The discussion about raw milk standards, following my post of July 19, besides being extremely informative, brings to mind a couple of recent conversations I had with dairy farmers who produce raw milk.
One of the farmers produces raw milk in New York state, and among his customers is a group of orthodox Jews, who insist that their milk be kosher. For it to be considered kosher, the milk must either come from a farm owned by Jews or, if not, the milking must be observed by a designated orthodox Jew to ensure the milk isn’t mixed with milk or meat from non-kosher animals.
The farmer told me a second group of orthodox Jews approached him recently about buying milk, but when they inspected his barn and milk house, had some concerns because the group’s inspector couldn’t simultaneously observe the milking take place and see the milk flow to the bulk tank, since there were some obstructions. Last this farmer heard, the group was discussing among themselves whether his milk would be acceptable, or whether to seek their raw milk elsewhere.
So milk that was kosher for one group possibly wasn’t kosher for another. This situation among Jews who keep kosher isn’t unusual. Some Jews who keep kosher won’t eat any food that isn’t known to be kosher and prepared in a kosher kitchen, while others who eat only kosher food at home will eat at non-kosher restaurants, but limit themselves to fish and/or vegetable dishes. The Torah is certainly open to varying interpretations.
Another situation that came up recently with the New Hampshire farmer who supplies me with raw milk concerned the matter of when the milk of a newly milking cow was appropriate for sale. Kathy, the farmer, told me that the cow’s milk the first week or ten days was watery, and so she didn’t think it was appropriate to sell. She decided it was appropriate for sale about two weeks after the cow started milking, and even then she mixed it with the milk from another cow. But the taste was different than what I was accustomed to—much less sweet than the usual milk. I wonder if that was because it contained more colostrum than the usual milk.
As in the situation with the antibiotics, the decision on what to do was left to me. In the end, I essentially decided to trust Kathy. If she felt comfortable selling me the milk, then I was comfortable buying it. The last thing she wants is for me to become ill.
So I can appreciate Elizabeth McInerney’s upset at the consumers who arbitrarily set their own standards about how long the cows producing their milk should be “clean” of antibiotics. These individuals have no idea how much antibiotics they consume in the meat of a restaurant chicken or the cheese of a party host. Yet they insist that a farmer who has been completely transparent in disclosing information comply with a very difficult standard.
At the same time, I don’t deny these individuals the right to make the decisions they feel comfortable with—that is part of the reason they are buying milk directly from a farmer.
In California, Mark McAfee, who sells about 95% of the milk consumed in the state, is entrusted with setting the state’s standards, by default. But everywhere else, it’s a free-for-all.
Until marketplace standards are agreed to, we are on our own, and have to arrive at standards in consultation with the farmers who sell us milk. And those standards may well vary from farmer to farmer, and consumer to consumer. It’s part of the price for seeking a product the government would just as soon we not have.
Actually, far from being disgusting or possibly causing illness, colostrum is extremely desirable for its health benefits. In fact, it has long been used to improve health problems in many cultures, and currently distilled into either serum or pills for this reason. A number of dairies now sell colostrum separately for a substantially higher price than milk.
The main reason farmers "worry" about colostrum being in customer milk is that the milk tastes differently and tends to act set up when heated even slightly, as when added to hot coffee… heat turns pure colostrum into instant pudding. In fact, there are a number of recipes for very tasty colostrum puddings.
Unfortunately, this reluctance on the dairyman’s part creates fear in customers that something’s wrong or even dangerous with colostrum, when actually they should be grabbing all the colostrum-"tainted" milk they can get! My customers are always eager for this first week’s milk from my goats.
Jenny
David,
I think I know what you mean, but I’ll pick a nit here… Being on one’s own in determining food type and quality is not a price to be paid. It is a delicious and wonderful freedom!
There is a mere blink between the perceived need to protect, and rolling roughshod over the protectee with regulations, reduced options, and lost liberty.
