarred for taking positions that they well know are in bad faith. The problem, however, is who is to stand in judgment – you? Me? Judges? The Bar Association? This is were things tend to grind down.
On the loser pays, in general, I like it – a lot. And, since I do not lose, I tend not to worry about it. In practice, however, it is always a rich litigant (not many of my clients are) who can afford to lose. In reality, loser pays really only benefits the corporate defendant, insurance company or the government with the mega law firm and/or unlimited resources. Given your past comments, I am surprised that you seem to be in their pocket?
Since you profess to care so much about "the kids", and not the money you get from your suits, why do you go after the low hanging fruit that, in many cases, does minimal damage, and not the doctor who actually causes the real problem. Is it becaquse you need the doctor on your side as a friendly witness when you sue? An example:
Little Johnny gets a tummy ache, a bit of the runs, and a pow-grade fever. Mommy takes Johnny to the doctor rather than let an apparant minor infection run its course, and the doctor, without running any tests, diagnosis a non-specific infection and prescribes an antibiotic.
When it turns out that Johnny is sick from contaminated raw milk,,and the minor infection that would have amounted to a couple of days of stomach cramps and diarrhea becomes HUS and accompanying kidney failure because of a misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment, why do you sue the farmer who caused a minor problem rather than the doctor who turned the minor problem into a life threatening one?
I say the answer is that you are a lazy lawyer picking low hanging fruit and you don’t want to sue someone you won’t want to be a hostile witness.
BH
http://www.JuicyMaters.com
I don’t know about other states, but here in Georgia the GA Bar won’t even accept a complaint against a lawyer unless the complaint is filed by the lawyer’s own unhappy client.
For giggles and shits, let’s say someone hires you to sue me, and in the course of that lawsuit you do something unethical, and I can prove it. Absolute, incontrovertible proof. Nothing illegal…no ex parte communication with the judge, no perjury…nothing I can take to the DA, but very unethical.
I can’t even file a complaint against you. Nope. Only your client can file a complaint against you, not the opposition.
Sure…I can sue…except because of your lack of ethics I spent every penny I had defending a bullshit lawsuit and can’t afford another lawyer to sue you…IF I could find one willing. Professional courtesy and all that. And if I CAN manage to get the suit into court, perhaps antelitem on a paupers affidavit, I’ve got to deal with the judge…another brother lawyer.
Bottom line, I’m screwed.
And, in my personal opinion, personal injury lawyers are the worst. John Edwards comes to mind.
BH
http://www.JuicyMaters.com
I am also sorry that you are not happy in Georgia. I like it there. Perhaps you should move to a place where you do not have to deal with personal injury lawyers and the court system that we have – I was just in China and they have a system that I am sure you would love.
You really need to relax a bit. Please go grab a large glass of pasteurized milk and a cookie and sit on your porch.
You sound like a hypocrite in this thread. Just a few posts ago you wanted to use the legal system to benefit the raw milk cause. Go for it! But, don’t get on your high horse and cherry pick the system. I don’t understand business or law, but can see right through fake, self-serving arguments. Furthermore, talk to a medical expert (or a good naturopath, if you prefer) about the tummy ache and HUS…you are flat wrong in your assessment of how the course of a seriously ill patient with HUS manifests, or the decisions that must be made while the doctors are going through the differentials.
I must say, he did better than you and actually attempted to answer…though the big shot lawyer missed the mark. He said in article one, I believe, where the government is given legislative powers. He completely ignored the limits placed on those powers.
Hell, for all I know he is really ignorant about constitutional limits on government powers…it wouldn’t surprise me since law schools have been teaching case law rather than constitutional law since the 1920’s. Maybe he really believes his own bullshit. I hope not. He’s already wrong. That would make him both stupid AND wrong, and somehow, for all his faults I don’t think he is stupid…just greedy.
Incidentally, you asked a question last post and I answered it. I wouldn’t like my answer but could live with it…do you think your side could?
