I had a chance to watch the documentary about Canadian raw dairy producer Michael Schmidt on Sunday, again.
I was participating as a panelist at a screening of the documentary put on by Slow Food Boston. I had seen the documentary (“Michael Schmidt: Organic Hero or Bioterroriost”) at the Weston A. Price Foundation’s annual gathering in San Francisco last November, and wrote about the loneliness of Michael’s struggle.
It’s funny how you often see things the second time around that didn’t stand out so sharply on a first viewing. For me, the political nature of the entire struggle for raw milk now stood out, as follows:
1. The fact that the raid on Michael Schmidt’s dairy occurred in 2006, and was the first regulatory action against him since 1994. We now know, in retrospect, that the latest war against raw milk in the U.S. was launched in 2006 as well—with raids, stings, and legal actions against Gary Oakes and Carol Schmitmeyer in Ohio, Richard Hebron in Michigan, and Mark McAfee in California. Of course, it has continued with legal actions against other producers of raw dairy products as well, in New York, Pennsylvania, and California. Now I find myself wondering: was the launch of the war on raw milk a matter of international cooperation between allies U.S. and Canada?
2. Canadian regulators and dairy industry officials are totally unyielding. I know when I first saw the documentary, I thought they sounded more unyielding than American regulators. The one comment that summed it up for me was this: “We solved that problem sixty years ago.” In other words, pasteurization seems to work, so don’t bother us with new facts. But when you think about it, American regulators by-and-large won’t engage in any kind of public discussion on the issue. The Canadians’ willingness to speak out is in contrast with that of American regulators, led by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s John Sheehan, who cower in dark corners, letting their regulatory whips do their talking.
3. It all seems to come down to rights. You watch the documentary, and see the protest gatherings, fundraising events, legislative debates, Michael’s 28-day fast, and you know this isn’t a health issue. The reason: no one is becoming ill! The only example of anyone in the documentary who is sick is a man who became ill from pasteurized cheese. Michael has never had a customer become sick. In the U.S., we know, of course, that very few people become ill from consuming raw milk, but any time someone does, the matter gets played up by regulators and their supporters.
Many of the people in the audience at Slow Food Boston hadn’t been following the raw milk struggle, so most of their questions were about the safety and nutritional value of raw milk and cheeses, as well as about the chances of a loosening of anti-raw-milk attitudes. As I mentioned in my previous post, there are indications of enlightenment in a few states. But only so long as those in favor of raw milk access view the struggle for access as a political struggle.
By the way, I was told by the people at Slow Food Boston that the producer of the Michael Schmidt documentary, Norman Lofts, is making copies of the DVD available in exchange for contributions to Michael’s defense fund. Call him at 416-523-3220, or email snowyowlproductions@sympatico.ca.
http://www.federationsoutherncoop.com/albany/Vilsackspeech.pdf
Many milk farmers in Ontario see no problem with drinking raw milk and in fact drink it themselves with some including myself sympathizing with Michaels cause and believe that the sale of raw milk should be allowed. Unfortunately however Michael was bypassing the milk marketing control process and this is anathema as far as Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO), formally known as The Ontario Milk marketing Board (OMMB) is concerned. Please note that the name change was enacted in a cosmetic attempt to improve its stereotyped image in the eyes of the media and public.
The board claims to be owned and operated by farmers although I choose to differ. The board in fact acquired its power via legislation for the sole purpose of control. It is subject to and is highly manipulated by government and processors alike. The farmers elected to serve on the board are merely figureheads of a government established organization.
Today there is a mere fraction of the number of milk produces compared to that which existed in the province of Ontario in the 1960s when the milk marketing board was first established. This speaks volumes in terms of political intent and sincerity with respect to the family farm. With the help of the marketing board the government has and continues to whittle away at the family farm and their success stems from their ability to divide and conquer. I was just a kid in the 1960s yet I can remember my dad voicing his disapproval with the marketing board and the tactics being used to assimilate and control the supply of milk. What is happening in the USA is no different they are simply going about it in a somewhat different way.
I share Davids query as to the possibility of international cooperation between Canada and the US. However considering whats going on in both countries with respect to animal identification etc., it appears that there is extensive and ongoing cooperation for control of the agriculture industry as a whole.
Ken Conrad
I can appreciate that you are cheered by the breathing room that might come from a policy change, but really, are we to be so glad that the controlling forces deign to allow us, at this particular time, and in this particular arena, to act in this particular lawful way?
Real hopefulness would be, to me, far more fitting if there were some glimmer of change in the paradigm that presumes the right of government to direct and control its citizens lawful behaviors. It is especially depressing to think that our right to obtain the food (food!) we desire may be minimally unearthed because the presidents wife has discovered that it might actually help her own daughter.
OpEdNews Monsanto’s dream bill, HR875
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Monsanto-s-dream-bill-HR-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090309-337.html
The only support wanted by the farmers I know is just to be left alone. That would cost nothing the savings could then be used in the further bailouts that are coming.
I think a brutal economic fact is also at play here, namely, the precipitous drop in local property values and income are operating to shrink government resources which depend on taxes from these sources. We’re already seeing the contraction of local government functions here in Michigan. Regulations and inspections will likely be some of the first to go. It is an opportune time to argue that the regulation and inspection of activities like small local farms should be eliminated.
Bob Hayles: I think you are vindicated.
