I have this sneaking suspicion that the more successful a farmer becomes in the raw milk market, the more likely he or she is to be targeted by regulatory authorities.
I’ve written about many of these cases. Richard Hebron and David Hochstetler, the Michigan/Indiana farmers, who together built up a successful operation around the Family Farms Cooperative in Michigan were the first to attract the regulators’ serious attention. Then there was Carol Schmitmeyer in Ohio.
They successfully fought back, but they aren’t all completely out of the woods, and the underlying message has been clear: you get too big, and we’re going to come after you.
We see the same thing happening in New York to Lori McGrath and Barbara Smith. They build up sustainable enterprises, and suddenly the regulators were all over them with listeria findings and search warrants.
Mark McAffey of Organic Pastures in California has had to endure a steady volley of fire from the regulators over the last two-plus years as he’s grown ever more successful, and even though he’s fought them off until now, his situation isn’t unlike that facing Israel over the years. It can win war after war, but the enemy only has to win once, and the game could well be over.
The latest regulatory trick I am learning about is a coliform standard backed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These agencies encourage state agriculture agencies to adopt a maximum allowable coliform count of 10 bacteria per milliliter of raw milk. So far, a handful of western states have adopted it, including Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, and Washington. More on this upcoming, but suffice it to say that even a conventional institution like Cornell University says 50 bacteria per milliliter is fine.
I raise all this as prelude to Ted Beals’ intriguing insight following my posting about the U.S. Constitution on Sunday. He wonders “how government balances these adverse effects from every ounce of Grade A (processed) milk on the public health, safety and welfare, with the rare possibility that an occasional sample of milk might become contaminated with a human pathogen.” I chuckled when I read that because it’s my sense that government authorities have never given even a fleeting thought to the “unhealth” he alludes to. We have drugs to treat asthma, diabetes, and allergies, don’t we? What’s the big deal?
In that sense, the regulators are like most physicians—focused nearly entirely on treating disease—except the regulators are worse. Physicians may ignore the subject of how to achieve good health, but the regulators go after people actively encouraging it once they get a following.
It must drive them crazy when hundreds of thousands of people consume raw milk each day around the country, and no one gets sick! I mean, it must just make them gnash their teeth. Their job is to sow fear. What do they do if people aren’t afraid? What a dilemma. They comb the regulations and figure out how to do a tweak here, throw out a roadblock there, rekindle worry and fear, and make sure farmers becoming successful selling healthful products will think twice before continuing to do anything so foolish.
So after thinking about Steve Atkinson’s venture to build a bottling plant and go legal, I I wish him all the luck in the world working with the regulators. I really do, because he is sincerely trying to do good. I just worry that once he achieves a certain level of success, the regulators will come looking for him as well.
I don’t believe it is "public safety" If that were true then all the recalls, especially the increased recent recalls would not have happened, at least not on such a grand scale. So, no, I do not believe the govt is looking out for me and my family.
As someone had asked in another post here; When you have 2 people who own a cow, which one of them is considered "the public"?
Regulators are doing a job to reduce our risks, and to prevent a food poisoning outbreak. And the same group that criticizes them for trying to reduce the risk to society will be the same group that criticizes them when there is an outbreak.
Raw milk is a risk. Do the benefits of raw milk outweigh the risks, I dont think so. But if you are going to consume raw milk, please understand the risks. Understand why we test milk, what is tested, and the shortcomings associated with testing.
History has shown that there is a probable risk of illness when milk is not produced with the care and attention that MOST grass-feeding dairy farmers take. BAD farming practices produce BAD product. Pasteurization became necessary because people started feeding cows things they are not designed to eat and confined them to "live" in horrible conditions.
Yes, some people are not "knowledgeable" and don’t "understand" the risk. In my opinion, these are the same people who drink alcohol to excess and smoke.These two life style CHOICES are the Number 1 and Number 3 killers of Americans according to the CDC. Raw milk is not even on the radar. And yes, parents give their children raw milk. Parents also SMOKE in homes and cars where children are present and drink and beat their children when they are drunk. These children don’t have a say in that risk either.
Raw milk advocates are not advocating that EVERYONE HAS to drink raw milk. What we are advocating is that WE have the RIGHT to drink raw milk, risks and all, if we choose to do so.
If the regulators are really interested in protecting the public, then they need to take a closer look at how "industrial" food, the stuff that is most responsible for food borne illness in this country, is produced. In order to do that, they need to hire many more inspectors. That won’t happen because they cannot get funding for more employees. Why? Big Pharma and Big Ag won’t let that happen.