BH
http://www.JuicyMaters.com
"I wouldn’t like my answer but could live with it…do you think your side could?"
What makes you think that my side speaks to me, lol? You gave the MO example – can you describe it in more detail or provide a link? I recall Vermont doing something in the middle last year – can anyone comment if that is working?
Bill Marler outlined a possible route for raw milk legalization. Steve Bemis did something similar. It would be interesting to compare/contrast these approaches vs. the extremes of total ban or total free-for-all. Bill’s spoof on the latter was right on.
Please correct your statement. OPDC has never outsourced raw milk or cream for fluid use. Every bit of outsourced milk or cream was made into a Class 4 product ( raw butter ) which is not considered a threat and is not subject to pathogen testing. Not sure why Amanda continues to beat this very old and very dead horse.
One more time….OPDC does not outsource milk for bottling and it never has outsourced raw milk for cream or bottling. Not sure how much more open or transparent I can be. Zero outrsourcing is zero outsourcoing. OPDC has not outsourced any raw milk to make butter in the last year. Thats why there is next to no raw butter in CA and the consumers are pissed. We have just raised some funds with the help of our consumers and a cow rescue program in LA and we will be adding a few more cows to make some more butter. We will still be very short and raw butter will still be as scarce and rare as a John Sheehan sighting.
I am fascinated by the fact that no one seems to care one little bit about the Avandia story in the NY Times. Glaxo-Smith Kline now admits in a congressional investigation and FDA documents that it knew of the increased risks of heart attacks with patients that take Avandia ( diabetes medication ). Now the data is out….83,000 heart attacks in seven years from 1999 and 2007. With 304 deaths from heart attacks in the last 90 days. The FDA is not even pulling the drug off the market. They instead are just considering more warnings on the labels.
Bill Marler….please please please…go after Glaxo-Smith Klyne….this is an outrage.
Or is it….do we have authorized politically correct murder and unauthorized politically inccorrect murder in America. Are there two categories????
America is sicker than we can imagine. It is so sick it does not even know it is sick.
We need to follow the Chinese model and publically hang the drug pushers and research liers at Glaxo-Smith Klyne and right next to them hang the FDA facilitator that authorized the fake data and murders. Yes..,.this is premeditated intentional greedy murder. It will not stop until the raging greed based FDA alliance has been made to become responsible…no one is responsible. It is a money murder drug orgy and no one gives a damn.
Mark
Nah. On second thought, Marler wouldn’t take the case. It would mean finding fault with his FDA handlers.
BH
http://www.JuicyMaters.com
Mark, can you also clarify on outsourcing colostrum? I was in California and saw chocolate colostrum on the shelves at Whole Foods – does it come from your cows or someone else’s?
But Marler…a couple of posts ago you stated you never lose…and I’m too dumb to make my own nutrition choices, so I certainly must be too dumb to recognize a lie from a big, bad, never losing shyster. If we lose I’ve probably got you on some sort of truth in advertising thing.
Got your E&O premiums paid up? How about the personal liability policy? Is it paid up?
Don’t worry…I won’t go after you for any criminal stuff…insurance probably doesn’t cover your criminal acts…wouldn’t want to lose my cash.
BH
http://www.JuicyMaters.com
What’s really a shame is the fact that it is really almost that easy to sue…and win.
My point about Avandia is this. The FDA is wholly corrupt and covers up drug induced murder. The drugs were studied and there were known yet covered up defects in their use and side effects that resulted in deaths lots of death and heart attacks. Hundreds and thousands of people are dead and injured as a direct effect.