I attended and spoke during SB 362 informational hearings held in Sac CA yesterday. SB 362 would make changes to the 40 year old antiquated CA Milk Pool market order that is not working to protect CA milk markets.
With CA milk producers recieving about 85 cents per gallon ( $9.64 per gallon ) the milk situation in CA is desparate. Dairymen have committed suicide and milk is being dumped by the truck load everyday.
there are several changes being contemplated to help dairymen in CA and make the system better and update it.
One of the things that SB 362 would do is exclude raw dairy producers from the milk pool. Currently OPDC pays about $15,000 per month into a pool system and can not draw one gallon of milk from that pool. Never before in the history of the milkpool have raw dairies every been included into it.
So it seems that justice for OPDC will finally be comming our way for once.
It struck me so hard yesterday just how scared dairymen were to speak out. Their handlers and political representatives did their bidding…but they themselves even though they were asked to speak mostly did not even show up. Albert Straus was not there….he was badly needed. When I spoke with him last month he was so supportive and happy that change would finnally happen. Just two other dairymen did show and told their stories…but did so in very dampened tones and with tails between their legs. What ever happened to being a little convincing and passionate and demanding fairness? Like you mean it and it hurts. We must engage the poltical process to win this war. It is being opened to us but we must show up….and show some guts.
As far as raw milk on the national political scene is concerned…please watch http://www.foodmatters.tv the piece really talks to health and nutrition as the juxta position to drugs and illness capitalism. Well done….please view it. A must see….
I see a nutrition revolution happening soon in WA DC. Michele Obama is one of us and we need to get her attention. Clinton spoke of prevention and nutrition last evening when being interviewed by Dr. Sangi Gupta as essential to making our national helath care system work….if we do not prevent illness we can not afford treatment of illness in the future….this from President Clintons lips. Now the question is what is nutrition….the food fght begins.
The time is right. Lets connect to Michele and get our nutritional word out anyway we can. Nutrition and immunity are the basis of prevention and sustainable medicine.
Hypocrates said it best…"first, do no harm….and let food be your medicine, and let medicine be your food".
Mark
Maybe this video will help you to understand why so many of us are serious about our access to real food and why we don’t trust the government or the pharmaceutical industry.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5412136843859172148&ei=-Ai5SZbwL57OqwKuoYWyAg&q=mycoplasma+garth+nicolson&hl=en&emb=1
When he talks about lipid replacement therapy to treat chronic fatigue,he is talking about high quality fats found in real living foods like unpasteurized whole milk and butter made from the cream.
Yes. Just a few shouldnt matter. Why focus on that? In the event anyone is curious what the life long consequences could be for a 6 year old ingesting E.coli 0157:H7, you know, those few that get played up by the regulators, you can read a story about a young girl that became ill in 1990. Shes now 23 years old. All was well with her heath until her senior year, and then.
http://www.safetables.org/victim_wall/display.cfm?id=47
cp
Is good nutrition even taught in schools? When I had home ec, we were taught how to open a boxed cake and add eggs, oil and bake it and the frosting came out of a box too. We were taught wonderful things to do with canned soups. Never did anyone say, read the label. or know what you are eating. It would appear that "good nutrition" is in the eye of the beholder.
it is a battle of rights.
The RIGHT to FREELY CHOOSE or the RIGHT to FREELY REJECT is becoming more precious and more important every day.
Bill Proposes Restrictions on Raw Milk Sales NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/nyregion/connecticut/15milkct.html?
I agree with Mr. Gumpert – milk is an inherently political issue. So if that is the defined battleground, (and we do need to define the battleground – they have been skillful sucking us into a losing germophobic discussion – we’ll never win that one….they already have…)
We can’t argue for raw milk; the Powers That Be deny the science, and they control the agenda. But if we focus on freedom of choice, which is clearly on the agenda, and always has been, they are standing in a huge sinkhole. We are citizens of the USA. We demand freedom. Who will stand up and say outright this is no longer a free country? I pity that poor sucker… Just watch those civilians rise up!
We have talked ourselves blue in the face to the opponents of legalizing raw milk, trying to bow to civilized, respectful dialogue. We do, but they don’t… There has been intelligent, scientific, cogent, passionate and inspiring posts on both sides. (Well mostly on our side, but I still give grudging bows to CP and Lykke – if nothing else, you got to admire their perseverance here. They have suffered abuse, and they’re still here. They either get paid for this, or they fervently believe that raw milk is a public threat. Don’t ask me why, after all this dialogue…seriously, I can’t understand their agenda., if they have read any of the offered links. Course, got to admit I ignored CP’s link tonight… Sorry! Guility! I just think I’ve seen it all before, many times…)
What say you, CP and Lykke, to freedom of choice???? You can have your encapsulated probiotics, your faith in the FDA, your adamant insistence that nobody should drink raw milk – Will you give a grudging nod to our choice, our faith in ma nature, our knowledge of our milk sources, and our insistence that any American has the right to choose their poison?
We can have alcohol, cigarettes, Aspartame, MSG, fast food and 3,000 other FDA-approved poisons that are legal. It’s your choice. Some of us think those are bad, but we’re just fighting for the right to choose.
Seems to be common ground here. I think most of us believe we still live in a free country. At least, so far?
I will not disrespect your pasteurized milk any longer – that is your choice, and I allow that some of it may be harmless, especially if fermented. Oops sorry – that was a bad judgmental statement. Drink whatever you want, whenever you want it! It’s your right, and your choice!
Here’s to Freedom! Agreed?
