I was driving today to Oake Knoll Ayrshires Farm in Foxboro, MA, to pick up some raw milk, feeling a tad resentful. I didn’t really have the time to drive an hour back and forth. Why couldn’t I just buy it at the grocery store? Adding to my irritation, National Public Radio was doing fund raising, and I couldn’t stand the incessant demands for money.
So I found an old book-on-CD lying around the car, by Vietnamese Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh, The Art of Power. I couldn’t remember how much I had previously listened to, so I just popped CD#3 (of 5) into the player.
To begin explaining the problem of “truth,” he recounted a story attributed to the Buddha about a widower merchant who went on a business trip and left his son home alone in the village. I guess not surprisingly, it reminded me of the recent debate on this blog about raw milk and pathogens and disease—as well as a recent development that could suggest a thaw, or at least a tiny opening, in the deadlock.
First, here’s the story, in Thich Nhat Hanh’s words:
“While the merchant was away, bandits came and burned down the whole village. When the merchant returned home, he didn’t find his house. It was just a heap of ash. There was just the charred body of a child close by. The merchant threw himself on the ground and cried and cried. He beat his chest and tore his hair. The next day, he had the little body cremated. Because his beloved son was his only reason for existence, he sewed a beautiful little velvet bag and put the ashes inside. Wherever he went, he took that bag of ashes with him, eating, sleeping, working, he always carried it with him.
“In fact, his son had been kidnapped by the bandits. Three months later, the boy escaped and returned home. When he arrived it was two o’clock in the morning. He knocked on the door of the new house his father had built. The poor father was lying on his bed, crying, holding the bag of ashes, and he asked, ‘Who is there?
“‘It is me, Daddy, your son.’
“The father answered, ‘That’s not possible. My son is dead. I’ve cremated his body and I carry his ashes with me. You must be some naughty boy who is trying to fool me. Go away. Don’t disturb me.’
“He refused to open the door, and there was no way for the little boy to come in. The boy had to go away, and the father lost his son forever.
“After telling this story, the Buddha said, ‘If at some point you adopt an idea, or a perception, as the absolute truth, you close the door of your mind. This is the end of seeking the truth. And not only do you not seek the truth, but even if the truth comes and knocks on the door, you refuse to open it.”
Hanh went on to explain that attachment to ideas is the major obstacle to truth.
Of course, the characters in today’s raw milk debate are obvious here. John Sheehan, the dictatorial head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s dairy division, and his followers, represent the father. And all the consumers demanding a change in the government’s absolutist approach represent the son.
But now, we see a sign that Sheehan disciples may be beginning to demand change. In response to Bill Marler’s posting of the “expert” testimony I analyzed in my previous post, a prominent food protection guru, Roy Costa, has called on the FDA to consider, gulp, adopting some degree of flexibility.
In a comment on the Marler blog, Costa asks: “Where is the scientific evidence that proves raw milk cannot be made safe by any means other than pasteurization? Just citing the epidemiology of outbreaks and the failure of current certification schemes does not address this point. Where is the scientific evidence that says folks who drink raw milk (and do not get sick or die) are not healthier as many claim?”
He suggests that “FDA needs to bring all parties to the table, do the science, and through an open and inclusive process determine the best possible microbiological quality for raw milk…”
Up until now, FDA has pronounced raw milk “not a debatable issue,” and treated with complete arrogance those asking the kinds of logical questions Costa raises.
On this blog, food safety experts like Lykke have justified the existing “truth,” but declared themselves open to compromise. But here’s someone doing it by name– granted, he’s an independent consultant and isn’t as vulnerable to reprisals as real regulators, but still potentially (financially) risky behavior in the food protection world—and suggesting the possibility of a middle path. Cracks in the edifice?
