In the old Soviet Union, political dissidents were, with the backing of the medical establishment, routinely committed to psychiatric hospitals and injected with powerful mind-altering drugs that took much of the fight out of them.
I raise this example of the brute involvement of a country’s scientific establishment into the political process because I just finished a close reading of the Centers for Disease Control’s report about the illnesses affecting six California children in September 2006, which were supposedly caused by raw milk. While I wondered a few days ago about the timing of its publication—on the eve of hearings June 24 about SB 201 replacing AB 1735—now I have now doubt that this involves much more than timing. This is a political document, not a public health document. Indeed, it is really propaganda, because it is designed solely to mislead and to push a particular political agenda. Here’s how:
- It rewrites history. Government propagandists love to distort history. The CDC paper starts by saying that six California kids became ill in Sept. 2006. “As a result of this and other outbreaks, California enacted legislation (AB 1735), which took effect January 1, 2008, setting a limit of 10 coliforms/mL for raw milk sold to consumers.” As I read this, I could almost imagine politicians in the California legislature debating and discussing the illnesses, and assessing whether a coliform limit might be the answer. Of course, as we all know, there was no debate, nothing even close to a debate. AB 1735 was enacted with barely a whisper—that coming from the California Department of Food and Agriculture. The state’s key legislators have openly acknowledged that they were duped by AB 1735.
- It relies on a double standard. The paper argues that 25 states that allow the sale of raw milk “report more outbreaks of foodborne disease attributed to raw milk than those states that have stricter regulations.” It notes: “During 1973–1992, raw milk was implicated in 46 reported outbreaks. Nearly 90% of these outbreaks (40 out of 46) occurred in states that allow the sale of raw milk, suggesting that even the regulated sale of raw milk might not be adequate to prevent associated illnesses.” Now, even allowing for the likelihood that not all those outbreaks were really from raw milk, supposing we substituted the terms ground beef or salami or shellfish for raw milk. Wouldn’t there be more cases of foodborne illness in states that allowed the sale of ground beef, salami, or shellfish than those that didn’t?
- It uses “science” to pursue a purely political agenda. In addition to rewriting history, the paper in two places blames the absence of a coliform standard for causing the illnesses. “At the time of this outbreak, California did not have a coliform standard for milk sold raw to consumers,” it states early in the paper. As part of its “Editorial note” at the end, it concludes: “These findings suggest that if raw milk had been subject to the same coliform standard as pasteurized milk in California, milk from dairy A might have been excluded from sale and this outbreak might have been averted.”
All this comes on top of dubious evidence—one child didn’t show E.coli 0157:H7, one “she” is a “he”, and one child says he/she didn’t consume raw milk. I wonder if maybe we need to send the child who refuses to admit drinking raw milk for “re-education” in a psychiatric ward. You think that’s a wild idea? Here’s how the paper concludes: “Because illnesses associated with raw milk continue to occur, additional efforts are needed to educate consumers and dairy farmers about illnesses associated with raw milk and raw colostrum.” Sure, brand all raw milk drinkers as troublemakers and send them off to a psychiatric ward.
***
Raw milk moves further into the political center. Now a Washington, DC, “socialite” is sponsoring a $100-a-person fundraiser on behalf of Pennsylvania farmer Mark Nolt. One of his customers, Lyn Rales, is hosting a fundraiser at her Bethesda, MD, home this Saturday to help defray Mark’s expenses following two raids by Pennsylvania agriculture authorities. Contributions should be made out directly to Mark Nolt, and sent c/o The Weston A. Price Foundation, PMB 106-380, 4200 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. 20016. Those contributors sending in excess of $100 will be invited to attend the event, space permitting.
***
The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund has posted a recording of last month’s teleseminar about the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).
Here’s what FTCLDF says about the recording: “The Farm-to-Consumer Foundation offers this recording of the Stop NAIS Now! Teleseminar as a free public service, to increase awareness about the problems farmers and consumers face with the National Animal Identification System, already mandatory in some states. Be part of the solution. Donate to support the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund with their recent Notice of Intent to Sue the USDA and Michigan Department of Agriculture."
on the other hand, from 1980 to 2005 there were only 1,821 outbreaks associated with unpasteurized milk and dairy products, with the largest outbreak of 202 occurring in 2001 from improperly processed cheese.
these data are in stark contrast to the statement in the cdc report (which coincidentally is nearly identical, verbatim, to the declaration provided by california’s witness michael payne).
you are right david, the government has issued more propaganda on the issue.
