Each time a major media outlet reports on raw milk, demand rises. And when demand rises, more farmers become involved in production, and some of the existing farmers expand their capacity.
I experienced the dynamic first-hand a couple months ago when I reported in an article in the Boston Globe Sunday Magazine about Terri Lawton, and within weeks, she had run up against capacity problems and was raising her prices. Mark McAfee, owner of Organic Pastures Dairy Co., has similarly reported that each time there’s publicity about his confrontations with the California Department of Food and Agriculture or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, his business shoots up.
What’s happening is that the media coverage of raw milk is expanding. Sure, the reporting may not always be entirely accurate—case in point is the recent Washington Times article which says “a consumer can skirt the law” with a cow share. It’s almost as if it doesn’t matter any more, though—that article will increase local demand for raw milk, leading to more cow share arrangements.
And when the Food Network begins getting involved in reporting on raw milk, as it did earlier this week in sending a camera crew to film consumers demonstrating for raw milk at the U.S. Capitol, in preparation for a program on how food has changed people’s lives, well, you know this thing is going mainstream. (In the photo above, Richard Morris, author of "A Life Unburdened: Getting Over Weight and Getting on with My Life", speaks to demonstrators as a Food Network video person captures the scene; thanks to Ray Cortes for the photo.)
Clearly, growing numbers of consumers take the regulators’ warnings quoted in the various articles not as warnings, but as endorsements, as in, “If the government says this is food is bad for us, it must be good for us.” As more consumers learn about the importance of food choice and nutrition, then the regulators have an ever tougher time, since it means more people are watching them.
When more people are involved, the legislators begin paying attention. I think that’s what we’re seeing in California. I don’t know what’s going to happen to SB 201 and Sen. Dean Florez’s move to replace AB 1735, but even if his SB 201 doesn’t pass, there will be continuing pressure on the legislators to “do something” to keep raw milk available, since so many consumers want it to be available. There are now legislative efforts in Pennsylvania to liberalize the raw milk regulations there, in light of that state’s problems with farmer Mark Nolt and others. Legislation is perking in New Jersey, Missouri, and elsewhere.
If the legislators conclude that enough consumers are paying attention, then food choice could become a political issue. I can foresee a time in the not-too-distant future when legislators in favor of food choice use it as an issue to slam opponents.
I happen to think that, in California, Sen. Dean Florez didn’t take up the raw milk issue entirely by accident. He’s a savvy politician—he must have seen raw milk as an opportunity to gain positive media exposure with a potentially important group of voters.
In the same spirit, California raw milk consumers should make it a point of monitoring who is voting which way on SB 201. The absolute last thing the regulators want to see is for this issue, and others like it, to get debated openly. That means ever more people will become educated to regulators’ fraud. Remember, they work best in secret and darkness.
"More than 50,000 bacteria per milliliter if to be sold as raw milk for pasteurization or more than 750 bacteria per milliliter
after having been subjected to laboratory pasteurization which "
Is this saying there can be 750 bacteria/ml post pasturization?
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_201&sess=CUR&house=B&author=florez
The lab pasteurization test Lab Pasteurized Count (LPC) measures the number of bacteria that survive lab pasteurization at 145 F for 30 minutes. High LPC testing results correlate with unclean equipment or inadequate sanitizing practices. The bill allows 15,000 cfu in pasteurized milk for sale — the typical regulatory threshhold under the guidance of the federal Pasteurized Milk Ordinance.
http://www.marlerblog.com/2008/06/articles/lawyer-oped/raw-milk-pros-review-of-the-peerreviewed-literature/
I thought it might be helpful to bring a bit of rationality to the "raw milk debate." Here is a summary of the findings of a review of peer-reviewed literature on the topic of the consumption of raw milk at least the pros:
There is substantial epidemiological evidence from studies in Europe that consumption of raw milk products in childhood has a protective effect for some allergic conditions (e.g., asthma, hay fever, eczema); other factors associated with living on a farm such as contact with animals and barns showed a similar effect in these studies. Plausible explanations for these observations exist including the hygiene hypothesis and modulation of the immune system early in life. At the same time, no author recommends raw milk as a preventive measure for allergies at this time because of the potential hazards due to foodborne pathogens such as EHEC and Salmonella known to occur in raw milk. The body of literature suggests that further studies are needed to identify the specific factors in raw milk (and other farm exposures) that lead to a protective effect for allergic conditions.
No articles could be found substantiating an increased risk of autism due to pasteurized milk or a protective effect from raw milk consumption, respectively.
Probiotics are increasingly recognized in the literature as an effective approach for managing some gastrointestinal and allergic conditions. Specific criteria that define probiotics have been published and raw milk does not fit this definition. No articles suggested that raw milk should be used as a probiotic.
Raw milk and cheeses may contain microflora (beneficial bacteria) that produce metabolites and other antibacterial compounds that may be toxic to foodborne pathogens. The presence and quantity of these specific compounds, the bacterial species involved, and the log reduction for different foodborne pathogens from these bacteria/compounds has not been defined in raw milk; therefore, these properties cannot be considered a substitution for a kill step.
Although studies have shown modest reductions in some vitamins and other nutrients after pasteurization of milk, these changes are insignificant according to a review by Potter et al (1984), human nutrition studies have shown no advantage of raw over pasteurized milk. A review of more recent literature did not reveal any changes in this position.
No references could be found to support some benefits reported by raw milk advocates such as promotion of tooth development/reduction of dental caries; enhanced fertility; or existence of an undefined substance to protect against arthritis (anti-stiffness factor)
If we want to protect our families from "pathogens",we need to know as much as possible about how they survive and why they can make people ill.Much research is taking place now and answers to some of our questions are begining to emerge.The following article is long but well worth reading.From it you will see that it is not so simple as just using a "kill step" at the end of the process of producing milk,in order to make it safe.Safe milk can only come from healthy cows fed on healthy forage grown on healthy soil.To ignore these principles is foolish.We need to educate everyone about the importance of the health of the soil.All food grown on sick soil is going to cause illness in people.
http://bacteriality.com/2008/05/26/biofilm/
A few excerpts here….. but please take the time to read the whole article.
"Inhabitants of a community live in close proximity and create various forms of shelter in order to protect themselves from external threats."
………………………………………
‘With the above in mind, it should come as no surprise that the pathogens we harbor are seldom found as single entities. Although the pathogens that cause acute infection are generally free-floating bacteria – also referred to as planktonic bacteria – those chronic bacterial forms that stick around for decades long ago evolved ways to join together into communities. Why? Because by doing so, they are better able to combat the cells of our immune system bent upon destroying them."
