There’s a game teachers and camp counselors sometimes play with groups of children. The kids gather in a circle and the teacher whispers a simple statement to one of the children, something very simple, like, “We milk the cows with special machines.” By the time the message is whispered from child to child, it comes out in the end entirely different, perhaps, “We eat machines with our cows.”
I get the feeling of that game and the inevitable distortion of simple facts in reading some of the posts about Organic Pastures Dairy Co.—primarily the posts by Melissa and Mary McGonigle-Martin. I had resolved not to go down this path—I have long felt that what they are doing with this whole matter is unhealthy—but their statements have become so outrageous I felt the need to say something.
Most serious is the strong suggestion that Mark McAffey, owner of OPDC, somehow got rid of the cows with the bad E.coli 0157:H7, or doped them up with antibiotics (which the authorities never spotted in all their tests). Maybe he had X-ray vision that allowed him to spot the problematic E.coli in the one or two or three problematic cows’ intestines. Wait, maybe Superman helped him see inside the cows! The whole thing is so preposterous as to be almost laughable.
They back this version of events up by suggesting that California authorities waited too long to inspect OPDC—until late October, says Mary, some seven weeks or eight weeks after the children became ill.
And finally, Melissa suggests the state of California conducted an inadequate investigation because it tested “only” two-thirds of the cows.
Well, here are some facts. It’s pretty clear that Mary and Melissa don’t want to hear facts, maybe can’t absorb facts, but the facts are that California authorities shut down OPDC and ordered a recall on Sept. 21, less than two weeks after the children were hospitalized at Loma Linda. I know because I wrote one of the first articles about it, on BusinessWeek.com.
A dozen or more authorities in special white toxic materials suits took poop, soil, packaging, and other samples from the farm. This went on for more than two weeks, until Oct. 6! Later in the month, they came back and took more samples.
This was a huge investigation by any government standards, by authorities who wanted, as much or more than Mary and Melissa, to find fault with OPDC because of their disdain for any dairy that distributes raw milk. Whether the authorities tested one-third or two-thirds of the cows, the investigation was huge–certainly more of an investigation than is usually conducted for a poor kid shot in Los Angeles or Boston. It was more of an investigation than is now being conducted on the Massachusetts dairy associated with the deaths of three individuals (plus a miscarriage) from pasteurized milk, where three inspectors are looking things over, six months after the first death.
Because the investigators didn’t come up with the results Mary and Melissa wanted, they minimize it. They throw out conspiracy theories. They cry on a lawyer’s shoulder. And you can be sure one or another will come back here and say, "Wait, the investigators came 17 days after the children first became ill, not less than two weeks. Aha. Gotcha!"
I’d add to Bill Marler that raw milk advocates don’t cheer investigations on Monsanto or Jack-in-the-Box. We only wonder why the investigations of these companies seem to be so much slower, less thorough, and less punitive than the ones of raw-milk dairies. We’re just talking about a double standard here—a double standard promoted by the public health and medical establishments, and encouraged further by some in the legal community.
And finally, I have to wonder why my suggestion that money might be a motivator in this and other such cases is characterized by Marler as "pathetic and shallow"? Since when is it pathetic and shallow–in these United States of America–to want to earn money from your profession? Isn’t filing suits and collecting damages the way personal injury lawyers make money? Is that something to be ashamed of? I hope not, or at least, don’t let the American Bar Association hear you say that. No, thou dost protest too much. Or, is Marler doing this work pro bono?