Americans need to wake up and take RESPONSIBILITY for their choices. That is what we raw milk supporters DO. WE TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. More people need to follow suit.
I cook the food I give my kids…I cook the hamburger they eat, I give them pasteurized milk. I minimize the risks to which they are exposed. Do you?
As for me and my children thanks but NO thanks. I will educate my kids about wholesome, traditional foods. I will decide when to take a risk of driving them on a highway, taking them in a airplane, swimming in the ocean, and yes, here it comes, drinking raw milk. You see, I dont believe for one second that your tests are non-biased and accurate. Time and time again this blog has suggested labs incubating beyond FDA requirements and farmers independent tests in conflict with states tests.
Please dont insult my intelligence by suggesting that I am not well informed (educated) about the risks of drinking raw milk. I do believe the benefits far out way the risks and that it is MY choice to consume raw milk based on my findings. My raw milk drinking friends are from very diverse socioeconomic standings. For instance, lawyers, nurses, homemakers, hippies, truck drivers and doctors. We are very well informed by our farmer as well. We know our farmer, his animals, the cleanliness of his barn and his passion for sustainable farming.
I wonder if the FDA would ever consider a study of people who have eaten a traditional wholesome diet versus a conventional diet? Where would the funding come from? Could we trust the results?
Ill be waiting a long, long time.
The CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report for the week of March 2, 2007 (MMWR for 03-02-07), provides no such information and no such information is found in any other FDA or CDC document. I’d be interested to see it if you have links.
the largest outbreak of food-borne illness from pasteurized milk occurred in March of 1985 when there were 19,660 confirmed cases of Salmonella typhimurium illness FROM CONSUMING PROPERLY PASTEURIZED MILK.
Yes, I see tangible benefits for my son’s health as well as my own. Improving our immune system has been a huge benefit. I do minimize the risks I expose my son to, thank you for asking. I don’t feed him processed food products, or meat or dairy from industrial food factories. I have met the pigs, chickens and cattle our meat and milk come from. I know my farmer on a first name basis. THIS minimizes our risk tremendously. We know where our food comes from, what it was fed and how it was treated. For over 10,000 years humans consumed raw milk (NOT today’s industrial stuff) and thrived. Our ancestors made some mistakes, but I don’t think raw milk is one of them.
You are entitled to the methods of your choice, as I am mine. Your opinion differs from mine, but they are just that, our opinions. We all have them and are entitled to voice them. We still have that freedom left.
I look forward to checking out your sources for the deaths raw milk has caused.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5608a3.htm
Yes, an outbreak did occur due to improperly pasteurized milk. But lets look at the incidence rate though, the amount of illness per thousand people. Doing the math you can see the risk is much higher for raw milk.
And yes, you can drink as much raw milk as you want….and when you get E.coli O157:H7, your insurance should not have to pay for your trip to the hospital. And if your kid gets it, they should lock you up.
So in your opinion then, the parents of the young girl in Florida who got sick recently from E.coli contaminated meat, from a FEDERALLY INSPECTED facility, should be locked up? Or should that be the INSPECTORS who missed finding the contamination who should be locked up?
If you are so dead set against those of us who chose to live the way we do, perhaps you should not read this blog and throw insults around. I am sure many of us would appreciate your departure. If you cannot contribute to the dialogue in a meaningful way, why bother? You have your own blog in which to voice your opinion.
At the root of the health crisis in this country is the blind fear of microbes.Pasteurization and sterilization of our food supply is not getting us the results we are after In fact food poisoning is increasing in direct relationship to the increase in pasteurization ,irradiation and chemical sterilization of the food we eat. The regulators obviously don’t recognise this,but it is obvious to an ever increasing number of people.
When an approach to a problem is not working it always helps to step back and look at it from a different point of view.What if there are organisms associated with unsterilized ,living food that actually protect us from those organisms that you fear? What if those protective organisms form a buffer between us and the hostile organisms that you fear? What if that beneficial community of organisms make up our best defence against those hostile organisms? Without them we really are defensless, a prime candidate for food poisoning. Please stop being motivated by fear and get to know the microbes that we share this world with.