…………………………………………………
"According to a recent public statement from the National Institutes of Health, more than 65% of all microbial infections are caused by biofilms. This number might seem high, but according to Kim Lewis of the Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering at Tufts University, If one recalls that such common infections as urinary tract infections (caused by E. coli and other pathogens), catheter infections (caused by Staphylococcus aureus and other gram-positive pathogens), child middle-ear infections (caused by Haemophilus influenzae, for example), common dental plaque formation, and gingivitis, all of which are caused by biofilms, are hard to treat or frequently relapsing, this figure appears realistic.
………………………………………………….
"Biofilm researchers will also tell you that, not surprisingly, biofilms form with greater ease in an immunocompromised host."
…………………………………………..
"As discussed thus far, biofilms form spontaneously as bacteria inside the human body group together. Yet people can also ingest biofilms by eating contaminated food."
"According to researchers at the in University of Guelph in Ontario Canada, it is increasingly suspected that biofilms play an important role in contamination of meat during processing and packaging. The group warns that greater action must be taken to reduce the presence of food-borne pathogens like Escherichia coli and Listeria monocytogenes and spoilage microorganisms such as the Pseudomonas species (all of which form biofilms) throughout the food processing chain to ensure the safety and shelf-life of the product. Most of these microorganisms are ubiquitous in the environment or brought into processing facilities through healthy animal carriers."
…………………………………………….
"Although the mainstream medical community is rapidly acknowledging the large number of diseases and infections caused by biofilms, most researchers are convinced that biofilms are difficult or impossible to destroy, particularly those cells that form the deeper layers of a thick biofilm."
http://www.bradfieldorganics.com/soilbasics4.html
"All plants require 16 essential elements, and many require a few more. They get carbon, hydrogen and oxygen from the air and water, the availability of which is directly related to the structure of the soil they are growing in. Loamy soils with good aggregate structure and adequate porosity allow plenty of air and water to reach plant roots. But no soil, regardless of structure, will support vigorous plant life and deliver enough of the other 13 or 14 essential elements unless it is teeming with the billions of microbes that are necessary for maintaining soil health and supporting vegetative growth. Just what do soil microbes do? The list is impressive:
*
Increase availability of phosphorus, potassium and other nutrients
*
Deliver nitrogen
*
Break down organic residues
*
Increase soil aeration
*
Improve water penetration and retention
*
Increase naturally occurring organic acids that stimulate root growth
*
Improve delivery of multiple nutrients to plant roots
*
INHIBIT PATHOGENS !
How do microbes do all this? Soil microbes exist in the rhyzosphere, the area of soil surrounding the roots of plants. They exist in a symbiotic relationship with the plant roots; microbes deliver nutrients plants need and either directly destroy pathogens or produce compounds that are antagonistic to pathogenic organisms, and plants provide microbes with amino acids and carbohydrate products of photosynthesis. Obviously, the healthier and more extensive the root system of the plant, the deeper and richer will be the rhyzosphere, and vice versa. Many microbes also derive carbon from organic matter that is broken down by bacteria, so the combination of abundant organic matter and a healthy bacterial population is essential to supporting a rich and vibrant rhyzosphere. Indeed, the microbe population in the top six inches of one acre of healthy soil has a metabolic equivalent of 10,000 humans, and each gram of soil may contain 10,000 different species of microorganisms!"
Interesting post. In case you jump on this site again, any comment about Lisa’s statement:
"It isn’t even about food safety Mr. Marler, it is about the right to choose what we eat."
I’m a government type that comments here (also affectionately called "Darth," by some due to my residence on "the dark side"). We’ve had many excellent debates about food safety, but the discussion almost always circles back to rights and personal choice.
Should adults have the right to choose to consume raw milk (including feeding it to their children) based on their own assessment of the dairy producer’s ability to manufacture a safe and quality product (versus having the government make decision about how raw milk is produced and sold–or not sold)?
C2/Darth
I wonder where you stand on the question you pose, now that you have engaged the Forces of Light (armed with that which is glorious white).
Should consumers have a right to privately contract for food, including raw dairy products, and what place does government have intruding on that private relationship?
I think your comments on this subject would be interesting too, that is, if we can stop talking ‘safety’ for a moment.
Bill, real world > peer review
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/business/08feed.html?ref=business
"I think your comments on this subject would be interesting too…"
Here’s a long comment…I think there might be a path that the raw milk industry could take to shift me and others toward the "rights/personal choice" side even with respect to children (you know I’ve said that’s my sticky point–adults can drink the Kool Aid to their stomach’s content).
But, IMHO the "movement" isn’t moving toward the light. We all know government has the upper hand, and your industry is perhaps held to more rigorous standards because of history. Bill’s post gives some interesting historical perspectives on some of the mostly non-food safety issues. There is too much effort to re-write the history of raw milk, which is not an effective argument to present to government officials (and it might end up failing with politicians in the long run).
If this were my "cause," a few suggestions:
1) address the outbreaks–past and present–openly and honestly,
2) demonstrate progress by your industry to reduce outbreaks and illnesses during the last century – instead of arguing until blue in the face about E. coli in 2006, really look at the "peer reviewed" and other data. Have there been improvements if broke down decade-by-decade (separating out illegal imported and "bathtub" cheese)?
3) If you can show improvements in safety: make lots of noise about your successes in sanitation and reducing outbreaks and how you will keep up the good work.
4) if the numbers don’t look good (being honest–not cherry picking), demonstrate a clear plan how you will make improvements and measure success as an industry to improve food safety (and why you will do better than the "big ag" industries that are failing miserably)
5) Develop educational materials (the slicker the better) for new farmers interested in getting into the raw milk business and honest information for consumers about the risks and benefits (balancing information like Bill’s stuff and things from the Weston Price site, as well as the government experts).
6) Finally, your greatest strength, I think, is staying de-centralized and relatively small–point this out. For example, imagine if those interstate sales of "pet food" from the west coast included a "bad batch" (we all know it is not being fed to dogs and cats). Your industry could suddenly be dealing with 100s of illnesses and even deaths a la Salmonella/tomatoes right now. Think of the headlines!! At least the debate might finally be over 🙂 Do you really trust that farmer sending product "all over creation" enough to take that risk as an activist community?
Sorry, that slipped back into food safety again…but in my mind they are intertwined with the rights issue. No one in the nutrition or allergy community is trying to shut you down. Nor do I believe "big dairy" is a real threat (totally different market and a "pinprick"–I am quite certain they are not what is driving things like the raid in PA).
C2
Running for cover.
I’ve never heard of anyone using a thermometer to check meatballs.