Mark Nolt, I stand with you in total solidarity.
The FDA must know that they stand on the wrong side of history and they must resign before they are indicted. The FOOD Network will expose them much like Mike Moore in F 911.
Medications are but a small part of healing America.
Solid whole food nutrition is the grander basis for a free thinking healthy democratic America.
Raw Milk is Good.
Mark McAfee
Founder OPDC
NAIS Plan goes back at least into the late 80’s; easily document; quite possibly before that
developed by industry orgs: meat packers, technology companies, large agri-business organizations
wanted to tag and track every livestock animal in the country
by 94 so far along were debating what chip to use and who should run database
by 1994 bulk of plan laid out
intended to be electronic start to finish
no success in doing as a private program and repackaged as a health issue in 2002
industry officials became USDA officials
industry groups became USDA groups
[end notes]
Twenty years is a long time. These people have a very long time horizon. Do we? Right now we’re much on the defensive. Are we acting now in ways that will not have an impact for 20 years, but then have a major impact? No need to share, just food for thought. Maybe that isn’t that for those who’ve been around a bit longer than I. But I think we have a tendency to get caught up in the day to day and miss the long term.
Of course, in the scheme of the battle between agribusiness and small farms 20 years is not that far back. Documentation of scheming on others issues in this battle go back much much longer.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0617081secrets1.html
He wants to know why the food industry doesn’t do a better job of cleaning up it’s act, but I don’t see lawyers trying to clean up THEIR industry’s problems…
Every time folks like Marler file a suit it’s a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Bob Hayles
If a tree falls in the California legislature and Mark McAfee and David Gumpert were not there to hear it, did it still make a sound?
Put a denominator under your statistics. Not knowing how many drink what makes it hard to interpret raw outbreak statistics.
Amanda
Then he said, "People who drink unpasteurized milk probably would be less likely to report outbreaks, because of a vested interest."
But then I can hear my uncle, who told me just last summer, "The first people who sue the farmer will be the ones insisting on buying raw milk from them." He was a career dairy farmer, sold raw milk through a grandfather law, sold out to the govt. when they bought out dairies in the 1980’s, and now believes that farmers shouldn’t sell raw even though he fed it to his own children their entire childhoods – all 6 of them; all still living and quite healthy. The worst health problem I ever knew any of his children to have was my cousin got ringworm from kissing the calves.
For the figures to mean anything to anyone, my son is right. They have to have scientific relationships to each other. But nobody is doing that kind of research. We can make all kinds of assumptions about ratios, but unless we have facts, the CDC’s numbers are meaningless.
Gwen
C2 question some days ago: "How can we get better statistics about the number of raw milk drinkers? I think that is key in this discussion…"
Someone’s answer: "well try to keep you straight.the party line doesnt fly well herethere are people who see right through it.Frankly, few officials have actually earned the respect that they demandespecially when they flatulate the party raw milk is dangerous lines. I wouldnt hold your breath for the data."
Gwen — I’d love to understand why your grandfather thinks that raw dairy should not be sold at all. Why the change of heart?
The raw milk side won’t give up the numbers because if you know the numbers you know where they come from and that gives the regulators away to track the "contraband" by demanding, through court action if necessary, the source.
The regulators don’t really want to know the bumbers because if it turns out that raw milk is really safe it will kill their agenda.
Bob
With those assumptions, pasteurized milk has been associated with 10 times the illnesses of raw milk but has about 100 times more drinkers. That would make the risk of illness with raw milk 10x pasteurized. (We would assume here too that elderberry’s son’s theory about reporting differences is not true.)
If 2% of the population drink raw milk, raw milk has about 5x the illness rate of pasteurized milk.
The risk of illness with either milk is low, but the risk appears to be higher with raw milk.
Amanda
Got a calculator Bob?