Bob Hayles
http://www.reformer.com/headlines/ci_7903847
I didn’t bother forwarding the article to any of the usual newsgroups due to it’s regional significance and generally low newsworthiness rating, but of course Doug Powell over at the International Food Safety Network couldn’t let it pass without a snide comment or two. The headline of his blog entry is "Raw Milk: It’s all About the Money" and he cherry-picks a few lines from the article to imply that farmers who offer raw milk are simply grubbing for an extra dollar. Of course Doug must not accept compensation for any of his work and all that money he gets from Monsanto goes directly to charity. 🙂
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/
Bill Marler wrote: "Ive always wanted to own land in Fresno and Paicines." Sorry to keep harping on this, but it dawned on me today that there’s a huge difference between filing a civil suit to right a wrong, claiming damages for harm, or even threatening to do so, on behalf of actual victims, versus the above statement which, combined with:
"Despite its great success in reducing raw milk outbreaks during the past hundred years, government regulation and enforcement has not yet succeeded in wholly eradicating the sale of raw milk." [From ‘A Legal History of Raw Milk in the United States’]
…telegraphs an intent to use the authority of government regulators to eradicate sales of raw milk, whether by law, government regulation, bankrupting civil suit, or strong-arm tactics, like what the USDA did to the Fallaice family (Mad Sheep: The True Story of the USDA’s War on a Family Farm http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_2158.cfm)
Marler deftly conflates regulation with eradication, as if to suggest that regulating raw milk requires banning it entirely, implying that it is overwhelmingly likely to be contaminated and, therefore is always, in every case, a threat to public health.
I don’t know Bill Marler’s motivations with respect to raw milk. I assume he has done much good in winning damage claims for victims of food poisoning, much of which was caused by corporate food. I detect a qualitative difference between the posts on his personal blog (and {presumably} his posts on Food Poison Blog, also published by Marler Clark) which report food poisoning in non-milk food, versus his posts about cases of tainted milk. When the milk involved is pasteurized, he somehow manages to gloss over that fact, and then tell people to avoid raw milk. Missing is the discussion of the problems that can lead to ‘mis-pasteurization’. Thus the linkage to raw milk is gratuitous, and evidence of a (not so) hidden agenda, in my opinion.
Saying that he’d like to own land in "Fresno and Paicines" can only mean one thing: he’d like to put OPDC and Claravale out of business. It’s a general statement. It doesn’t specify that he’d like to help client victims recover damages based on specific cases of poisoning caused by these two dairies. The statement was on his post about AB1735, not on a post about a case of food poisoning linked to either dairy. This telegraphs that the purpose of AB1735 is to put the two dairies out of business, as well as prevent any other off-farm sales of bottled raw milk in California.
I can guess, based on the attitude I detected in Bill Marler’s posts here this week that he is a dynamic, effective courtroom lawyer. He has the fire. But he seems to have some kind of an emotional trigger when it comes to raw milk. Why that would be, I certainly wouldn’t know. But it may just be like a shark’s response to blood in the water. Having frequent contact with the FDA (and state regulators) I’d surmise that he may just be taking advantage of the opportunity to curry favor with them by jumping on the bandwagon and going after raw milk, in order to gain favorable treatment when his cases require cooperation with the FDA. Just my intuition.
That is one third of what it takes to make a good lawyer.
The other two are smarts/education, and he seems to have those at least to some degree, and ethics, something he obviously has none of.
The fire, smarts/education are enough to make an EFFICTIVE lawyer, but without the ethics, he’ll never be a good one.
Bob Hayles
Correct fact are very important to me. I knew the cows were tested in October, but I never had the dates. I had the end of October in my head as to when they tested the cows (I didn’t have paperwork in front of me). What occured at the end of the month was the reopening of the dairy–October 29th.
I correct my earlier statement of October 30th or 31st as to when they check the cows. It was earlier in the month.
Sorry for the incorrect dates. I’m not trying to mislead anyone.
By the way–OUCH!
David, correct me if I am wrong, The state swooped in on Sept 22 and then again on Sept 27th, I can assume that they tested samples BOTH times? Is that right? And according to some of the posts on this blog, they again came in and tested a third time in OCT?
With as bad as the "powers that be" want to shut down raw dairies, I am quite sure they would’ve found something that would have been a positive slam on OP. It apparently was not done, and in the end paid $$$ for thier slander.