-Blair
Ive provided another link for an alternative to raw milk. Read all the claims listed. Does it sound familiar? She was at this years WAPF conference. Im not trying to deny you of your choice. Im trying to make you think. And believe me when I say I dont get paid to comment on this blog.
https://shop.bodyecology.com:443/prodinfo.asp?number=BE305
cp
Or do you think that the government should choose for us?
Our struggle distills down to FREEDOM of Choise.
Perhaps our first question to all antiraw dairy folks should be will you support EVERYONES FREEDOM OF CHOISE. Their answer will then define which battlefield we are on.
If you look at the world from the point of view of the microscopic life,which I believe is behind everything that takes place,you will find lots of interesting information.Try seaching google videos for mycoplasmas or any other microbe.
Yes Blair. I believe all adults have the right to choose what they would like to eat and I dont believe the government should be choosing for us. I also believe if adults would like to use drugs they should be allowed to also make that choice as long as it doesnt have any negative repercussions on the rest of society. Unfortunately, it does and that is why our government (we the people) gets involved and enacts laws to protect the larger whole. Weve decided that as a society certain choices have a negative effect on all of us. For example, drug use is correlated to an increased crime rate, children born addicted, homelessness, medical costs, etc.
In the last 100 years, milk has had quite a history of causing illnesses. Political, medical and economic forces are all intertwined with our mandatory pasteurization laws. Its unfortunate that pasteurization has given the green light to creating and selling toxic milk. Its madness out of control on every level as to how the cows are fed, treated and milked. The inhumane treatment of cows has caused the drama we now face with dairy products. Making a profit has become the bottom line.
I love the idea of small, family farms providing clean, healthy milk from humanely treated, antibiotic free, grass fed cows. Then the choice from here is whether you would like it pasteurized or not. What bacteria risks are still possible even when the milk is produced on a small farm under ideal circumstances? I believe this is the heartbeat of the raw milk debate.
If you believe raw milk is healthier to consume, you have the right to make that choice. If you believe raw milk is safe, you have a right to have that belief. Blair I believe raw milk is nutritionally superior to pasteurized milk. I believe all the things you believe about raw milk. Where we differ is on the perception of risk. I believe it holds more of a risk than you do.
The raw milk community has an ethical responsibility to inform people of the correct facts, both pro and con, when selling raw milk. This is not happening. Parents are nave when purchasing raw milk and then children end of severely ill. This is about choicea correctly informed choice. The stories I post about children who have suffered from E.coli 0157:H7/HUS describe the reality of a choice. Im not using it as a scare tactic. I hoping it will make people think about the other story of choosing raw milk for children. Heres a quote from one of the mothers whose son became ill in 2008 after drinking raw milk:
Kim Piccioli, of West Hartford, who said her son drank raw milk from the Simsbury dairy, said doctors told her that he may have permanent kidney damage. She said that she had not been aware of the danger of raw milk and the mild she bought did not have its required health warning label.
These types of stories are only going to become more common as the raw milk movement grows and more people consume raw milk. What is the answer?
(Miguel, believe it or not, I DO GET what your point about microbes and the eco-environment in which they grow and thrive. The reality of the time we live in makes it impossible for people to have healthy internal ecosystems before they drink raw milk. You cant blame the person (mainly children) for not having a perfect ecosystem and then becoming ill because they consumed raw milk with a pathogen. The raw milk should not be sold with pathogens.)
So Blair, to answer your questionYes, you should have the right to choose. But with the choice comes great responsibility.
cp
"The reality of the time we live in makes it impossible for people to have healthy internal ecosystems before they drink raw milk. You cant blame the person (mainly children) for not having a perfect ecosystem and then becoming ill because they consumed raw milk with a pathogen. The raw milk should not be sold with pathogens.)"
Those bacteria that you refer to as "pathogens" are not pathogens(disease causing) unless they find themselves in an environment that favors them over the other bacteria present.Since there are two factors necessary to have illness, lets "walk on two legs".Why don’t we reduce the chance that these problem causing bacteria are present and at the same time take precautions against providing them with an environment that encourages their growth?I hope you took a look at the second video I suggested.It explains how to keep your "swimming pool" clean of unwanted bacteria.In order to reduce the possibility that acid loving bacteria are in the milk,we should maintain the PH that encourages the bacteria we want and discourages the ones we don’t want all the way through the whole system from the soil,to the plants,to the cow,through the milking and cooling and into the glass.If you still have doubts,ferment it and see if it ferments the way it is supposed to.
It is just as unrealistic to think that anyone can guarantee with certainty that no "pathogen" will ever be present as it is to fill your body with toxic food and expect to remain healthy.The media and educational system do not provide people with the information they need to make good choices.Most people are not at all aware of the damage the food they eat does to their health.
Your idea of small farms producing milk that is then pasteurized, did not work before why would it work now?The problem is that all of the milk then has to pass through the hands of the pasteurizers.This is how the small farms were destroyed.Once the pasteurizers control the milk,they decide how much to pay the farmer and how much to charge the consumer.If they want to pay themselves more ,they can pay the farmer a little less and charge the consumer a little more.Driving a few farmers out of business doesn’t hurt them.Less milk means they can raise the price to consumers.They also have permission now from the regulatory agencies to adulterate the milk,something that the farmer is forbidden to do.If the adulteration proceeds slowly enough and the public is "educated" as to the benefits of the adulteration ,fantastic profits can be realized.This is why we are told that low fat milk is better for us.The profit in buying 3.5 % fat milk and making 1/2% milk out of it is fantastic.