I agree. It seems ridiculous that church ladies (or anyone) should have to stick a thermometer in a meatball (or maybe a certain statistically significant number of meatballs after cooking). Presumably, the ground beef was "USDA inspected" and had a warning about potential risks and heating recommendations on the label Granted, consumers have a responsibility in their kitchens, but one wonders if they have an appreciation about how "dirty" the meat really is…where do you draw the line? Even if they made a "mistake," in cooking, is it the responsibility of the consumer to fix it? You know I hover between the 2 sides with raw milk…I clearly see a double standard in this situation. It will be interesting to see what Bill Marler is up to with this lawsuit–he seems to have taken an interest in it.
C2
Thank you for continuing to post on this blog. You bring a wonderful balance to all of the conversations. Your point by point analysis is right on target. I, like you, empathize with adults who want the freedom to choose raw milk for their diet; however, I believe the risk to children does not outweigh the benefits, especially considering probiotics are available to mimic the same nutritional benefits.
WAPF does not help in this area. They are too one sided in their information on the benefits of raw milk. I would have much more respect for this organization if they presented the realistic facts about the possible pathogens that CAN be in raw milk. Is there another food that can be vulnerable so many multiple pathogens?
One of the challenges with the raw milk movement is the variety of ways available to purchase this product: the family cow, cow share programs, or larger dairies that sell their milk in stores. Were comparing apples and oranges.
Common sense dictates the more cows involved, the higher the risk for sanitation issues. Mixing the milk of many cows together creates the same dynamic that has occurred in the meat industry with hamburger and E.coli 0157:H7. One shedding cow affects the whole batch.
This is my personal opinion.a disaster is waiting to happen at Organic Pastures Farm– 400+ cows for raw milk. How on earth can they keep track of each cows health? Not to mention the sanitation issues with bottling this much milk. As C2 points out, one large nationwide outbreak from this dairy could change everything for raw milk drinkers in the U.S..
26 states (I think this is the number) have legalized the sale of raw milk. Thats more than 50 percent of the U.S.. Choice is an issue in some states, but the larger issue is once it is legal to sell, what is the best practice for producing pathogen free milk? Children are the majority of victims who pay the price when raw milk mistakes happen and they didnt get to make the choice to consume this food.
I believe parents who choose to give their children raw milk do so because they truly believe that the risk for pathogen contamination is so minute, the benefits outweigh the risks. Is there another health promoting food we view like this? I dont think there is. The only other thing I can compare it too is vaccinations. Most kids seem to benefit from this practice, but the ones that dont, it can result in life long consequences.
Thanks – you understand the "raw milk community" better than I’ll ever hope to, and you are more articulate in summarizing the issues. One point I want to emphasize again from your post:
"This is my personal opinion.a disaster is waiting to happen at Organic Pastures Farm– 400+ cows for raw milk."
IF, a multi-state outbreak were to happen with Organic Pastures (Dairy A), it will NOT be treated like ground beef, tomatoes, or spinach. You guys are done. History. Do you get that? Raw milk is not held to the same standard as other foods: if you screw up, it will be big time. Think about it.
Ironically, I am sympathetic and interested in the differences in the way raw milk is treated versus "dirty ground beef."
I was feeling bad for going back to the food safety versus rights issue with Milkfarmer. But, she and David Gumpert have it all wrong and they should be aware. The issue is food safety. As said before, who else cares what the heck you are doing with your milk? You have no friends outside your organization (probiotics, nutritionists, etc. are not supporting you in any large numbers). The "big dairy"is moot-they are ignoring you.
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. This is a food safety battle and get on board with the fight, or lose it. Your choice.
C2
Im not trying to shift you anywhere. Its obvious that your ONLY concern is food safety, for even when asking you if people deserve to have the right to drink it, you still cant answer without safety, safety, safety. You are obviously obsessed with it, and it clouds your perception. If you could see the clarity in the eyes of my customers, when they thank me for their milk, you would indeed see this situation more clearly.
This movement doesnt have to move toward the Light. Its already there, unlike the misinformation and deception that we are getting from the authorities. Russian roulette, my ass. Thousands and thousands of gallons of milk are produced and sold everyday (and Fifi cant drink it all). If it is really as dangerous as you say, and that kids are at the highest risk, why oh why is there not outbreak after outbreak after outbreak. No C2, the people that are responsible for keeping us safe from raw milk have been playing loose and fast with the facts, citing studies using industrial milk, and misleading the public. Raw milk is safe. Thousands know this and imbibe, kids too. If you really had an inkling as to how widespread this movement is then youd really see how your food safety argument could fall on the most healthy of deaf ears. Its here already, entrenched, and there is no problem. Why must it be against the law? Why are the farmers that are increasing general health treated like criminals?
The notion that rights are intertwined with safety is BS. Officials like yourself have been using the safety argument to deny the right of access. Thankfully there are those who have seen the truth (and its not what the government is telling us), and cannot lie to themselves. These are the people that continue to provide the heavenly sustenance to those who drink it.
Ill try againbut please, dont tell me what the movement needs to do (you are ever the authority), tell me what you think about the right, and actually answer the question posed.
Should a citizen have the right to contract with a farmer to produce their food, including raw dairy? AND What place does the government have intruding on this contract?
We are not talking OP or supermarket shelves here. We are not talking tanker trucks. We are talking about personal relationships between farmers and consumers. We are talking about establishing a food delivery system that is multi faceted, with numerous layers and hubs. What we are talking about is a smarter way for some to get better food. What we are talking about is less governmental intrusion into our daily lives. (How on earth can you be against all that?)
I bet you wont be able to do it.that is, talk about the right without including safety.
Here, when talking rights, milkfarmer and I totally agree.
As discussed before, when talking "food safety", the argument continually goes back and forth.
The regulators cite this study, or that peer reviewed paper. They use fear. What point, other than fear, can be made using "Russian Roulette" as a descriptor? How is "Russian Roulette" a science based backup for their argument? They use examples of possible horrors that, while possible, rarely happen. Look at lysteria, one of the "big four" constantly held over our heads when talking about this game of Russian Roulette we supposedly play. The last raw milk related lysteria death occurred THIRTY SIX YEARS AGO.
The last pasturized milk related death from lysteria was within the last year.
On our side, we don’t have all these fancy studies in different universities all over the place, though there are some (Cornell Univ comes to mind as a place where some interesting scientific defenses of raw milk have originated). What we do have though are thousands and thousands of peer reviewed VERY small scale "studies" that speak to the benefits of raw dairy. Your side doesn’t call them "peer reviewed studies", your side tends to charitably, and often condescendingly I believe, refer to them as some anecdotal evidence…
When Mrs.Smith has a little boy, Johnny, who suffers horribly from asthma, and whose doctor has relieved some symptoms and given Johnny some relief but not gotten rid of all symptoms, decides to try this weird idea she heard about by changing to raw milk, and discovers that Johnny gets TOTALLY asymptomatic, and excitedly tells her Sunday School class about it…when those other mothers in the class, who have known Mrs. Smith and little Johnny for years, seeing him suffer, hear about this "miracle" of raw milk, observe that little Johnny does indeed seem much better…when they see that he no longer has the symptoms that they have observed for years, that the symptom relief is so dramatic that he is longer panicked at the thought that his inhaler is more than 10 feet away…when they conclude that Johnny has indeed gotten better and the only apparant thing done different is the elimination of the government approved milk and the addition of raw milk, and they conclude that raw milk must help asthma…well, the scientific community may call that anecdotal evidence, but I think it meets the criteria of a very small scale peer reviewed study, and our side has thousands of those studies going on constantly.