"Raw milk all about the money"? Now that is laughable! Don’t people go into buiness to make money? If I bill for my time, that bill will entail all expenses and there would be some form of profit. What would be the point of being in business if you don’t make a profit? Hmmm If raw milk is all about money, where does that place the huge corporations? Off the scales no doubt.
It’s about time you said something. I am sure you have bitten your tongue long enough. I was being sarcastic about the antibiotics, but hook line n’ sinker, it’s jumped on by the finger pointer and it becomes a part of the whole conspiracy theory.
Both finger pointers have nothing and they know it.
They both can’t let it go and they definitely have become one of many who are looking to get paid because they feel someone owes them for what happened to THEM.
This is not about Lauren or Chris. They probably want nothing more than to just be children, or we would see them on this blog and they would hire their own attorney. This is about ego, being right and hurting thousands of people who need and want raw dairy. Pour pure selfishness and some money hungry on top of that and you will find the concoction that was probably started with the two finger pointers in the hallways of the hospital.
The finger pointers started it, if I am correct, and now they will end it no matter what it does to any of us! I feel for their children because these ethics that their parents have will be taught to them in some way, shape or form.
I don’t feel bad one bit with the OUCH statement.
Therapy needed! Badly! They both deserve to be put in their places. It really doesn’t matter what you say, anyway, David, they know they are right and there is no HARD EVIDENCE that will change their minds.
I think we are all pretty certain of that on this blog.
One finger pointer knows it all and the other finger pointer knows it all, yet they apologize for not knowing it all. Makes very little sense to me. Will make even less sense to an attorney.
Good luck Mr. Marler, you are going to need it. If I were you, I would think twice about taking this case, especially since you don’t know IT ALL dealing with the twisted tails of the finger pointers.
OPDC was under forced shutdown for the entire period, Sept. 21-Oct. 6. The authorities were in for much of that time, not just testing animals, but pretty much turning the place upside down, inspecting and testing equipment, supplies, soil–anything not nailed down. My understanding is that they came back at least a third time in late Oct.
To rollingmyeyestoo, I really hate to psychoanalyze or pass personal judgment. I continue to think Mary and Melissa are well meaning individuals who went through a terrible experience and have had a difficult time resolving it. I don’t think any of us can say for sure how we might behave in such a situation. My sense is that dwelling on, continually re-living, and trying to change the outcome of some "accident" isn’t productive. Better to move on.
Your last comment was real nice to read. Truly, family, neighbors, communities, and even committed strangers are doing more to help those in need in this country than we may ever realize.
(FYI, you can see post about a representative episode on my website, at http://www.mundanedaily.com/?p=41)
What you aptly call "the power [and] strength of conviction and community" is the best hope we have for a successful America.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59581
Amanda
If someone doesn’t believe in their post or position enough to "own" it by signing it with their real name, delete the post. Cowards hide behind anonyminity, and I have found that cowards have vrey little worth listening to anyway.
Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead
Jasper, GA
You are absolutely right. Who wouldnt turn every rock? When it comes to your children, there is no end. Especially when your child is still suffering the consequences.
What some are failing to see is YES, there was nothing found on the dairy, but there was nothing found in any of the other sources either. So that tells those FINGERPOINTING mothers, that the next probable cause was the ONE food item that they all had in common. No one is trying to single out ONE person, ONE place….Its just what makes sense.
The place where this story gets haywire, is all of the twisted versions that were told along the way. There are still different versions being told to this day so why not set the record straight.? There is NO reason for everyone to take Lauren and Chris’ illnesses so personally. I highly doubt that two mothers got the state of California to shut down OPDC. There were 4 other cases involved!!!
Loose and fast with the facts has bolstered many an assertion. Good to cut to the quick and expose the exaggeration.
While Mark is a hero to many, hes not to all. We must acknowledge the human tendency for blame/closure and do our best to move on, bespectacled with clearer vision (especially of motives). The compassion and understanding deserved when ones child is put at risk, can sometimes be twisted into an unrecognizable shape of response. Accept it for what it is, keep it within the bounds of truth, and allow each the freedom to come to their own mind.