What I meant when I stated a choice for pasteurization was that customers would pasteurize their own milk. Sally Fallon is encouraging family farmers to sell raw milk for two reasons: it will keep the family farm alive because it brings in an income and it will provide superior nutrition for people interested in raw milk. The second reason is filled with dogma about the safety of raw milk and neglects to present realistic information about the dangers.
Family farms and cow share programs should provide their customers with both the pro and con facts of raw milk and directions how to pasteurize milk. Customers can decide which option they would like to choose for their family. If customers are fully aware that raw milk may contain a pathogen despite all that is done to produce healthy milk, then they are making an informed decision when deciding to consume the milk raw. If they are not comfortable with the information, then they can boil the milk. Let the customer decide. Dont sway them with the raw milk agenda.
And yes, we do need to educate people about how to keep the ph balance in our digestive track alkaline. There are many ways to accomplish this, raw milk being only one of many. Have you ever heard of an alkaline water machine? Its very cool. Our family uses one for our water supply.
http://www.lifewithalkalinewater.com:80/
http://www.lifewithalkalinewater.net:80/
http://www.lifewithalkalinewater.org/
cp
Enacts laws to protect the larger whole = Collectivism or Indivildualism?
"our government we the people" How long has it been since that statement was true?
Over the last 18 months we the peoples government has issued multiple trillions of debt backed IOUs from many future UNBORN generations and gave the money [IOUs] to failed corrupt criminal insolvent financial institutions. Did we the people vote for or agree to our own financial demise?
"our government we the people" I wish it were so but what I see is nothing more than Government of the corporation by the corporation for the corporation.
Can we make a difference yes but unfortunately all that the politicos care about or understand is lots money and lots of votes. VERY SAD
We have to remember that we are feeding the microbes that make up a large part of our immune system and that they get into our digestive system along with our food if we don’t kill them by cooking them.Not all microbes are killed by pasteurization but many of the protective ones are.Do an experiment.Take a pint of fresh milk and a pint of the same milk that has been pasteurized.Leave them at room temperature for a few days.Open them up and smell them.Which one smells best?The pasteurized milk will have a smell that indicates that bacteria have been growing in it.If the smell isn’t pleasant,then by pasteurizing the milk you have selected for the wrong type of bacteria.If you are selecting the wrong type of bacteria,then you will not be improving your immune system by eating that milk.I suspect that the raw milk will help keep your cellular PH up while the pasteurized milk will drive your PH down.The reason is that dead lactic acid bacteria are just more waste products for your system to eliminate.
I see a lot of farmers who are willing to take their share of responsibility to see that the risk of raw milk is as low as possible.If you aren’t willing to take your share of responsibility for the food you eat,to assure that your risk of illness is small,then you should avoid all food that hasn’t been sterilized immediately before you eat it.
If the raw milk ferments to a pleasant smelling clabber,kefir or yoghurt why wouldn’t you eat that instead of pasteurizing the milk?
All food does not come with a risk of E.coli 0157:H7. All food does not carry this extreme type of risk. People need to be educated on which foods are a risk for this pathogen and raw milk happens to be one of them.
Yes. I agree. Fermented raw milk would be an alternative to pasteurization. After the milk sits for a few days and the lactic acid bacteria multiply, if a pathogen was present the chances of it being killed off are high. This could be added to the list of choices a consumer could make when purchasing raw milk. Complete rounded education is the key and then the consumer can make the choice of how they would like to consume it.
cp
I did not say that raw milk comes with an extreme risk of E.coli 0157:H7. I said, All food does not come with a risk of E.coli 0157:H7. All food does not carry this extreme type of risk. What I meant by extreme type of risk is the severity of the illness that can happen when E.coli 0157:H7 is ingested. The food vehicle is not the issue. Whether it be hamburger, spinach, raw juice or raw milk, once in the body, E.coli 0157:H7 can develop into HUS and children are the most vulnerable.
You are and your wife are just two people consuming raw milk. Im happy that you have had such a terrific outcome. But I bet you have also made other changes to your diet also. Raw milk is probably just one of the many changes.
Just because you havent become ill from raw milk doesnt mean that others havent. Its just like vaccinations for children. 1-150 children throughout the U.S have autism. My children do not have autism and they were vaccinated. This doesnt mean that vaccinations arent linked to autism just because my children were not affected negatively. This doesnt mean that others didnt fair so well.
cp
The advantage to fermenting the milk over pasteurizing it would be that you would strengthen your immune system and maintain a healthy PH in your cells.Consuming the pasteurized milk would unbalance your immune system and lower the PH of your cells encouraging the proliferation of the pathogenic bacteria.I wouldn’t suggest pasteurizing the milk to anyone.It is a poor choice.It would be wiser to avoid it completely.
I suppose you will never admit that a few e coli 0157:H7 are harmless in the sort of environment that does not favor it,like a PH of 6.7 with plenty of live lactic acid bacteria present,but that is the reason that fermented milk is safe.
Bacteria live in the air and travel on the wind.When you go past a feed lot and smell the odor,chances are that you are breathing in a few e coli 0157:H7.A healthy immune system has no problem with this type of exposure.Exposure is only a problem when the immune system is not functioning,but in trying to prevent exposure methods are often used that cause damage to the immune system.Where is the sense in that?