The point is, the regulators have their "evidence" they supposedly believe, and we have our evidence that we believe…so discussions of food safety will never settle the issue.
It comes down to rights, and as milkfarmer says, rights period, not rights with a safety caveat. Look at the most famous list of rights familiar to us…the Bill of Rights:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It doesn’t say that congress cannot establish a religion so long as the religion established is Christian, or Jewish, or whatever…it says no establishment of religion, period.
It doesn’t say no abridgement of freedom of the press so long as the press doesn’t confront governmental policy…it says no abridgement, period.
I was going to hit all ten amendments, but decided to keep it shorter, so lets do just one more:
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
It doesn’t say "unless the perpatrator molested over five children, or killed at least ten people. It says no cruel or unusual punishment, period.
The point is there are NO caveats to rights. We have a right or we don’t…just that simple.
So, as milkfarmer asked, do we have the RIGHT to make our own nutritional choices, including raw milk from the source WE choose, or is there some part of the constitution that defends the government’s right to only allow us to choose our food from a nanny state approved list?
Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead
Jasper, GA
Thornberry Village Homestead…a small goat dairy, owned by God, managed by Bob.
So Lets hear it. Your stand on the rights issue. Its you that brought it up. Bills view will be interesting, but I think you owe the readers of this blog an answer to the question that you initially posed to him.
Do you each live in a state where it is legal to sell raw milk? And if the answer is yes, what type of sales are permitted?
http://www.marlerblog.com/2008/06/articles/legal-cases/more-revelations-on-2007-topps-meat-e-coli-outbreak/
http://www.marlerblog.com/2008/06/articles/case-news/145-salmonella-st-paul-illnesses-in-arizona-california-colorado-connecticut-idaho-illinois-indiana-kansas-new-mexico-oklahoma-oregon-texas-utah-virginia-washington-and-wisconsin-caused-by-roma-plum-and-round-tomatoes/
http://www.marlerblog.com/2008/06/articles/case-news/update-in-washington-state-thurston-and-pierce-counties-at-least-ten-sick-by-e-coli-o157h7-contaminated-romaine-lettuce/
I am not sure arguing about personal choice gets us anywhere except that we will all agree folks should have free choice – just like the victims of the above poisoned products chose freely to purchase them and consume them some with their kids. I suppose in broad terms, people should be able to chose to consume what they want, but producers, whether it is ConAgra, or your local raw dairyperson, should not allow a pathogen into the product that can sicken you and kill your child. That is where I come in. To me, if you are ConAgra or the dairyperson, if you sicken someone you will be held accountable by a jury of your peers now that is peer review.
Mr. Marler, while you and I disagree greatly, I welcome your participation here. In any issue that is hotly contested both sides need to be heard.
In the interest of full disclosure I also want to state that I consider lawyers to be bottom feeding pond scum, always ready to exploit, for their own personal gain, the misery of others…and that’s the lawyers I like!
With that said, I have a few comments and questions for you…
"I am not sure arguing about personal choice gets us anywhere…I suppose in broad terms, people should be able to chose to consume what they want…"
You speak of "personal choice" and "being able to choose in broad terms", yet you leave out one word that we on the pro raw milk side add…"right", as in RIGHT of personal choice, RIGHT of being able to choose. So, the same question to you as to Darth…do you believe that we citizens living under the US Constitution and Bill of Rights have the right to make our own nutritional choices for ourselves and families, or should we only be able to choose from a nanny state approved list of foods? Pleas pay attention to the "ourselves and families" part of the question as well as the broad question. Should the parents of minor children have the right to make the kids nutritional decisions or do you believe that when it comes to the kids "It Takes a Village"?
*acknowledgement to Hillary Clinton for using her book title.
As you are a lawyer, and law is based on the constitution, I am sure you are intimately familiar with, and have great respect for, the constitution and Bill of Rights. If you believe that in real life practice an individual does not have the right to approach an individual farmer, regardless of any other consideration, and purchase the fruits of that farmer’s labor, please tell us where the constitution gives the regulators the right to deny consumers that choice.
"…producers, whether it is ConAgra, or your local raw dairyperson, should not allow a pathogen into the product…"
Should not allow, or should make all reasonable effort to prevent? Are you asking for a good faith effort, or are you asking for perfection? The last time I checked, according to my beliefs, the last perfect person on this earth died 2000 or so years ago.
"To me, if you are ConAgra or the dairyperson, if you sicken someone you will be held accountable by a jury of your peers now that is peer review."
Mr.Marler,I suppose to a lawyer’s mind that would seem the ultimate "peer review", but, while I cannot speak for big agri and other big corps, I’ll go out on a limb and speak for other small producers and suggest that you are wrong for two reasons.
First, in product liability suits the facts and who done what is rarely decided. Juries, led by lawyers with good courtroom skills, find against the defendants with the deep pockets and big insurance policies and in favor of the little guy, especially if the spectre of "poor little kids" can be raised, so companies settle regardless of the facts, or, if they let it go to a jury, get screwed, again regardless of the facts…a great argument for "loser pays" BTW.
The second reason you are wrong is that you assume that all business, including all farms, are money driven. Wrong.If it was about money no small farm would exist…we are mostly close to subsistance farmers or work other jobs to survive. We don’t do this for the money…we do it because we love it, and the ultimate peer review doesn’t exist in a jury room for us…it exists walking down main street…it exists at the PTA meeting…it exists in the church pew on Sunday morning.
Most of my customers are folks that started our relationship wanting to buy milk and wound up as friends. I eat dinner at their house occasionally, and a couple of them go fishing with me.
If I screw up and don’t clean a milk pail right, or don’t take care in packaging, and their child gets sick, a jury might take my farm…it might hit my insurance company hard…and it wouldn’t bother me one bit…I’m mortgaged to the hilt with no equity to lose and that’s what I pay insurance premiums for, so ther is none of your "peer review" there.
For me, and I think for most of us raw dairy producers, our peer review would come when we came face to face with that child’s mother in the grocery checkout line and she asked one question. "Why?"
It would come when I took my truck to the shop for brakes and the child’s father, who I was fishing with last week, was there getting his car tuned up and he looked at me and didn’t say a word…just started crying.