Here’s a report that talks about just a few outbreaks associated with pasteurized dairy (with citations). If this is a topic about which you want to be fully informed, I suggest you expand your horizons. http://www.karlloren.com/aajonus/p15.htm
E. coli 0157:H7 was created by modern, confinement-based, industrial farming practices (the very same practices that result in milk that should be pasteurized in order to make it even marginally safe). It’s a totally different picture from pasture-based farming that works with nature instead of against it. Should parents who allow their children to eat raw spinach or ground beef also be locked up "when" their kids get sick, in your opinion? Children eating real foods, the traditional foods that have fed humanity for eons, whole organic foods, including raw dairy from healthy animals, have a much greater chance of escaping disease from encounters with pathogens because they aren’t malnourished like children who eat only the processed, nutritionally-vacant foods approved by the food safety bureaucracy.
What does this have to do with the validity of any argument about food safety? This is just looking to provoke a fight, not share information to help us make the best informed choice we can in a world that will always be inherently unsafe. It seems most of us here agree that the issue is not which concept of food "safety" is "correct", but our right to choose which one we believe is "correct" for *us*(and our families) and to accept the responsibility for that. Freedom to choose, not knowing what is "right" for everyone. And parents always have, and always will, be making choices for their children that someone else doesn’t approve of, and sometimes there may be harm done. C’est la vie.
Raw milk poses an unnecessary risk.
This should be considered before giving to the young.
I support the science and statistical probability,. The incidence rate of illness attributed to raw milk is much, much higher than that of processed milk.
I back those who do the right things, not necessarily the government, or companies, or individuals.
Those who intentionally do something wrong should be held accountable.
I just wrote you an email….I hope you will read it and get back to me.
Thanks
Melissa
In my case, I didnt know my child was being given raw milk. I would have NEVER agreed to that. Even not knowing much about it, when heard it, I couldnt believe what I was hearing. Thats how shocking it was to me and to everyone else that heard. Just the mention of Raw Milk made people cringe…. So, you can bet there are plenty of people that agree with foodsafetyguy.
"Food Safety Guy
Blog dedicated to providing common sense to food safety in order to help others make, buy, and consume safe food. It is written by a food professional with extensive experience in food safety, food microbiology, and food preparation and processing. The opinions offered are those of the author and are supported by common sense and practical experience."
Food microbiology seems to be about "pathogens" and "food spoilage organisms".
It is sadly behind more recent research in microbiology.
http://www.rawpaleodiet.org/pleomorphism-1.html
"Pleomorphism of Microorganisms and
Theories of Infectious Disease
Introduction
Pleomorphism is basically the concept that cells, and especially one-celled microorganisms, can change form under certain conditions to cells of another type. For example an example of pleomorphism in human cells might be the morphing of skin cells to connective tissue cells, or of blood cells to bone tissue. In the field of microbiology, the concept primarily implies that bacteria of one species might change to bactera of another species under certain conditions. For example, this theory might allow that under certain environmental conditions, a typhoid bacillus could morph into a staphylococcus bacteria.
In the alternative healing world, and on the fringes of conventional mainstream science, there are those who feel that pleomorphism of mircoorganisms is widespread, and that such pleomorphism is how nature performs various tasks of toxin cleanup and tissue removal in the human body. In effect, this theory states that bacteria simply change to whatever form is most handily needed in the body, based upon cues from the body itself. Indeed, in the many parallel theories of biological terrain assessment and adjustment, the underlying assumption is that
"infection" by microorganism really indicates nothing more than imbalances in the inner biochemical terrain of the body, and that if the inner terrain of the body is allowed to normalize, then the "infectious organisms" will cese their inflammatory activity, as their presence is no longer needed, as determined by the interior milieu.
In these models, bacteria and other microogranism are not seen as dangerous, invasive or pathogenic, nor infectious, but rather as simply responding to cues from the body that cleanup is needed. In other words, they are seen as performing simply necessary cleanup functions in response to cues from the local body tissues. So, in these models, bacteria are not seen as pathogenic or aggressive, but rather, inner biological terrain, the interior mileiu of the body, is seen as the chief determinant of the presence or absence of certain "infectious" processes. Therefore, in these particular pleomorphic models, the interior milieu, or inner terrain, is seen as having primacy in determining presence or absence of "diseases" due to microorganisms. Thus, it would make sense that one would treat an infectious illness by simply adjusting the inner terrain of the body to allow it to become more healthful, thus eliminating the need for the presence of the "infectious" organisms. Conversely, any attempt to treat an infectious illness with antibiotics (or hydrogen peroxide, ozone or colloidal silver, all of which are favorite armamentaria in the alternative healing world) or other "aggressive" means would be seen in most cases as short-sighted and merely cosmetic, as the practitioner would be attempting to treat a symptom of a deep imbalance, rather than addressing the deep imbalance. Further, these theories would suggest that most, if not all, antibiotics and other aggressive antimicrobial means would actually further imbalance and disrupt the inner terrain, thus eventually leading to further degeneration.