One note regarding the luxury of the anonymity of the internetits not those that choose to use pen names that are the problem. Its the tone of the responses that <i>some<i> use, that discredits all those who choose to go unnamed. It is quite possible to disagree with someone in a cordial and respectful manner, even if you dont sign your words. It is well with grasp of some to tell another that they are wrong, and their statements and actions are judged incorrect, without resort to name calling, derogation, and personal attacks. Lets keep this straight here, its not the name on the bottom of the comment that is the problem, its the content and tenor of the post. There are many reasons to not be namedcowardice isnt the only reason to hide.those that stress cunning and stealth also tend this way
P.S. Thanks David
PSS Signing ones name at the bottom doesn’t guarantee quality content and tenor either……
Discussing the raw milk issue is therapeutic for me in a way, because, whereas I’ve lost my battle in my own case, it’s still possible to prevent the government from banning raw milk, so I feel like there’s still hope, and it makes me feel better, and less alone in the struggle. Undoubtedly this casts me as ‘anti-government’. Reading the article at WND, linked by Rod shows how this can cause authorities to overdo a show of force. Just because I don’t post under my name doesn’t mean there’s something nefarious about me. And just because I may seem paranoid doesn’t mean they’re NOT out to get me! ;p
Apparent facts discovered through logical inquiry that would lead a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an accused person has committed a crime, thereby warranting his or her prosecution, or that a cause of action has accrued, justifying a civil lawsuit.
Probable cause is a level of reasonable belief, based on facts that can be articulated, that is required to sue a person in civil court or to arrest and prosecute a person in criminal court. Before a person can be sued or arrested and prosecuted, the civil plaintiff or police and prosecutor must possess enough facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the claim or charge is true."
What are the facts that would lead to OP being sued? So far I have seen none.
I have given plenty of my money to help OPDC, from the time they started fundraising. I have written in, signed petitions and talk with many people about our freedom to choose. With codex happening and our right to buy vitamin C will be taken away from us unless we go to our doctor, it is outrageous! Nothing I state is dishonest.
I think a lot of what you talk about Lacedo is ingenious and I love to read your comments.
I like this blog because I agree with David. Even when I am reprimanded, I know what he is telling me and even though we need to move past this, he himself, got sucked back in and had to comment.
The e-coli topic does need to be put to bed. People who usually tell people to get a life, usually are searching for one themselves. I give thanks everyday for my life and everything that I have in my life.
You’ve seen no reason for a lawsuit precisely because there is none. There is absolutely no evidence for the claim that the 6 children got sick from raw milk. It is recited like a litany by some as if saying it will make it so. Instead these dubious claims are wrongly threatening the right of people to drink raw milk and the livelihood of those who wish to create it.
There is a much better way to spend time on this blog – as Lacedo said – it is still possible to prevent raw milk from becoming illegal in this country. We can concentrate on that.
It is still being sold in the stores. I did buy raw cream on Monday. And I saw the OP milk at the Co-op, I didn’t see Claravale’s milk, but it may have just been sold out.
There was a meeting today with some members of the legislature on introducing new legislation.
Even in the worst case, there will still be milk on the shelves, but there would be the possibility of disruptions in supply. The dairy would have to have 3 of 5 coliform tests be above 10 per ml before any action would take place. Once 3 tests of 5 were good, milk would be back. There are still a lot of questions about testing and, in fact, the OP milk won’t be tested until some time next week for the first time. I assume they are testing the finished product, but all of this remains to be seen.
The Claravale milk was likely sold out. AB1735 is still a non-issue for store shelves.
Amanda
It is highly unlikely that it can be traced to the milk at this point.
Best to move on and take care of your son and yourself.
Grow up.
The milk has shown no evidence of e. coli.
Courts require evidence. No evidence means no e. coli. That is really the only fact.
It is simple as that. Threats will not heal your son. Only your love and care will. Assigning blame elsewhere and not letting things go will only eat you alive.
Celebrate life and the second change you have with your son.