"In a recent review of E. coli O157 infections, raw milk products accounted for 4% of outbreaks during a 20-year period (4). E. coli O157:H7 is responsible for an estimated 73,000 cases of illness annually,"
OK help me out with the numbers: 4% over a 20 year period? And E-coli is responsible for @ 73000 cases annually? Is that E-coli from all avenues? Or are they implying from raw dairy only? Would that be 0.8 per year from raw milk? Or would that be 0.04 per year?
"From 1998 to May 2005, raw milk or raw milk products have been implicated in 45 foodborne illness outbreaks in the United States, accounting for more than 1,000 cases of illness (CDC, unpublished data, 2007)"
Over @ 7 year period raw milk was implicated for @1000 cases? About 142/year.
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2004/504_milk.html
279 Raw Milk Incidents From 1998 to 2004 Oh well this one is from the FDA, the first link is taken from CDC– the two govt entities apparently don’t speak to each other so they cannot get the stories straight.
Overall raw dairy illnesses appear so small in comparison to the overall picture.
Someone else can Google pasteurized contamination. I’ll take my chances as I have been and trust my own judgement.
Thanks so much for your insightful and timely blog! You are a true gift.
Amanda, your agenda confuses me. But I do thank you for seeking truth. If that’s what it is.
Re statistics: One 1997 study (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1381950&pageindex=3#page (page 420) showed that 3.2 percent of the population in California drank raw milk
I found the following info on California food-borne illness from raw and pasteurized milk between 1990-2005. (I looked for all outbreaks categorized as "DA" – Dairy.
"Past" means pasteurized.)
http://www.cspinet.org/foodsafety/outbreak/outbreaks.php?column=states&colval=California
1997 salmonella raw-milk cheese 147 people
2004 Salmonella past milk 100 people
1995 Salmonella raw milk 3 people
2002 Campylobacter raw milk 12 people
2004 Norovirus past milk cheese ball 7 people
2003 Norovirus past milk cheese stick 15
1997 Salmonella past milk cheese 31
2005 other bacteria past cream 2
1993 Aerococcus viridans past multiple dairy products 21 people
2002 Norovirus past flauta 22 people
2005 Clostridium past ice cream 23
1996 Salmonella past ice cream 20
1994 Salmonella past ice cream 4
1997 Salmonella past queso fresco 79
2003 Campylobacter past Queso fresco 11
2005 Salmonella past Queso fresco 12
2005 Samonella past Queso fresco 3
2005 Shigella past Queso fresco 2
2001 Salmonella past Queso fresco;cream 38
2001 Brucella raw Cheese (homemade) 4
Total past milk incidents – 16
Total raw milk incidents – 3
Total number of people ill due to past milk – 394
Total number of people ill due to raw milk – 166
(For what it’s worth, I don’t pay any attention to government statistics. I understand their agenda. I trust my source,She’s a vet, feeds grass, and tests every batch. But if she didn’t, I would still buy from her, because I trust her.)
I realize that the data is skewed and this is a fruitless effort….The Raw Dairy Yahoo group has gone over these "statistics" in detail and concluded that this data is worthless. In 2005 we had an outbreak in CO; the CO Health dept reported 7 illnesses but really only 4 got sick out of 37 households that drank the milk. If the household bought the milk but some said they did not drink it, they assumed that they were lying, and counted it anyway. Did they ask about the possibility of those individuals being immune-compromised? No sirree.
Pharmaceutical companies are the main source of income for the FDA. It’s really hard to ask people to think for themselves when their income depends on supporting lies. We’re only human. But I wish we aspired to higher goals.
-Blair
dirty jobs (on discovery channel) recently did a few episodes on big dairy, make sure to watch them, in one they quickly wipe teats of cows who have manure caked udders and while hooking up milking gear you can see the manure flaking off and some being sucked into the line. i guess there is no time or need to actually clean the entire udder (not to mention the cow) since time = money to big dairy and besides all the milk is "filtered" (yumm) and pasturized anyway, so… who cares…
i happen to live across the street from a small cflo dairy and have watched them change milk filters… it’s something you really don’t want to see or have discribed to you.
with food prices climbing and feed corn near $8 a bushel we may see small local farm products gain an even stronger position then the niche green/buy local folks have initiated. with mega grocery store prices climbing i can actually see making a good living off the farm.
the hay is in, the fields are planted, the animals are thriving on green pasture, the chickens are happily exploring all the nooks and crannies of the farm. it’s now time to focus of projects like building / equipment maintenance, new fencing, bee cooridors/hedge rows, kitchen garden and on and on…
imho only a small family run farm can provide a high degree of food quality and safety in a natural and truely sustainable way. sadly with so few of them left in the usa we can’t provide all the food needed, so short of a massive population reduction we’re stuck with mega producers. but as far as national security is concerned you better believe small farms are mandatory. with that said i realize that in the event of a major food shortage or disaster small farms will be swamped and probably destroyed by the hungry mobs of city/suberb folks. we need more small farms asap!