A number of theorists and practitioners in the raw foods world, among many other fields of natural healing as well, seem to also subscribe to theories which dictate the primacy of biological terrain. Thus, in treating illnesses which seem to be of microbiological origin, they would favor simply correcting the inner terrain via dietary modification and other simple means. Many people in the raw foods world, for example, believe that the primary reason for the many health benefits derived from a raw foods diet is simply improvement in inner biological terrain. This improvement in inner terrain is seen as due to the fact that the person has ceased intake of toxic foods and rather increased intake of truly healthful and nurturing foods, thus allowing the body to naturally improve its inner terrain.
Modern Bacteriology and Pleomorphism
Incidentally, since Kendall’s time, and the terrible political attacks upon him for his pleo models, pleomorphism has become much more accepted in mainstream microbiology since 1960. Numerous well-known and reptuable scientists have confirmed the basics of pleomorphism, as well as documented specific cases of pleomorphism in a number of different species of bacteria. The related issue of the primacy of bacterial determinism in illness versus primacy of biological terrain is more disupted, because of the tremendous ripple effect which the acceptance of biological terrain as causative would have on the pharmaceutical industry and food industry, as well as the repuation of many leading biochemists.
As an example of modern scientific acceptance of pleo, two French biologists (Sonea and Panisset) published a book in the early 1980’s entitled "A New Bacteriology", which contended that bacterial pleo was now proven scientific knowledge, and they cited numerous articles from various fields to support this contention."
Unnecessary risk? Getting in your car is a risk, and could be construed as unnecessary as you can take the bus to work… I drink it and do not feel I am taking any risks.
<<This should be considered before giving to the young.>>
Uh, gee if you read all the warnings about many items, you are either cautioned against and/or warned of potential harm. It is called being INFORMED.
<<I support the science and statistical probability,. The incidence rate of illness attributed to raw milk is much, much higher than that of processed milk.>>
Is there a reason you didn’t site your source? Or is this just your opinion? I’ve been sick from pasturized milk, at this time not by raw milk. I wonder how many pasturized milk/milk product recalls there have been since,@ 1985 and how many raw milk/product recalls since the same time period, in the USA. You could also add all the other food recalls right along side the milk ones, would be interesting to see what prevails as the most recalled of all products.
<<I back those who do the right things, not necessarily the government, or companies, or individuals.>>
I would think this is a given for anything. BUT, What is right for you, may not be right for me. Maybe you eat pork, maybe I don’t. Should it be forced on those who don’t? Maybe you eat that fake sugar (splenda,etc) I resent having it forced on me, and it is, as it is in many foods unlabled as is msg and other chemicals. As for raw milk, is anyone forcing you to drink it?
<<Those who intentionally do something wrong should be held accountable.>>
Indeed, I would guess that most believe this, at least if it is intential,neglegent, etc.. If Mark doesn’t clean the equipment he uses, or any other dairy to include the factory farms, then they should be accountabel, if a doc leaves a sponge in you, then yes, s/he should be held accountable, etc.
I don’t consider having a differing opinion, even a completely opposing opinion, as provocational at all, in any way. What seemed provoking was just the section in quotes expresssing the desire that those who might expeience illness as a result of raw milk should suffer through denial of insurance coverage or being "locked up". I guess it’s not so much a provocational remark as much as a mean spirited one. Insults and attacks like that one bring nothing of value to this forum. I suppose I’d just like to see the discussions here not sink to that level.
1.I don’t have any problems with foodsafetyguy’s view: "If you understand that risk, and are willing to accept that risk, then go ahead and drink raw milk, or eat raw oysters." I think that is what most people here are saying: let me take responsibility for my own food and health. Unfortunately, that’s not what’s happening in places like NY, NC, OH, VA, MD, and now CA.