Why and how is this related to raw milk? It is directly related to the fact that the FDA says only their drugs are tested safe and effective. Raw milk has killed maybe two people in 30 years of CDC data ( with commingled data that combines pastuerizer failures and thermalized fake raw cheeses…. so who really knows ) and has literally zero side effects. Yet raw milk heals and prevents disease like no other food on earth. Pastuerized milk products have killed at least 620 in the last 30 years and drugs have killed hundreds of thousands. Maybe millions. The FDA is biggest hypocrite in existance. They say that OPDC has created a new drug by posting testimonials of our consumers stories of elimination of asthma, IBS, ear infections, crohns excema, lactose intolerance. Seems very clear to me that the FDA is a clearing house for murder pills and their entire existance is based in greed and corporate protection. Seriously. Who is selling snake oil…..excuse me I meant to say…. snake venom. It is not the raw milk dairymen…it is the FDA using doctors to do their pushing the results do not match the claims made in the studies. It is not even Russion Roulette….all chambers are loaded when the consumers are told that they are empty. Thats just a lie.
Lykke….what part of this do you not see clearly? Tens of thousands of deaths….do you not get these numbers. Do you get the magnatude of this issue. Raw milk two…..drug companies hundreds of thousands.
Lykke….are you conscious.
Mark
I’m not against going after FDA approved drugs. But, can you answer the question about the colostum, just to clarify the outsourcing issue. Like Amanda, I’m having a hard time with the math – how do you have enough birthing cows to produce colostrum to supply all your outlets? Where is it coming from?
I support this initiative
"Know your farmer, know your food"
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=2009/09/0440.xml
http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2010/2/17/could-wyomings-proposed-food-freedom-act-be-the-beginning-of.html?currentPage=2#comments
I’ll repeat my post again here:
Lykke wrote: "If WY passes a bill with zero food safety standards including even basic education and labeling, then I hope someone sues the lawmakers on the committee and the governor when an outbreak occurs."
Hmm, the way all the relatives of thousands of dead diabetics who have taken Avandia need to file a class action suit against the ~FDA~ (GASP! what audacity!!) for allowing Avandia to stay on the market, even after the first set of deaths occurred… when was that…oh wait, WHAT?!?, back in 2007????
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/20/health/policy/20avandia.html?em=&pagewanted=all
"Avandia, intended to treat Type 2 diabetes, is known as rosiglitazone and was linked to 304 deaths during the third quarter of 2009."
And a little further down:
"Avandia was once one of the biggest-selling drugs in the world. Driven in part by a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign, sales were $3.2 billion in 2006. But a 2007 study by a Cleveland Clinic cardiologist suggesting that the drug harmed the heart prompted the F.D.A. to issue a warning, and sales plunged. A committee of independent experts found in 2007 that Avandia might increase the risk of heart attack but recommended that it remain on the market, and an F.D.A. oversight board voted 8 to 7 to accept that advice."
Let’s repeat that last sentence… it’s truly breath-taking: "A committee of independent experts found in 2007 that Avandia might increase the risk of heart attack but recommended that it remain on the market, and an F.D.A. oversight board voted 8 to 7 to accept that advice."
ha! We all know just HOW independent those "independent experts" really were, who both discovered that Avandia would increase risk of heart attacks, yet STILL recommended keeping it on the market (hey, just can’t ignore all those BILLIONS in sales, BILLIONS, not millions!). And of course we all know how much FDA is in the pockets of Big Pharma because they always approve such drugs, even when TRULY independent studies show those drugs to be harmful, and only ban them when the loss or damage of human lives mount up to embarrassing levels.
Such hypocrisy is mind-boggling: THREE HUNDRED AND FOUR people died IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS OF 2009 ALONE, from a drug that the FDA approved TO CONTINUE SELLING, amidst controversy–even within its own ranks, a nearly 50-50 split–instead of taking the safe way and banning Avandia when they realized it was linked to deaths, back in 2007.
Truly appalling. And Lykke would have us believe that the FDA realllllllly has our best interests at heart????
Flee your job, Lykke… I simply do not understand how you can justify working there.
You are passionate about Avandia. Create a blog and a website. Find a lawyer with similar passions to champion your cause. More than likely, I might support it, if asked. But, your passion about that drug does not change my passion for infectious diseases.