" these were kids with above average health it would seem. Moreover, the dairy producing the raw milk had a rigorous private and in-house lab testing regime, plus licensing with the state and all of their tests in place. Yet, the illnesses occurred, and they underscore the urgent need to keep organisms known to cause foodborne disease out of food,"
You won’t open the door to see with your own eyes
all of the other possible causes of disease,because you are positive that you already know the cause.The public health officials also suffer from this same blindness,so the information that could have told us the true cause was not collected.
Until we all are willing to open the door and look at all of the information before us,we will not put an end to these sorts of illnesses.
"FDA needs to bring all parties to the table, do the science, and through an open and inclusive process determine the best possible microbiological quality for raw milk…"
I would welcome an effort to determine" the best possible microbiological quality "for raw milk.We should consider what micro-organisms should be found in the milk and the % of the total bacteria that these beneficial bacteria should be.
Thank you David for this article.We need to open up the discussion to search for other possible causes of food poisoning.It has been very frustrating to be stuck going over and over again the old arguments about "pathogens".These sort of arguments do not lead to any solutions.They only serve to distract us from the search for the actual causes of illness.
I think I disagree with you a little, but not directly. It seems to me that the issue of raw milk has only become an issue over the last year or so. It used to be said by raw milk advocates that there was no real counter-argument – or rather, counter-passion – to the massive evidence in support of a completely different paradigm concerning pathogens, health, and food safety, especially concerning raw milk – except pitiful, tin-pan slide shows dribbling from the FDA.
Yet, now, seemingly on cue, there is another side to the issue. Now, I have debated other issues before – like socialized medicine and gay marriage, sometimes for years. And in a debate full of ad homonyms, faulty logic, bad data etc. etc. – much of which came from me, it was always very clear to me that my antagonists were on the level – so to speak. That is, there was no vested interest except in the truth of their own position. I respected that. I believed that they were wrong, but not wicked. But in this issue, the other side seems full of ambulance chasers, shamefully opportunistic litigants and bureaucrats that could very, very easily have a strong vested, financial interest in maintaining the status quo.
Almost every raw milk advocate on your site has a real name and a real personality and a transparent motive. But what kind of creature is a Lykke? Or a CP? Or a Regulator? And what is the sitz un leben for their position?
So my indirect disagreement with you is this: why are you characterizing this social phenomena as a debate – between two equal classes of debaters? The agenda, or the situation in life of the debater, is crucial in understanding the other side, yet everyone on the other side is anonymous or otherwise opaque. Why allege that the Jew can be brought to the table with the Nazi to discuss the virtues of religious pluralism? Why come to the table with those who have vowed to exterminate all "pathogens" without trial and without understanding – especially the ones which I intentionally cultivate within my own gut? If their motive is nothing but money or irrational, ignorant, superstitious fear of all bacteria, isn’t it a disservice to the polis to characterize this phenomena as a neutral debate under the watchful eyes of Dame truth?
r,
Paul Hubbard
Virginia Peninsula
Paul, What kind of creature is a miguel?
Both nameless – miguel and Lykke – who are they? Where do they come from – the south, the north, the west, the east? Both are passionate in their views. Maybe, like you suggest, there is a common desired outcome in this discussion. Regardless, it is very important that we find peace with those that have been hurt by raw milk – yes, there ihas been hurt.
Accept and move on with understanding.
The FDA lost credibility with it’s corrupt drug approval process, and bad science. They pulled drugs off the market way to late, killing thousands. Their brutal prosecution of alternative healthcare practitioners, herbalists, farmers and others who promote natural cures, and their jaw-dropping negligence with GMOs, MSG, aspartame, and over 2,000 other food additives (remember melamine? it’s now legal in baby formula…), their fear-mongering bully tactics and feigned superiority that backs their corporate agenda… .
Their position on raw milk is so weak they can’t face the president of a little non-profit charity who dared challenge them on the topic. They got owned, and the damage they’ve done is criminal. Most people fear them, but precious few, if any, respect them or trust them.