2. I posted information on CDC data from 1973 through 2005, and it shows an average 59 annual illnesses from raw milk over (54 if you take out cheese) those 33 years. And no deaths from raw milk.
http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/finally-some-hard-data-on-illnesses-from-raw-milkthe-governm.html
David
Thanks for the clarification. From the CDC report i listed above, people can get E.coli O157:H7 from raw milk. And this organism can be deadly, especially to young children…see Melissa’s story above. Therefore it poses a risk….my question is…does the benefits of drinking raw milk out weight the risks. I don’t think so. I am not saying anything outside of that, so the rest of you can stop diverting the topic into pleomorphism or driving a car. You want to drink it, drink raw milk….just know that there are risks. And consider those risks when you give raw milk to children.
And yes, I was a bit harsh in my statements written earlier….I just hate to see kids get sick.
How can we build up our immunity to the "organisms" in raw milk if we don’t drink the raw milk? I’m just curious to see if there is another way.
I would urge anyone who is considering raw milk consumption for their family, especially children, to add probiotics to the diet first (at least for 3 months) and then start drinking raw milk in the winter months when the weather is cold (bacteria runs rampant in the summer months). If for some reason your family is exposed to contaminated raw milk, your children may have a chance to fight off the pathogen (their digestive has been inundated with good bacteria). These precautionary measures dont guarantee 100% saftey, but its better than trying nothing.
The aspect of the raw milk movement that bothers me the most is there appears to be a lack of caution information for first time raw milk drinkers.
Three other children in California also became ill with E-coli 0157:H7 after drinking OP milk during this same timeframe, but did not develop HUS. All the children but my son (never isolated the bacteria in his BM samples) had the same blueprint of E-coli 0157:H7; which means the contamination was caused by the same food source.
Organic Pastures Dairy Company was closed down and searched for the matching blueprint, but supporting evidence was never found. The dairy was reopened and the negative publicity increased his business.
David Gumpert posted my sons story titled, Memoir of a raw milk illness turned medical nightmare Part 1 on April 1st and Part 2 on April 2nd. If you click on April of 2007 (left side of screen), you can read the story.
Mark Arax, of the LA times, ran a story in December of 2006 called, Can This Cow Make You Sick? If you do a search by the title, you can read it online. Its about Mark McAfees dairy, the raw milk movement, the negatives of pasteurized milk and our sons story is also included.
Im not anti-raw milk, but I do believe people need to know that contamination can occur and its serious business when it does. The other statement I would like to make is that e-coli contamination in raw milk is very rare. Salmonella and Campylobacter are far greater concerns.
I ask these questions, Is raw milk meant to be produced on a large scale? Is this working against nature?
I admire you, Dave Milano, and others on this blog who are living a lifestyle that allows for freedom–growing your own food, raising animals to eat and produce milk, home schooling children, etc Its the lifestyle of 100 years ago before the world went crazy.
For the rest of us, we live out here in the crazy world dependent on others for all of our basic needs. We do our best to live by example (eating healthy, alternative medicine, etc) trying to encourage other people to see the value of living healthy. I have won a few people over in my lifetime. Its the only way permanent change can happen.one person at a time.
For example, a woman I work with is pregnant. Ive given her all sort of information on the dangers of vaccinations and autism. Im not sure what decision she will make, but she is being informed. She has friends who are also pregnant; she shares this information with her friends. The only hope is that one person makes a different choice for her child and passes on what she learns to another.
This blog also serves as a great educator, although most of us are preaching to the choir.
I believe a change in belief systems can happen, but it wont be seen in our lifetime.
"And yes, I was a bit harsh in my statements written earlier….I just hate to see kids get sick."
None of us like to see kids get sick.The medical and food processing and drug producing industries use fear to control the public.Information is a much better tool for us to use in preventing illness.
What you are afraid of is bacteria and you want other people to fear it too.We have seen many examples where feeding animals profilactic antibiotics or too much grain, or both usually,can encourage bacteria to change into a more harmfull form.
Rather than asking the food industry to make food safe for us,we should ask what we can do for ourselves that will help protect us from the food industry.
This foodsafetyguy really knows what he is talking about and is extremely educated and might want to explain what the above paragraph is trying to explain? I don’t get it.
I think foodsafetyguy wanted us to log onto his blog and see all of the infomative literature he wants to share with an audience.
Foodsafetyguy shows no formal education, degrees, certifications to back all of these BIG statements that he knows all too well. At least David is a well known and recognized journalist.
Locking up people who intentionally harm another individual is logical. I do not believe anyone intentionally puts harmful bacteria purposely in food, I could be wrong, but I think that is where we don’t see eye to eye on that statement either.