This would be a good thing.
That, and I made fudge from my goat milk and served it at my son’s graduation party a little over a year ago. When my uncle picked up a peice, I told him, "You know you are about to eat contraband," he stuffed it in his mouth and chewed it while staring at me, and then took two more peices. And we both laughed.
If he really thinks raw milk ought to stay illegal, it is because of litigation, not because he doesn’t think people should drink it. This area of the country has some of the highest litigation in the U.S., particularly malpractice suits. When people can get something ($1000’s) for nothing – for being dumb – it might be safer for the farmer to pass on the liability to a processing plant. I think that was the point he was making.
Because the Bill Marler’s will always find victims.
Gwen
Thanks. I was wondering if it was a change of heart about the product itself or concerns about litigation issues.
Lauren
I wonder if it is possible for there to be a way that the litigation issue could be addressed while at the same time giving the citizenry to opportunity to opt out of the conventional food delivery system. Its pretty obvious that the governmental agencies are not in it for the small farmeror the discerning customer. Might it be possible for those who wish to eat differently to take the responsibility for their food into their own hands and transfer it to the farmer of their choice? Would a laissez-faire approach really be the best? Could the government have the confidence in the populace to actually empower those who would do so (and reduce their control over them)? Can urban dwellers have a stake in a farm, a farmer, a herd or a flock, and say this is mine, the rules you make for that other garbage doesnt need apply. It’s an interesting concept to ponder.
I think this is the model that best suits raw milk. Small personal farms, where the farmer is actually drinking what he bottles for his customers. Farms where knowing the customer, and giving them something special, is rewarded with even greater appreciation, a good price and much thanks. Is it possible for the producers of raw milk to police themselves???
Who is policing them now?
Sure, we can wrestle with the safety of raw milk trying to be square-pegged into the mass food delivery system, or we could explore ways that are already working for the bulk of raw milk drinkers today. We can try to winnow through the numbers for a kernel.or we can look around us and see that raw milk is being served in a different, more personal (and safe) way. Where is the rash of outbreaks?
If I were buying raw milk.I would only do it from a farmer that was drinking it himself, and feeding it to his family. This is the greatest insurance of quality that anyone could have.
This is really where we need to be making more rules for encouragement.
Who is policing the raw milk farmers now? Well, that would be the USDA through the state DOA’s, and to some degree, local health departments; and overly so. Do I think that it would be possible for small milk farmers to police themselves? Until about 50 years ago, for the last eons of humanity, they did, so it must be possible.
Liability of who has to pay when someone is poisoned is determined by the law and by the government. As someone pointed out in the comment section after another post, "How do I sue myself?" In a well-written milkshare, this question would be applicable. I agree that it might be the best way to get around the litigation, if that is possible in this country right now.
I’m not sure I agree with my uncle about the processing plants taking the fall for the farmer. It might be safer for the farmer even than a milkshare, but it severely limits our access to whole raw foods. And the idea of processing facilities and litigation all around is sort of sour to begin with. Milk processors are people too. Getting state DOA’s to go along with milkshares is obviously a huge issue.
Someday Congress will enact a law that we have to wear moonsuits to exit our doors, inspired by political donors who own the companies who make them. The government, after all, must protect those who don’t have sense enough to protect themselves, and that is every human being alive.
Gwen
Thanks for the article. I’ll have to take a look at it more carefully. I think it is nutty for the movement not to recognize any risk at all in consuming raw milk. I recognize that sushi has a greater risk than cooked fish, but I still eat sushi.
Gary is implying that regulators are spreading propaganda and then states statistics that look to me like raw milk carries more risk than pasteurized.
Amanda