It would come when I drove to town and passed the funeral home, which has a marqueee with the current pending funeralee’s names on it…and that kid’s name was there…because I screwed up.
Mr. Marler, THAT is peer review…not some worthless jury decision that didn’t give a damn about facts, that just found the deep pockets…like a Jack in the Box jury that returned a $40,000,000 decision with the lawyer getting 30-50%.
By the way…would you have taken that case Pro Bono?
Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead
Jasper, GA
7063692.7004
Thornberry Village Homestead…a small goat dairy, owned by God,managed by Bob.
Alright, I will try again. But there is a point of confusion. How do you separate "rights" from "rules." This is just to explain my question (not compare milk and seat belts)…if we were talking about seat belts and someone didn’t wear theirs and got a ticket–could they argue their right not to wear a seat belt?
Here’s where I’m coming from…the bans or restrictions on raw milk were put in place because of you know what (real or not real). I think you have the right to overturn these rules by convincing the "powers that be" why they are not needed. Then go forward with your raw milk consumption legally. As said before, I might personally support direct sales like farmers markets, and would like to see government oversight at the "local level" where any potential "problems" could be recognized and nipped in the bud quickly.
The second aspect of my question to Bill (hope he has time to answer) related to the consumer choosing their source of milk versus the government doing it for them (e.g., by retricting access). Again, I think that might work fine at the local level…like when Bob sells his neighbor a gallon of goat milk at farmer’s market, I am still opposed to larger scale raw milk production and distribution. Things are different in my mind when these products enter the realm of grocery stores and internet sales.
Also, I didn’t mean to sound "authoratitive" but can see how you’d read it that way. I was just sharing some ideas about how you could get "us" off your back–and then focus on rights, nutritional claims, etc.
C2
The authors of that study concluded with the party line – raw milk has other dangers from pathogens, therefore don’t rush out and consume it for allergy relief. No surprise there. In fact, it’s an acknowledgment of the power of the study’s findings, which stood for more than it was "summarized" to stand for.
Science is inherently political, and no more so than in a hired-gun litigation context. All a litigator has to do in a civil case, is prove his case more probable than not (51%) if he even takes it to a jury. It’s a sophisticated public relations ploy in essence, to build some kind of a sense of inevitability sufficient to cause the defense to crumble in fear. Particularly since the way of science is inherently one-dimensional ("reductionist") due to its mandate to be replicable, science thus has blinders, unlike the much-maligned "anecdotal" experience into which "reality" must, some believe, be injected. Skilled litigators make a career of engineering science opinion into pointed objects designed to….make their point.
Should the consumer of raw milk (of any food, let’s face it) be protected against pathogens? Of course, to the maximum extent feasible. In this regard, according to the FDA’s latest warnings, the entire country must now be fearful of red tomatoes of several different sizes and shapes. Let’s hope that some of Mr. Marler’s zeal is being directed at tainted tomatoes, even as we speak.
How should the protection against pathogens in raw milk happen? The opinions range from a ban on it, fostered by those who believe they know what’s good for the rest of us, through small-scale relationships and cow shares, through large-scale such as OPDC, on through mega-scale pasteurization with kill steps. In this country, the ultimate control for malfeasance is through litigation "Peer Review" as Mr. Marler describes it. I think everyone needs to stand up and be responsible for what they do. The problem I have with crusaders, is they are inclined to take the exception – the bad case, the unfortunate exception – and hold it up as the rule, and then club the public over the head with that case in their zeal to make the world perfect. This kind of logic is inherently unscientific, since it takes the exception and fashions a rule from it, thereby denying choice.
This blog and WAPF (despite the heat it takes here occasionally) have actually advanced the dialogue by several orders of magnitude from where it started nearly two years ago, in the heat of the Ann Arbor bust of Family Farms Co-op. The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund is now in its second printing of the Raw Milk Production Handbook ($6.00 from http://www.farmtoconsumer.org), and one of the references in the Handbook is the excellent consumer guide to proper handling of raw milk written by Peg Beals (an RN, wife of Ted Beals, MD: pegbeals@msn.com), which does not flinch in describing risks and the care required. So, new information is forthcoming, matching what David correctly (I believe) characterizes as an ever-increasing ground swell of interest and support for this food.
I have argued that this country can tolerate choice in this spectrum, derived from our inherent right to choose what we eat (or smoke, or drink, to recall tobacco and alcohol "freedoms" which we still enjoy). There is simply too much anecdotal evidence, derived from the multidimensional, complex world of experience that we call life, which shows that raw milk has undeniable benefits. And if science says these benefits are illusory – so what. Science has a long track record of being wrong, indeed the errors are the important way by which progress is made.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts in this sometimes hostile environment. IMHO your clients (or victims as you say) very much have a right to sue and you are doing your job representing them. Your job pays more than government work or small farming, but we choose our professions and some just pay more than others–that doesn’t make you "heartless." I like your blog–good information.
Darth
You posted a little about the Waser article (no, I am not being selective, just researching). You are right that both farm and non-farm families were included in the study, but the bullets do not say the relationship was due to "farm living;" the summary is very specific that it was "farm milk."
Waser, M., K. B. Michels, C. Bieli, H. Floistrup, G. Pershagen, E. von Mutius, M. Ege, J. Riedler, D. Schram-Bijkerk, B. Brunekreef, M. van Hage, R. Lauener, and C. Braun-Fahrlander. 2007. Inverse association of farm milk consumption with asthma and allergy in rural and suburban populations across Europe. Clin Exp Allergy 37:661-70.
NOTE: a major limitation of this study raw milk was not distinguished from boiled farm milk
Study enrolled 14,893 children aged 5-13 from 5 European countries (children from farm and non-farm environments)
Maybe it is all a waste of time to argue about rights and safety,when the availability of food may make these all irrelevant.
The factory system of food production will simply implode.
"Across the nation, factory farms of all types are wreaking environmental havoc. A 1995 North Carolina manure spill killed 10 million fish and closed 364,000 acres of coastal shellfish beds. In 2004 the Iowa Department of Natural Resources recorded ammonia levels near a hog factory that were six times the recommended health standard. In Californias San Joaquin Valley, air pollution from factory dairy farms is a major reason that the regions children have asthma rates three times the national average. In eastern New Mexicothe states factory dairy farm beltrecent research discovered antibiotic-resistant bacteria in dairy yards. For these reasons, the American Public Health Association has urged all levels of government to impose a moratorium on new CAFOs until a comprehensive environmental and health assessment can be conducted."