There are several bills to address food safety, one of them (HR 875, the Food Safety Modernization Act) proposes a complete dismantling and separation of the ‘Food’ part of the FDA. Cracks in the edifice, or entire walls crumbling?
-Blair
Here you on the frustration about making changes in the System…the Monster.
Some years ago Electrical Construction magazine publish an article about an old historical build in the south that had "caught" fire and was destroyed. Of course the state fire experts investigated the incident to determine the cause and issue their report. They stated in their report that the cause of the fire was undetermined because THE BUILDING HAD NO ELECTRICAL WIRING. It would seem experts can carry a very biased mindset even without any money coloring their final report. Am I pro-raw dairy biased you betcha. How did I get that way? By 68 years of suffering at the hands of the snakeoil salesmen of the SAD and watching friends and family members make their painful , costly way thru the disease management system and its undesired ultimate end. My bias is due to the MAJOR health improvements resulting from consuming raw dairy and lots of it everyday.
I dont want to deny anyones else their daily nostrums, and am in no mood to compromise my right to my nostrum ,raw dairy.
Yes Lykke some very good words. I suggest you take your own advice.
Laugh? or Cry? More of the madness and mindset of agribusiness.
And no they didnot hear their cows say let us out of this prison and into the pasture.
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Content.asp?ContentID=301144
If we are going to work together to build a new food safety system,we have to get the foundation right,otherwise the rest of the system will collapse.What is the cause of disease? Lets look at all of the information we can gather.Lets question everything and find scientific research that we all agree on to build a new system.No more assumptions without evidence.
You should abandon statements like this: "Regardless, it is very important that we find peace with those that have been hurt by raw milk – yes, there has been hurt."
Your determination that children have been hurt by raw milk is based on faulty logic beginning with the assumption that "pathogens" cause disease.Do "pathogens" cause disease or are they simply an indication that some agent has upset the balance of our body’s immune system.Let’s start at the beginning and look for the cause of the unbalance.
I am grateful to those brave, pioneering parents and for all the activism that sprung up around homeschooling, for making it easy for me to implement my own decision to homeschool a few years ago. I did not have to endure any hassle. Just as I reserve the right to educate my child in the way I see fit, so I will fight for that right for others. I may loathe the ideologies other parents choose to instill in their children, but I deeply respect their right to do so.
It’s the same thing with diet. Go ahead and feed your child whatever you want, but leave me alone to do the same.
I take heart – if homeschooling can become (almost) mainstream, then so can raw milk!
– Shana Milkie
Everyone should have the right to freely drink unpasteurized milk and feed it to their kids if they want to; and those who don’t can drink the pasteurized milk. Very simple to me….
I wonder if it will ever get posted…
Why is there not more concern and out cry about the hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by FDA authorized drugs ( when used properly ) and doctor performed surgeries every year? Seems like the "raw milk subject" is the football game distraction that the FDA wants us all to watch as they steel away the human treasure of our country.
The NCIMS conference starts on April 19th. I will be there in Florida to speak truth to power and see what kind of rational bridge of factual understanding can be made to "tear down that raw milk wall" and let raw milk flow across state lines. I may not be successful, but I want to take a stand. One thing I have learned…where ever we in the raw milk moment go… the FDA will not show up….
The FDA is a probiotic resistant pathogen and I hope to show that the old FDA arguments just do not hold water.
All the best,
Mark McAfee
David,
Do you think these questions will ever be answered? Would tptb ever acknowledge any "scientific evidence" that would even remotely point to the health benifits of healthy unadulterated foods? It appears that there have been studies that have pointed towards positive results for raw milk consumers. (The asthma et al study in Europe) Why is it that out govt officials disregard that?
I read that Maria (the governors wife) will be having a "garden" planted in Capitol park. I would not want any food from it as the years of chemicals dropped on the lawns will contaminate the crops grown. Do you think they’ll dig up the contaminated soil and replace it with "clean" dirt? Or leave it for our homeless? We have a lot here.