I have do own a swimming pool and I take care of the chemicals. The ph has to be at the correct level or bacteria will grow. My pool always looks pristine. I get this concept and can apply this to the ph level in the human body.
I will admit that I believe the theory is probably true about fermented milk and pathogens. They cant grow in that environment and therefore the fermented milk would be safest way to consume raw milk. Raw cheese aged for 90 days probably is also safe to consume. I havent read any information that has documented illnesses from aged raw milk cheese, raw milk kefir or yogurt. Documented illnesses are associated with raw milk and soft cheeses.
Is this what the raw milk community is pushing for childrenfermented milk only? No. Children are becoming ill from straight raw milk, therefore lactic acid is not present in high enough quantities to kill a pathogen. Would you be willing to admit that?
I put pasteurized milk and red meat in the same category. Both are acidic and affect the ph level in the human body. WAPF encourages eating red meat even though it is acidic. If a person eats 80% fruits and vegetables and 20% grains and/or meat in their diet, the ph of the body can remain alkaline. Drinking pasteurized kefir, eating fermented veggies, or taking probiotics puts the good bacteria in the body. Raw milk is not the only way to balance the ph in the human body.
When you have time, explore the links about alkaline water. I think you will find it fascinating.
cp
" No. Children are becoming ill from straight raw milk, therefore lactic acid is not present in high enough quantities to kill a pathogen."
Why is the lactic acid bacteria being suppressed? Is it the milk or the thing that is suppressing the lactic acid bacteria that is to blame?
"I put pasteurized milk and red meat in the same category."
Pasteurized milk and COOKED meat would be in the same category.Raw milk and raw meat(from animals not fed grain)would be in the same category.
"Drinking pasteurized kefir, eating fermented veggies, or taking probiotics puts the good bacteria in the body."
Pasteurized kefir will only contain those bacteria added back to the milk plus the bacteria that survived the pasteurization .Many beneficial bacteria such as Oxalobacter formininges will not be among those, leaving you unprotected from the stones formed when that bacteria is not in your gut.
Whatever is suppressing the lactic acid, if it is being suppressed, raw milk in the pure milk form is causing children to become ill because a pathogen remains alive and active and therefore children are becoming ill. If you feel more comfortable stating that it is not the pathogen causing the illness, rather the lack of a certain type bacteria being able to over take another type of bacteria and that once in the human body, if this host body does not have a perfectly balanced ph, then a child will be come ill, then Im O.K. with that interpretation of what causes illness. We can play semantic word games all day long.bottom line.children are becoming ill from consuming raw milk.
Im focusing on E.coli 0157:H7 because in the year 2008 real live children who drank raw milk became ill and this bacterium was involved. When lactic acid does not kill off a bacteria and it makes people ill, it is now referred to as a pathogen. This pathogen can be deadly. In real life, children have died from ingesting this pathogen.
As for red meat, most people who eat a dead cow cook it. I think it would be safe to say that most people prefer their meat cooked. So you are right, in its raw form, red meat is not acidic. Cooking changes it from alkaline to acid ph. Just like boiling milk changes it from alkaline to acid. Thats why I put them in an equal categoryboth are acid producing foods and can alter the ph of the human body if it is not counteracted with foods that are alkaline.
miguel, I appreciate that youre a purest for lack of a better word. In theory, everything you state makes perfect logical sense. But we dont live a world where people consume ideal foods for creating an ideal ph environment in our bodies. We live in a world of processed foods, toxic chemicals, immunizations and medications. We work against our bodies, not with them. To take someone from this world and tell them to consume raw milk and all will be healed is dangerous. The body is not prepared in the event raw milk contains a pathogen. IMHO, the raw milk community needs to really think about this. This is why raw milk can be viewed as a crapshoot and children loose this game. I dont know what the answer is or if there is an answer other than educating people properly before they choose to consume raw milk.
Children are becoming ill consuming all kinds of foods.The question is how can we prevent these illnesses.Simply avoiding raw milk would be a very simple answer,but avoiding all of the foods that have been responsible for illness would be a little more difficult.Some of us would like to take a different approach.If we rebuild our immune systems by consciously choosing food that has the bacteria in it that we want in our gut and at the same time avoid the foods and chemicals that are damaging our gut bacteria,we will eventually be strong enough to remain healthy in spite of the world we live in.Is there any other alternative that will lead to our goal of general good health?
"We live in a world of processed foods, toxic chemicals, immunizations and medications. We work against our bodies, not with them."
Why???
Why not do our best to work with our bodies and with the natural world?We are not powerless to change this world.We can start by rejecting processed foods, toxic chemicals, immunizations and medications.None of these things make us stronger.
"I dont know what the answer is or if there is an answer other than educating people properly before they choose to consume raw milk."
What should we be telling people who are immune depressed and very sick?Sorry,there is nothing that can be done for you since your immune system is too weak to handle real food?Just continue on eating your processed food,take your toxic medications,and be sure to get all of those toxic vaccinations.Don’t bother to try to avoid toxic chemicals,there is no hope for you.?
You live in a different world than I do.I am living a world that I am responsible for creating.You live in the world that you are stuck with.I don’t have to live in this world alone.There are lots of people who have taken responsibility for their health and their lives.We don’t live in fear of pathogens everytime we get out of bed.
I can tell by your tone I have hit a nerve.