"Herein lies the rub. The same government and private industry partnership that brought CAFOs to Americas marginalized rural communities is highly invested in not just keeping them there, but in seeing them metastasize. Through lax environmental regulations or the under-funding of agencies charged with regulating CAFOs, state governments have fostered CAFO-friendly policies at the publics expense. To further protect their flank, factory farm interests have worked aggressively in state legislatures to restrict the ability of local government to keep CAFOs out of their communities. And just to be sure, New Mexicos dairy industry considers it an act of civic duty for its farmer members to serve on local commissions and boards."
"The halls of academe have likewise been compromised by CAFO industry donations to universities. Rather than use their scientific talents to assess the impact of CAFOs, research faculty are required to solve the industrys problems (e.g., disposing of Himalayan mountains of manure). In 1998, New Mexico State University researcher Stephen Arnold found serious air and water quality problems near dairy operations in southern New Mexico. When the results were released through professional journals and conferences, the dairy industry complained so vehemently to the university that Arnold abandoned his research. And the Kerr Centers Poole reports, Oklahoma State University wont do community impact research because of all the money they get from the pork industry.
Are the research reports, the scientific studies, and the occasional manure spill only isolated factoids in an otherwise benign landscape of inevitable agricultural modernization? Or is the increasing flow of data and the growing number of incident reports the proverbial canary in a coal mine? A recent World Watch Institute paper pronounced, Factory Farms are breaking the cycle between small farmers, their animals and the environment, with collateral damage to human health and local communities. And the Washington Post reported on North Carolina State University professor C.M. Mike Williams, who has spent five years researching how to treat manure from the states 10 million hogs. He concluded, I do not feel that system [of factory hog farms] is long-term sustainable.
"Dr. Charles Benbrook, a former executive director of the Board of Agriculture for the National Academy of Science, shares Williams assessment. After years spent studying the dairy industry, Benbrook says he is perplexed by the growth of gargantuan dairy farms west of the Mississippi where subsidized water supplies in an otherwise dry landscape have made the expansion of dairy herds feasiblein the short term. In the long term, says Benbrook, further expansion of factory dairy farms doesnt make sense and is patently unsustainable because water will become too costly, and in not less than five years, but surely no more than 20, the dairy waste stream will overwhelm the absorptive capacity of the local environment.
"In other words, our food system may be looking at a doomsday denouement before the middle of this century. It is becoming increasingly certain that the water will run out, the land will no longer absorb the torrent of nutrient waste spread upon it, and the over-bred, antibiotic and hormone-injected animals will eventually succumb to their natural limitations. Poole puts it this way, The factory system of food production will simply implode. Until the citizens of the heartland rise up in sufficient numbers to hold their government and the corporations accountable, this is both the best and worst we can hope for."
I haven’t researched raw milk in a while, but just wanted to suggest you’ll find solid research on the individual components of raw milk (e.g. enzymes such as lactoperoxidase, lactoferrin, phosphatase, nisin; and fatty acids such as Lauric acid,butyric,stearic, caprylic & capric acids, CLA is known to help with weight loss and cancer. There just isn’t much info on "raw milk", but plenty on its components. (Follow the money…)
The FDA allows sales of these individual components, but not the whole food. In fact they approved lactoferrin as an effective antimicrobial in beef slaughter houses.
I suspect pharmaceutical lobbyists are more numerous than dairy lobbyists. Legalizing raw milk would decimate drug sales. Anti-biotic resistant "super-bugs" can’t survive nature’s antimicrobial sources.
If you’re sincerely interested in learning about raw milk you’ll find loads of Agriculture studies.
-Blair
"I haven’t researched raw milk in a while, but just wanted to suggest you’ll find solid research on the individual components of raw milk"
Do you think it is wrong to "separate" those individual components from raw milk and use them therapeutically? Wouldn’t it be a win-win to keep the beneficial components of raw milk by adding them to pasteurized milk, while still getting rid of the pathogens as some of that literature might suggest? Interesting article…
Adv Food Nutr Res. 2007;53:161-98.
Designer milk.
Sabikhi L.
Dairy Technology Division, National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal 132001,
Haryana, India.
Dairy biotechnology is fast gaining ground in the area of altering milk
composition for processing and/or animal and human health by employing
nutritional and genetic approaches. Modification of the primary structure of
casein, alteration in the lipid profile, increased protein recovery, milk
containing nutraceuticals, and replacement for infant formula offer several
advantages in the area of processing. Less fat in milk, altered fatty acid
profiles to include more healthy fatty acids such as CLA and omega-fats, improved
amino acid profiles, more protein, less lactose, and absence of
beta-lactoglobulin (beta-LG) are some opportunities of "designing" milk for human
health benefits. Transgenic technology has also produced farm animals that
secrete in their milk, human lactoferrin, lysozyme, and lipase so as to simulate
human milk in terms of quality and quantity of these elements that are protective
to infants. Cow milk allergenicity in children could be reduced by eliminating
the beta-LG gene from bovines. Animals that produce milk containing therapeutic
agents such as insulin, plasma proteins, drugs, and vaccines for human health
have been genetically engineered. In order to cater to animal health, transgenic
animals that express in their mammary glands, various components that work
against mastitis have been generated. The ultimate acceptability of the
"designer" products will depend on ethical issues such as animal welfare and
safety, besides better health benefits and increased profitability of products
manufactured by the novel techniques."
C2
I break a few meatballs open to "look" for doneness too. Dad grinds the ground beef here, as long as he cleans the grinder well, I don’t worry.
Perhaps the "USDA inspected" meat was not throughly inspected? Does the USDA test each batch of ground beef for pathogens?
I agree, many people probably have no clue just how "dirty" the foods they purchase really are. Ground beef, propably being some of the worst. Many people eat rare burgers. I think there is a false sense of security that the "inspectors" are checking all meats/foods for pathogens, and that simply is not true.
Yes, consumers do have a responsibility in their kitchens. Drawing the line? If I buy meat that is "inspected" then I would assume that they inspected for cleanliness of the processing environment and any pathogens in or on the meat.
The USDA knows people consume rare meat, what inspecting processes do they have that ensures the safety of the population?
Perhaps the meat was contaminated when purchased? How will the consumer know this?
"Your industry could suddenly be dealing with 100s of illnesses and even deaths a la Salmonella/tomatoes right now. Think of the headlines!! At least the debate might finally be over 🙂 Do you really trust that farmer sending product "all over creation" enough to take that risk as an activist community?"
I assume you are referring to OP? I’d trust him over the govt and factory farms any day.
Perhaps the "USDA inspected" meat was not throughly inspected?…The USDA knows people consume rare meat, what inspecting processes do they have that ensures the safety of the population?
A relevant post from Bill’s blog that speaks right to your point (I personally almost never eat hamburger–though agree that doing your own grinding after picking a reasonable "safe" source of beef could reduce risk–don’t trust others to do so…).