We all pick and choose our battles, and you simply cannot rearrange that reality based on your feelings. Fortunately or unfortunately, I am very interested in the raw milk debate. What is going on with FDA approved drugs doesn’t change that reality. I am also very interested in the "know your farmer, know your food" concept. Again, FDA approved drugs and their pros and cons are outside that scope (so far as I can tell, they sure give ample warning based on the TV commercials).
If you have a plan for best practices to make raw milk safer vs. saying raw milk safety is not an issue, or raw milk safety is impossible…something outside those extreme views would be very interesting in the microcosm where I and some other public health types focus our attention.
I am very glad to hear your say you are interested in raw milk safety and best practices.
Raw milk safety is no big secret.
Best practices are really simple. Lots of sun, keep the cows dry and on pastrures if possible, feed them natural feeds and stay away from antibiotics, hormones and high levels of grains and never soy. Then cleanly milk the cows and chill the milk quickly for long shelf life. This is not a big secret. Raw milk puts the responsibility back into agriculture and the nourishment back into food.
The results are clear….50,000 people per week thriving on raw milk from two raw milk dairies serving 400 stores. The problem is that the FDA refuses to acknowledge this data or the demonstrated reality that is reality in California. Claravale has been arround since 1927 and zero pathogens….thats not luck. OPDC ….zero pathogens found in our raw milk in ten years….that is not luck either. This all about good practices and a modicum of concern and care. Wish the FDA would be kind enough to look at this data. They refuse to look at any of it, because it would ruin their Russian Roullette rythme and scary market controlling fear stories.
The longer the California raw milk safety record and the bigger the grass roots market…the closer to the truth we all come and the closer to the edge the FDA comes. At some point the FDA obviously becomes a farce and every one sees them for what they are.
Avandia is just one of the steps towards their tomb stone marker in their tragic misguided germ theory history. Avandia is just taking its place on the pile of FDA disasters next to Celebrex, Fosamax and all the other deadly lies and frauds.
Mark
One dairy bowed the knee and paid the protection money. They get a pass and are covered for despite their dirty practices and sickness inducing milk. The other dairy didn’t, they get hounded.
Its just a protection racket.
What happened? If a good dairy was hounded, perhaps reach out and ask for help from those that don’t want to drive you to the ground, only promote food safety. Bill Marler has posted his number here a number of times. Call and see what he thinks about it?
Speaking of not answering questions I specifically asked you about this toxic poison food product several times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us/31meat.html
How can you allow the poisoning of innocent school children with this product?
What are you doing to stop this practice?
Actually, Lykke, I am not passionate about Avandia. I do not take the drug nor do I know anyone who does. But I ~am~ passionate about raw milk and I am passionate about hypocrisy.
The Avandia issue IS related to raw milk because FDA says drinking raw milk equals playing Russian roulette and therefore must be pasteurized. Yet it allows commercial drugs and food additives that actually kill people… at least until public outcry over the huge number of deaths and damaged lives forces it to recant.
I’m not talking just Avandia, but all the other drugs and harmful food additives, etc etc ad nauseum, which the FDA is responsible for, allowing in our food, lobbied by powerful business entities: "Hey! If we have to take this off the market (or take this thing out or add that in), we would lose millions or even billions!" Think statins, rBGH, agricultural poisons, etc etc.
My point is, Lykke, how can you possibly state that the FDA is concerned about raw milk’s possible dangers (not even confirmed), when they allow truly dangerous drugs and chemicals to remain on the market that are proven to kill or damage health? The only possible explanation for such bald-faced hypocrisy is money and the powerful lobbies of related concerned business interests.
"If you have a plan for best practices to make raw milk safer vs. saying raw milk safety is not an issue, or raw milk safety is impossible…something outside those extreme views would be very interesting in the microcosm where I and some other public health types focus our attention."