I am glad that there are people on this blog that share the same zeal for people being "locked up"…I think they should start their own blog about how everyone but them should be scrutinized for their own children’s health. Last time I checked, bacteria is found everywhere and if someone is unhealthy because of the food they are eating at home that is making them unhealthy, well the person should be educated on eating better and making their immune system less susceptible to sickness and disease.
If a child is eating junk food and it is allowed by the parent and the parent does not try and feed the child nutritious food, then who is at fault? The parent or the child?
Do people go around blaming other people at work for catching colds or getting the flu and telling them they should be locked up?
What about all the parents that send their children to school still sick and they get even sicker or make other kids really sick, should the parents be locked up?
What about antibiotics treating ear infections all the time and still no real improvement…should the doctor/pharmacuetical company or the governement be blamed for that repeated sickness of that child, or is it the parents fault for not trying to think outside the box and realize that antibiotics start with an anti and not a pro. Plus, if their kid is still getting ear infections, maybe the child’s lifestyle might need changing, not another dose of penicillin!
In Japan doctors get paid when people are healthy, not when they are sick…that is why we are so backwards here in the USA and we make sure people get sick…look at all the candy that will be consumed on Halloween!!! Who ever thought of giving as well as consuming lots of candy with the possibility of poison, drugs, razors, pins, needles or whatever to children- should be locked up!
These children who are getting sick left and right have unhealthy immune systems and this blog is about educating people on how to boost their immune system by eating whole pure foods and not even paying attention to a person who is food safe and then talks about perservatives having a place in any of our food!!!
I think we should just eat cloned food and man made GMO’d food, so nothing will ever go bad and the shelf life will be forever…kind of like canned foods, he mentions as well. I wonder what would happen if a person ate soley canned food…one answer: high blood pressure from all the sodium and eventually a heart attack.
Thanks foodsafetyguy for your heartfelt kind words and informative education and us regular guys, well, we find it very enlightening! We now know not to ever go on your blog again!!!
If a parent wants to TRY out the raw milk, say, and does, and everything is fine, but one day a younger child under 10 wakes up and starts getting sick that day, with diarhea and a VERY high temp., like 102.5 or so, and the ONLY thing different in the diet was the raw milk, then what would you recommend? In other words, when you say, Fine, if you are willing to accept that risk, what is the risk, and if that ‘risk event’ happens, then what is a new "raw milk" parent to do? .. in other words, accepting risk means being prepared for that risk in the event it happens, like a hurricane. If it comes , how should you be prepared?? And what do you do as it comes, and after it’s happened? Thanks for your insights!!
-a risk-researching Parent
This is not possible is it? Just as you can’t drink the same glass of milk twice you can’t eat the same pizza or leaf of spinach or hamburger twice. One hamburger might be fine and the next one could make you sick. If you only consumed milk, and nothing else,you still need to consider exposure to something in the air or water.There are lots of sicknesses that are not from food.
As far as research,I would suggest that you learn as much as you can about milk ,both pasteurized and fresh milk. If you are still in favor of fresh milk then find a source that you can check out personally. If you can convince yourself that fresh milk is the least risky option ,fine.Otherwise DON’T drink it.
Children do occasionally come down with a sickness that gives them diarhea and a temperature.If you have confidence in your food supply, it is called the flu. If you are unsure of your food you might mistakenly label it food poisoning. Anyone who has doubts about fresh unprocessed milk should stay away from it.
Also, since the co-op that I belong to will not let me know the actual place they’re getting it from, what questions should I ask of the co-op, or ask of the source, (if they’ll let me contact them), When I was very little child, my parents and we kids lived right down the street from a little dairy farmer, and we always knew, according to my older brothers, whether the cows were sick, and how they milked them. Where we live now, it’s not diary country, like it was where I lived when younger. And it’s much harder to find people knowledgeable. But I need to know what questions to ask and what to look for if and when I ever get to visit a farm.
Thanks so much!
To start out,I would recommend learning a little microbiology,especially new theories about the importance of microbes in our health.Check out some of the books written by Lynn Margulis. GRASS,SOIL AND CANCER by Andre Voisin is also a good book that will help you know if the cows that produce milk for you are healthy.After you read a few of these books you will know what questions to ask about your source of milk. I do think you should have a personal relationship with the people who produce your food.
http://www.westonaprice.org/bookreviews/soil_grass.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=-rg3AAAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:Lynn+inauthor:Margulis