More Revelations on 2007 Topps Meat E. coli Outbreak
Posted on June 8, 2008 by E. coli Attorney
Crack Meat Guy Jeff Gold reported on USDA papers: Burger recall followed riskier procedures. I would urge readers to look this over interesting story on the real lack of USDA and FSIS oversight on these plants and why we have seen an increase in E. coli O157:H7 illnesses since 2007. Ill just leave you with a couple of highlights:
From FSISs perspective:
"Clearly, something was missed at Topps" when the company became "complacent," Kenneth Petersen, head of the national Office of Field Operations for the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, conceded in an interview. In a separate interview, Petersen said Topps had decreased end-of-line testing for E. coli from monthly to three times a year. "Somewhere, I don’t know if lazy is the right word, but they got complacent," he said.
More
http://www.marlerblog.com/2008/06/articles/legal-cases/more-revelations-on-2007-topps-meat-e-coli-outbreak/
"Do you think it is wrong to "separate" those individual components from raw milk and use them therapeutically? Wouldn’t it be a win-win to keep the beneficial components of raw milk by adding them to pasteurized milk, while still getting rid of the pathogens as some of that literature might suggest?"
C2, yes I do think it is wrong. Research shows that the human body is designed to process whole foods, not extracts from whole foods.Our bodies were designed to digest whole foods from
rich soils.
You seem to think that food science can outsmart nature; Good luck with that! We cannot escape our connection to mother earth; we are bound together. Damn convenience – and laziness. I’m on the side of Ma Nature…don’t think science has met our genes….research epigenetics – the "new food science" hmmph! Basically, food alters gene expression.
-Blair
The way we produce our food is already showing signs of imminent collapse.As more people recognize what is happening ,the movement of consumers from the conventional food production system to direct relationships with small farmers will accelerate.Already the demand for good food ,direct from the farm ,far exceeds the supply.People that are paying attention to what is going on in this world are searching for a source of food that is both safe and sustainable. The conventional system is neither.
You say that you believe the government has the upper hand,but even the government cannot defy the laws of nature for long.
http://nothoney.wordpress.com/2007/12/19/factory-farming-and-colony-collapse-disorder-are-your-problems/
The Sunday New York Times Magazine this week, published December 16, includes a piece by Michael Pollan in the The Way We Live Now section. It is headed Our Decrepit Food Factories. (Pg 25)
Pollan discusses the loss of meaning around the trendy word sustainability, to the point where pesticide makers and genetic engineers cloak themselves in the term.
He tells us that two stories, may point to an imminent breakdown in the way were growing food today.
He writes:
The first story is about MRSA, the very scary antibiotic-resistant strain of Staphylococcus bacteria that is now killing more Americans each year than AIDS 100,000 infections leading to 19,000 deaths in 2005, according to estimates in The Journal of the American Medical Association
He tells us of a new, virulent strain called community-acquired MRSA, which is now killing young and otherwise healthy people who have not set foot in a hospital. No one is yet sure how or where this strain evolved, but it is sufficiently different from the hospital-bred strains to have some researchers looking elsewhere for its origin, to another environment where the heavy use of antibiotics is selecting for the evolution of a lethal new microbe: the concentrated animal feeding operation, or CAFO.
He continues:
The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that at least 70 percent of the antibiotics used in America are fed to animals living on factory farms. Raising vast numbers of pigs or chickens or cattle in close and filthy confinement simply would not be possible without the routine feeding of antibiotics to keep the animals from dying of infectious diseases. That the antibiotics speed up the animals growth also commends their use to industrial agriculture, but the crucial fact is that without these pharmaceuticals, meat production practiced on the scale and with the intensity we practice it could not be sustained for months, let alone decades.
pig_torture
Public-health experts have been warning us for years that this situation is a public-health disaster waiting to happen. Sooner or later, the profligate use of these antibiotics in many cases the very same ones we depend on when were sick would lead to the evolution of bacteria that could shake them off like a spring shower. It appears that sooner or later may be now. Recent studies in Europe and Canada found that confinement pig operations have become reservoirs of MRSA.
Pollan suggests that if researchers should find definitive proof that one of the hidden costs of cheap meat is an epidemic of drug-resistant infection among young people, There would be calls to revolutionize the way we produce meat in this country.
Pollans second story is about honeybees, which have endured their own mysterious epidemic this past year. It is called Colony Collapse Disorder, and it threatens a whole agricultural system that relies on pollination from bees. We read, Entomologists have yet to identify the culprit, but suspects include a virus, agricultural pesticides and a parasitic mite. Pollan writes, whatever turns out to be the immediate cause of colony collapse, many entomologists believe some such disaster was waiting to happen: the lifestyle of the modern honeybee leaves the insects so stressed out and their immune systems so compromised that, much like livestock on factory farms, theyve become vulnerable to whatever new infectious agent happens to come along.
We read of bees being trucked all over the country, and of the stress and the parasite transfer that results.
Pollan sums up with:
Were asking a lot of our bees. Were asking a lot of our pigs too. That seems to be a hallmark of industrial agriculture: to maximize production and keep food as cheap as possible, it pushes natural systems and organisms to their limit, asking them to function as efficiently as machines. When the inevitable problems crop up when bees or pigs remind us they are not machines the system can be ingenious in finding solutions, whether in the form of antibiotics to keep pigs healthy or foreign bees to help pollinate the almonds. But this years solutions have a way of becoming next years problems. That is to say, they arent sustainable.
From this perspective, the story of Colony Collapse Disorder and the story of drug-resistant staph are the same story. Both are parables about the precariousness of monocultures. Whenever we try to rearrange natural systems along the lines of a machine or a factory, whether by raising too many pigs in one place or too many almond trees, whatever we may gain in industrial efficiency, we sacrifice in biological resilience. The question is not whether systems this brittle will break down, but when and how, and whether when they do, well be prepared to treat the whole idea of sustainability as something more than a nice word.
http://tinyurl.com/6bs48r
Amanda
This is a delayed response to my question and your answer. I now understand that you live in Georgia and raw milk is not legal to sell in this state. Sometimes it seems we go round and round between the subject of freedom of choice versus safety.
When you live in a state where raw milk is not legal to sell, then freedom of choice is the number one issue most discussed. When you live in a state where raw milk is legal to sell, then the issue of choice switches to the issue of raw milk safety; especially when theres been an outbreak.
One issue is not more important than the other. They are intertwined and you can not separate one from the other. People want the freedom to choose raw milk for their families and they also want this raw milk to be pathogen free. Know your farmer is the mantra. This ideal = clean milk.