Children are becoming ill consuming all kinds of foods. The question is how can we prevent these illnesses. Simply avoiding raw milk would be a very simple answer, but avoiding all of the foods that have been responsible for illness would be a little more difficult. Some of us would like to take a different approach. If we rebuild our immune systems by consciously choosing food that has the bacteria in it that we want in our gut and at the same time avoid the foods and chemicals that are damaging our gut bacteria, we will eventually be strong enough to remain healthy in spite of the world we live in. Is there any other alternative that will lead to our goal of general good health?
Yes. Avoiding raw milk until the immune system is strong enough to handle a pathogen in the event the milk was contaminated. There is nothing wrong with the goal of regaining ones health by eating healthy foods and rejecting SAD. Raw milk is only one food that is on a path of many foods to help a person become healthy. Doctors are healing children from autism without one drop of raw milk and autistic children are the epitome of poor gut health and a toxic body.
"We live in a world of processed foods, toxic chemicals, immunizations and medications. We work against our bodies, not with them."
This was just a general description of the world we live in. People who become involved in the WAPF philosophy have been living and eating in the world I described. Many are ill and are looking for answers. With everything you know about how important the ph of the human body is for health, how can you for one second deny to understand that ill people would be susceptible to a pathogen if the raw milk they were consuming was contaminated, especially ill children.
Why not do our best to work with our bodies and with the natural world? We are not powerless to change this world. We can start by rejecting processed foods, toxic chemicals, immunizations and medications. None of these things make us stronger.
I agree with you 100%
What should we be telling people who are immune depressed and very sick? Sorry, there is nothing that can be done for you since your immune system is too weak to handle real food? Just continue on eating your processed food, take your toxic medications, and be sure to get all of those toxic vaccinations. Don’t bother to try to avoid toxic chemicals, there is no hope for you.?
A sick persons immune system is not too weak to handle real food. Its just too weak to handle raw milk in the event it was contaminated with a pathogen. This is about a message of responsibility. People can begin healing their bodies without using raw milk. Doctors who practice functional medicine, or also referred to as a biomedical approach, assist in healing people without raw milk.
You live in a different world than I do. I am living a world that I am responsible for creating. You live in the world that you are stuck with. I don’t have to live in this world alone. There are lots of people who have taken responsibility for their health and their lives. We don’t live in fear of pathogens every time we get out of bed.
miguel, you have no idea of the world I live in. Im one of your kind of people. How many people do you know who eat sardines and fermented veggies for breakfast?
This debate is not about living in fear of pathogens every time we get out of bed. This debate is about children who HAVE BECOME ILL from E.coli 0157:H7 (and other pathogens) because raw milk was contaminated. With the choice to drink and sell raw milk comes great responsibility. Sally Fallon through WAPF is leading the mission to make raw milk legal in every state. I dont have a problem with this. What I have a problem with is her false message of safety. Her message has been irresponsible. This needs to change.
cp
Miguel, this is the kind of nonsense Im talking about. He forgot that he was talking about almonds and not raw milk. Organic practices do not inhibit the growth of pathogens. The spinach in the spinach outbreak was organic. His statements are very misleading. Organic means it is grown in healthy soil without the use of herbicides or pesticides. Organic does not mean it is resistant to pathogen contamination. These kinds of ridiculous statements hurt the organic movement , as well as the raw milk movement. Organic will sell on its own principles. It does need exaggerated lies to assist in converting people.
This makes all the difference with food safety. The -sterile is better" theory of conventional farming increases the incidence of pathogenic bacteria making its way into the food chain. Organic farming practices reduce the incidence of pathogens being generated in the first place. Organic farming does not provide a place for pathogens to grow and therefore they can not be spread into the food chain. Instead, good beneficial bacteria join the food chain. This is part of the safety of organic unprocessed whole foods. This is the natural system that mother nature has always used to protect earth and keep life in balance.
cp
Count me as a purist too. I dont live in a world of processed foods, toxic chemicals, immunizations and medications (any more). It wasnt that hard to accomplish.
I wouldn’t want to spoil your breakfast,but you should be careful to know the quality of the water your sardines were last swimming in and the quality of the soil your vegetables were growing in before they were fermented.
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/s/sardine_poisoning_clupeotoxin/intro.htm
"Sardine poisoning (clupeotoxin): Some sardines contain toxins (Clupeotoxin) which can be poisonous to humans if eaten. Heat does not destroy the toxin and there is still uncertainty as to the origin of the toxin. The toxin appears to be present in higher concentrations in summer and is believed to be possible linked to the consumption of toxic food in its food web."
http://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/programme/programme_rafs/programme_rafs_fm_02_01.html
"3. Many vegetables grow low to the ground where they are likely to come in contact with the soil. If the soil is contaminated with improperly treated animal manure as fertilizer or irrigated with contaminated waters, vegetables are also likely to be contaminated. Another cause of contamination may be attributed to the unhygienic handling practices by farm and food factory workers.
4. Consumption of raw vegetables contaminated with harmful microorganisms may result in food poisoning due to the fact that there is no kill step such as heating during preparation that would inactivate the harmful microorganisms"
"
2. As regards fermented/pickled vegetables such as kimchi, if properly prepared, the bacteriological safety of the food is usually guaranteed through the production of chemicals such as organic acids and ethanol during fermentation, or the use of vinegar, sugar and/or salt during pickling. However, fermented/pickled vegetables using raw ingredients that have been contaminated with infective parasite stages have the potential to cause human infection because fermentation or salting (or acidifying) alone may be insufficient to kill the parasites, although human infections following the ingestion of fermented/pickled vegetables are sparsely reported.