Actually, we all perform different functions. I perceive my function is to bring FDA’s hypocrisy about raw milk to the public’s attention…. hypocrisy which you want to shuffle under the rug. The FDA does not want to work with me or any other dairy farmer in a plan to allow raw milk to be sold. The FDA continually says raw milk is dangerous and must be pasteurized, full stop, no further discussion required or wanted. Otherwise, it would be more willing to bend than the brick wall face it has so far presented.
My question is: Why should the public listen to the FDA about its faulty perception of raw milk’s dangers, considering the FDA"s deep hypocrisy? And if that deep hypocrisy isn’t exposed and talked about, then the FDA has no reason to change its "Pasteurized Milk Only" course.
"I am also very interested in the "know your farmer, know your food" concept."
And I say that you are not, because in your comment the other day you said that if there was an outbreak that Wyoming’s public officials should be sued. That does not sound like someone who wants to help the raw milk movement.
You are never going to get raw milk producers to take your suggestions seriously. Here’s why:
The so-called "food saftey" establishment has created for themselves an exceptionally hostile and uncooperative relationship with raw milk producers. They have shown, time and again, that they are not really be interested in protecting consumers or helping raw milk producers make a safe product. Rather, they are interested in control and fear.
This is especially evident in Wisconsin right now. One farm supposedly gets a handful of people sick (multiple lab tests have never found the pathogen in the milk, including samples taken from sickened households) from Campylobacter (the most common cause of bacterial diarrhea in the U.S.), and the "food safety" establishment goes on a rampage trying to shut down every single raw milk supplier in the entire state.
They have sent all sorts of ominous legal warnings, placed extremely burdensome records request on farms which had nothing to do with the supposed outbreak. Does this make sense to you? Should other farms be punished for the unproven transgression of one farm? If Restaurant A gets someone sick, does that mean that Restaurant B, C, D, and E should be shut down and forced to provide extensive documentation of their activities and practices as well?
The WI Secretary of Agriculture has stated in public and in private that the Wisconsin dairy industry is pressuring him not to allow raw milk to be legalized. Connect the dots here Lykke.
Is there a need to help raw milk farmers improve practices and create a safer product? Yes, I think there is. However, the "food safety" profession is not interested in this. They are only interested in protecting their own jobs, and in the process are only making raw milk more dangerous by driving it further underground into black markets.
The crackdown in Wisconsin has not stopped people from obtaining raw milk, it has simply changed the distribution patterns, which I think has made it more risky. I wonder when we are going to hold your profession to account for your utter failure to protect public health in the case of raw milk.
You have an inability to see that raw milk proponents are not antiregulation.We have standards and we work hard to maintain those standards.The question is WHO ? are we going to trust to enforce those standards?Your theory of disease is that exposure to disease must be avoided to assure prevention of disease.Disease comes from the outside into the herd as a result of exposure to diseased wildlife for example.This theory of disease leads to "biosecurity" measures such as total confinement.To accept regulation by someone who is operating under this theory is impossible!To live under the regulations of a group that understood disease and its causes from our point of view would be very welcome.I believe Michael Schmidt is working on something along these lines in Canada.
If conventional farmers had to try to live under regulations that recognized that stress,crowding and poor quality or inappropriate feed is often the real cause of disease it would not take long before they either completely changed their management or closed down.
We are back again to that old discussion over what is the true cause of disease.Is it "pathogens" or the environment that is responsible for disease?
WI Raw Milk Consumer summed it up well in stating that, The so-called "food safety" establishment has created for themselves an exceptionally hostile and uncooperative relationship with raw milk producers. They have shown, time and again, that they are not really interested in protecting consumers or helping raw milk producers make a safe product. Rather, they are interested in control and fear.
In paraphrasing the above quote I would add that, the so-called "food safety" establishment has created for themselves an exceptionally hostile and uncooperative relationship with organisms. They have shown, time and again, that they are not really interested in protecting the symbiotic relationship between man and organism. Rather, they are interested in control and fear.
I also share Migels cynicism with respect to the impossibility of dealing with regulators.
Ken