Daniel Webster put it this way: "A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures." (One of my favorite quotes!)
Dave
On the question of testing, since that is so often used as a club on the head of small operators, I think there needs to be a clarification of WHAT tests should be done, and how frequently, and we as consumers need to know what those tests are and what they measure. As has been pointed out, these tests can be done poorly, the results trumpeted about, reputations ruined, and then no recompense. I would like to see on this site for our collective edification, a comprehensive list prepared for what the principal tests are, what they measure along with an understanding of how they relate to reality (examples that I think are correct: brucellosis is very rare – Indiana and many other states are "brucellosis free" and don’t even require testing – but many farmers test the herd once a year anyway and cull the occasional animal; e coli is in a cow’s poop and many other places in the environment, so in order to contaminate milk the e coli phsically has to be put into the milk somewhere south of the teats; Johnes is a typical cause of Crohn’s disease in humans, yet is not destroyed by pasteurization; SPC’s of less than 20,000 are the standard for pasteurized milk and are generally indicative of disease, and the milk I drink is typically an order of magnitude cleaner sraight from the cow; campylobactor can only be detected in the first day or so after milking, so tests taken later in time are automatically suspect; many kinds of listeria are good in milk, but listeria M. is not and requires (I understand) a second test, so an initial determination for listeria is meaningless scare tactics, etc. etc.). Some of this I may have wrong. That’s the point. Let’s get it right so we all know what we’re talking about.
That much said, I’m also a picky consumer and would surely insist on other requirements – predominantly grass-fed, no hormones, Jerseys rather than Holstein, etc. but I guess I’d be worried in the other way if what Mark McAfee, or anyone else who is conscientious, thinks is a good idea, could then get adopted by regulators in a kind of "OK, so if that’s what you want, that’s what you’ll get" kind of a response. Then, farmers could be endlessly harassed by regulators whose aim would be to choke off (small) producers who don’t have the resources to do it the way Mark thinks it should be done. This is not a slam on Mark, nor a complaint that he’s out to get the small producer. In fact, I think it would be great if there were a VOLUNTAEY standard of care and best practices, so that everyone could shoot for the best. And that standard should be open, and subject to discussion and change. But when/if it gets to regulation, I think we have to be darn careful of what is being discussed. Less is more in the regulation department.
Bottom line: I agree with Dave Milano’s caution as expressed in Webster’s words. Be careful what we wish for, since we might get it.
On another note, its been an emotional day for our family. We had Chris annual (even though it is a few months early) post HUS check. Its very traumatic for Chris to have blood drawn. It triggers all the bad memories of the hospital. He informed us for the first time a few days ago that he (to use his words), Thought he was a gonner when he was in the hospital! He also verbalized today on the drive home that he hates raw milk and he hated being in the hospital. Its healthy that he is able to express his anger, but its emotionally difficult for me to deal with.if I only hadnt given him raw milk.
This conversation lead to e-coli bacteria in general. I was able to explain to Chris that this bad bacteria is in many foods, not just raw milk. We also told him there was no way to know for sure it was the milk. We explained in detail the lack of evidence. This explanation seemed to ease his anger.
Tomorrow we will receive all the lab results..hopefully all is well.
I hope all is well, too. You and your family are inspirational.
Your story about Chris was very cute. It is very important for us to always talk about the horrible ordeal that our children went through. Lauren doesnt even want to hear the words ""RAW MILK"" and says that she cant believe that a cute cow got her sick. I straight out told Lauren it was the milk so that she wouldnt drink it anymore because it was being given to her at another home. I didnt want her to have it anymore.
I understand where you say that Mark runs a clean dairy but it doesnt mean that the possibility of contamination can never happen. Do you have any other ideas, knowing what we know, where our children could have gotten sick?
I was also told by Lauren that the home in which she was given the milk, no longer serves it. That made me very HAPPY. 🙂
Our love to chris….