3. Although the proportion of outbreaks of gastrointestinal illness caused by contaminated meat and poultry products remains greater, consumption of raw vegetables is also a cause for concern in relation to public health significance because raw vegetables may be contaminated with a variety of pathogenic microorganisms. Consumption of raw vegetables may result in food poisoning because the harmful microorganisms may remain viable at the moment of consumption due to the absence of a cooking step.
Advice to the Public
1. People in high risk categories (i.e. young children, elderly people, pregnant women and others with weakened immune systems) or consumers who wish to reduce their risk of foodborne illness should avoid eating food containing raw vegetables (e.g. salad, coleslaw, pickled vegetables, etc.) because of the possibility of contamination with harmful microorganisms and the absence of cooking steps.
2. For healthy persons who want to consume raw vegetables should take the following precautionary steps to reduce the risk of foodborne illness:"
You might want to read the whole article.
"Organic means it is grown in healthy soil without the use of herbicides or pesticides. Organic does not mean it is resistant to pathogen contamination."
Healthy soil is resistant to pathogen contamination.
http://toxipedia.org/wiki/display/ipmopedia/Soil-Borne+Plant+Pathogens
" Natural Enemies
The most important natural enemies of soil-borne pathogens are other microbes in the soil, which compete for food, chemically inhibit pathogens, or actually attack the pathogens themselves. Disease prevention can be increased by building healthy soil that keeps pathogens under sufficient pressure from beneficial organisms so that they cannot thrive. Certain soil biota have been found to be useful as control agents that are applied to control specific diseases".
Top soil and your soil(the food passing through your gut) contain the same microbes and are subject to the same natural laws.
Despite their similarities and dissimilarities, raw milk stands alone and is fundamentally the only food item that has the ability to preserve itself without additives even though exposed to the elements.
Pasteurized milk rots and is no longer edible.
Raw or cooked meat and fish etc. rots and is no longer edible.
Raw milk cultures (ferments) and preserves itself continuing to be edible for an indefinite period of time.
Through ought millennia many cultures have taken advantage of raw milks self preserving qualities and adopted the practice of consuming cultured milk yet readily consumed both raw milk and cultured milk.
In borrowing a phrase by Adam Savage from Myth Busters, I reject your reality and substitute it with my own.
The bottom line? In over fifty years of producing and consuming raw milk and aware of hundreds of producers and their families who have done and continue to do likewise I am unacquainted with anyone from my neck of the woods becoming ill due to its consumption. Organic or not any of the producers that I have had the opportunity to share this topic with reject the idea that raw milk is dangerous despite attempts by health bureaucrats to convince us otherwise and that we should pasteurize our milk before we consume it.
Your statement, Organic practices do not inhibit the growth of pathogens is incorrect. When compared to non organic farming practices, although organic practices may not prevent a specific organisms presence it does in fact inhibit (to check, hold back, hinder or restrain) the development and growth of undesirable opportunistic organisms.
E.coli 0157:H7 is here for a reason and it will live out its purpose despite any attempts to manipulate and control its presence in our environment.
Ken Conrad
I am sorry if my tone was harsh.I guess I am a little frustrated with statements that you repeatedly make like this:
"This debate is about children who HAVE BECOME ILL from E.coli 0157:H7 (and other pathogens) because raw milk was contaminated."
Can you direct me to some evidence that ecoli 0157:H7 can grow in raw milk without the presence of an agent that kills or inhibits lactic acid bacteria?Simply saying that children have gotten sick after consuming raw milk doesn’t mean much.Finding the same strain of ecoli in the milk and in the child’s stool still does not convict the ecoli of causing the illness.All it means is that whatever killed or suppressed all of the lactic acid bacteria did not kill the ecoli.If the lactic acid bacteria hadn’t been killed or suppressed there would have been no illness.The ecoli would have been suppressed by the lactic acid bacteria.
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:sNJh65D-D_4J:www.cazv.cz/2003/2002/vet6_02/herich.pdf+lactic+acid+bacteria+pathogens&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
" Microflora of the gastrointestinal tract plays a cru-
cial role in the anatomical, physiological, and im-
munological development of the host. It stimulates
the immune system to respond rapidly to infection
with pathogens and through bacterial antagonism
it inhibits the colonisation of the gut by harmful or
pathogenic bacteria (Cebra et al., 1999).
It consists of species belonging to the families
Bacteroides, Fusobacterium, Butyrivibrio, Clostri
dium, Bifidobacterium, Eubacterium, and Lactobacillus . Enteroccocus and Escherichia coli constitute
less than 1% of all intestine micro-organisms. Anaero-
bes dominate upon facultative anaerobes and mi-
croaerophiles at the ratio of 1000 : 1 (Mestecky and
Russel, 1998). A dominant flora represents 90% of
the population, essentially composed of bifidobac-
teria and lactobacilli. ?e residual or fluctuating
flora (less than 0.01%) of the population is more
diversified and contains the potentially pathogenic
species (Tournut, 1993)"
Milk has a similar community of bacteria as described above.
If some agent has wiped out 1000 so that 1 can wreak havoc,is that one organism really the cause of the problem? Is the agent that killed the 1000 organisms important at all?Why do they always place the blame in the wrong place and in fact they don’t even bother to ask if anything was eaten that might inhibit the lactic acid bacteria.
The information on Oxalobacter formininges among all the other gut flora can be mind boggling.
I am confused, is it the lactic acid that feeds it? Lactic is raw milk? I saw that the ABX supresses it (and other flora). To promote regrowth is a processed probiotic needed? Or is there a natural way? I ask because a family memeber has had renal stones starting at the age of 14. Had been on different abx for severe acni.
Thanks so much for the information.
"Finding the same strain of ecoli in the milk and in the child’s stool still does not convict the ecoli of causing the illness.All it means is that whatever killed or suppressed all of the lactic acid bacteria did not kill the ecoli."
I don’t understand this statement. Are you suggesting that somehow raw milk is different – when the matching strain is found in a patient’s stool and the food implicated by the investigation (e.g., sprouts, peanut butter, peppers, tomatoes, ground beef, spinach, or any other food product) and the lab results strongly implicate the product it caused the illness, unless the product happens to be raw milk…then the detective work is moot because of a theoretical relationship between lactic acid bacteria "protecting" against foodborne disease outbreaks? We’ve talked about this theory and you’ve said you are a concerned citizen and partent. I very much respect that, but it is not enough to just promote a theory without data…grants, studies, evidence beyond good thoughts….
I just can’t help disagree. Sh*t happens. Sometimes raw milk causes illnesses. There are specific reasons and mitigation strategies (like keeping the poop out of the milk during processing and bottling – I think we agreed on that in the past). Depending on an unmeasurable (how do you know your LAB are in the right amount, type to "control" E. coli, for example?). That approach could border on Russian Roulette. No need to take such a risk. Instead, isn’t it best to follow good sanitation and do the most possible with appropriate education of the consumer about risks makes more sense. I will give credit (being a bit sarcastic) to the raw milk industry for "creativity" in denial of outbreaks – most industries just say "talk to our lawyers." The best industries actually accept that The Bad Thing Happens and try to figure out ways to prevent it, like HACCP, good manufacturing practices, etc. These are not full (fool) proof, but there are many companies using them with support at the highest levels in their leadership that have *never* had an outbreak. I’d like to study what the companies/farms do right and compare with the mistakes of others that have one or more outbreaks (there are many examples of the latter – such as raw milk having high coliforms before an outbreak; peanut butter having salmonella before an outbreak, ground beef processed in filthy conditions before an outbreak….and on and on).
Ive read what you have written, but I dont have time to respond. I work Monday through Friday and have a family to tend. I probably wont be able to write again until the weekend.
cp
I think that you will agree that lactic acid bacteria are abundant in our environment.Even the air is full of all kinds of bacteria,but the lactic acid bacteria are among the predominant bacteria.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19187144
"Conclusions: The results obtained in this study indicate that specific strains of LAB persist in artisan doughs over years and circulate in the bakery environment. Furthermore, the importance of air as a potential carrier of LAB in artisan bakery environments was demonstrated."
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17969857
" The amounts of amino acids accumulated in the milk were strain dependent. Therefore, there is a possibility that airborne bacteria contaminating cheese milk in the open vats may multiply and contribute to the ripening changes in the cheese"
I am not saying that milk is an exception.If you base your lab work on a false assumption,the results are meaningless.
"when the matching strain is found in a patient’s stool and the food implicated by the investigation (e.g., sprouts, peanut butter, peppers, tomatoes, ground beef, spinach, or any other food product) and the lab results strongly implicate the product, it caused the illness"
If I pick a tomato in my garden and eat it,it will very likely have salmonella on it.It could be contaminated from the air ,my hands,or the soil.It is also contaminated with lactic acid bacteria,Likely 1000 times more LAB than any pathogenic bacteria.The salmonella doesn’t make me sick because the lactic acid bacteria keep it from growing in numbers.If you tested the tomato in your lab,it would test positive for salmonella.If you tested a stool sample from the one who ate the tomato,you would find the same strain of salmonella in the sample.This would strongly implicate the tomato as the source of that strain of salmonella.This not important information since I didn’t get sick.
Now,take the same tomato and soak it in a solution of water with 250 ppm chlorine added.This tomato will still test positive for the same strain of salmonella because the chlorine will not kill it and some of it along with the chlorinated water will be absorbed at the stem scar and will be inside the tomato.Now if I eat that tomato,I might get sick because the chlorine is strong enough to burn the tender lining of my intestines .It is also plenty strong enough to kill or at least inhibit the activity of the lactic acid bacteria allowing the chlorine resistant salmonella to grow.When you test my stool sample,you will find the exact same strain of salmonella that you found on the tomato.The tomato is strongly implicated as the source of the salmonella. Was the tomato the cause of my illness?
If you start with the assumption that the presence of a "pathogen" can cause illness,then it is no surprise that your conclusion will be that it was the "pathogen" present that was the cause of this particular illness.I would conclude that it was the agent(chlorine) that inhibited the lactic acid bacteria and killed cells of the intestinal lining that was really the cause of the illness.
Healthy soil is the reservoir of all of our gut bacteria.Fresh food grown in healthy soil eaten raw is the best source of probiotic bacteria.It is also the best source of nutrients that our gut bacteria need to survive and colonize our gut.Animal products(meat ,eggs,milk) eaten raw will also be a good source if the animals are eating food raised on healthy soil.Oaxalobacter formigenes is not as tolerant of antibacterial chemicals as many bacteria are.That is why so many people are lacking this bacteria.