I live in California, where raw milk has been legal for something like 80 years. So of course the issue of choice is not one I have to ponder. Were past that in California. We are now fixated on raw milk safety. If Mark McAfee wasnt so careless in his milk ethics, maybe the state of California wouldnt be going after him. His arrogant attitude does not help the situation. He publically threatened and antagonized the agricultural department. In my opinion, he got what he asked for.
Bob, I now understand why the freedom of choice is your number one concern. Maybe someday your state will move into the phase of raw milk safety fixation ;-).
The verbal behavior on this blog is not going to make anyone empathetic to your plight. Like it or not, Bill Marler has a lot of power. Use your smarts and be nice to the man. Honey is much more powerful than vinegar.something to think about.
C2.youve survived the raw milk initiation. Its like joining a gang. The only difference is they verbally beat you up. If you can handle it, youre in. It seems like youve been accepted to the gang. Congratulations!
You get what you give. A while back he came her spouting name calling among other verbage and he was the first to "not be nice". I choose to ignore the rude man.
http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2008/1/4/the-debate-over-the-ca-and-ny-cases-underscores-the-realitie.html
"C2.youve survived the raw milk initiation. Its like joining a gang."
How can that be? I still haven’t drunk the nectar? Okay, ate some raw milk cheese in the past–didn’t get sick, healthier, or see a higher being…but, I haven’t yet tried Bob’s "best feta on earth." Looking forward to the experience though!
Someone said I still haven’t answered the "rights" or freedom of choice question…I think you absolutely hit the nail on the head. Trying again:
I think producers–defined as anyone having a money or equivalent transaction–from farmer john selling to his neighbor to Costco selling across the country–has the right to sell whatever product they want for food. HOWEVER, there is an expectation by consumers (represented by government–we serve the people) that the product be safe and honestly labelled. I do not believe for a second that consumers can (entirely on their own) monitor the honesty and integrity of the small to big companies selling them food. Absolutely, they can (and should) be educated, but there also should be some underlying "help."
We’re from the government and we’re here to help.
Guess what, most of us really believe that. This raw milk fight is getting "ridiculous" on some levels by both sides. I hope our communication (and the influence it could have in Darth’s travels) leads to something rational.
Speaking of rational, I agree Bill Marler was treated badly. How can anyone "hate" someone they’ve never met? Criticize his profession or work, but individual attacks are unkind and unjustified. I was rude to Gwen here (sorry) and maybe others, but I think we’ve generally gotten better at communicating. Hope y’all extend that experience to others that might be trying to find common ground (a bumper sticker I had on my car years ago: "Assume Nothing").
C2
Not yet drinking the Kool Aid, but respecting the folks who do
Also looked back at that post you mention (the ant bites)…and thought about looking back at some of my early posts in this exchange with the "raw milk community" and others (got a stomach ache). Anyway, IMHO anyone who posts here does care on some level (there is no professional advancement in writing on complete patient. LOL). Those taking a bit of time maybe hope to learn something and understand this controversial issue better. Just some thoughts.
Darth
Impressive, intelligent and comprehensive work you did in your letter to Florez, but jeez…it feels like government regulation to the nth degree.
This is why I like contractual herd-shares; there is great risk, and great reliance on the farm-to-consumer trust and knowledge. This is entirely possible – I witness this in Colorado, and I think I see a national trend. People feel privileged to know their farmer.
I am uncomfortable with commercial store-shelf sales. If you turn this over to the government and food industry, outbreaks are not a matter of if, they’re a matter of when. Which careless, hung-over dock worker will leave that pallet of milk out in the sun for 20 minutes?
If you keep the consumer in contact with the farmer, driving to the farm weekly to pick up milk, bickering about returning milk jars, or why there isn’t a driving co-op within their neighborhood, (or like one of our producers, inviting consumers to come to a chicken-slaughter day at the farm – I was impressed at the number of people who volunteered!), inquiring about whether the farmer feeds organic grain (or no grain) or what kind of medical intervention they use, asking shareholders to contribute to fund-raisers and farm days, or posting on the farm board about diarrhea in your house, (no haven’t witnessed that dialog yet but I often encourage it) etc….building community support centered around your farmer – well it keeps the whole delicate relationship in focus. It’s co-operative; it’s educational, and it’s fun. And delightfully LOCAL,
When you standardize, regulate, and penalize, allow our trusty government to take over what was formerly a self-monitoring operation, you lose all personal responsibility and control.
I don’t trust what’s happening in California. It smells like Chlorox!
-Blair, who CP thinks is a gang member, (I’m a 55 year old grandmother and I don’t spray-paint any bridges, do drugs or speak profanely – well hardly ever…I do have my days.) but hey, vinegar is widely touted as healthful…a dose a day keeps the doctor away. But I use honey, too. As long as it’s raw.
Amanda.
"I do not believe for a second that consumers can (entirely on their own) monitor the honesty and integrity of the small to big companies selling them food."
That was my quote from earlier and after reading your post, I wanted to clarify something. Your close relationship with the farmer is excellent and goes a long way. It is not "one size fits all." I think government involvement should be tailored to the specific food product and scale of farming. The situation you describe needs very little "help" from government.
But, as things scale-up, the story changes. Not to take away the "rights" of any of these businessmen(women) to make and distribute their food, but I feel strongly that industry (local or large scale) has the primary role to sell their customers an honest (including safe) product, while government has a role to make sure that happens. How we make this happen is very important.
C2
For cp, Darth, and Bill Marler, with cp first:
I really hadn’t thought of your reasoning about why some of us focus on rights while others focus on safety, and I’ll admit that your explanation may be at least partially correct, but I’ll take issue with one part of your postulate…
"Bob, I now understand why the freedom of choice is your number one issue."
Wrong. Producing a good, wholesome, clean product is my number one concern. Avoiding having to face, on a personal, not economic, level the kind of REAL peer review I described earlier, is my first priority. Having the right to do so does follow as a close second though.
Darth…you are right…I WAS rude to Marler…and he deserved it. Respect is earned, not given without regard for actions. Read his response:
"Bob, why I hesitate to engage here is that most of you do not care about facts – I was the lawyer in Jack in the Box, representing families of kids who died and kids who will and are going into ESRD – no "Jack in the Box jury… returned a $40,000,000 decision with the lawyer getting 30-50%." Go ahead, produce your milk, sell your milk, make money (or do you do that pro bono) – but if you sicken a kid, and the family hires me, I will own you – now that is freedom."
"Why I hesitate to engage here is that most of you do not care about facts". "Translation…"I know the facts, you don’t, and don’t care to, so you are not worth listening to." That’s a pretty big, and disrespectful, assumption…and we all know about assuming.
He also shows in that post exactly why our side feels like the "dark side" in general is so disposed to knocking us off rather than making things better:
"…but if you sicken a kid, and the family hires me, I will own you – now that is freedom."
Absolutely no regard for HOW something happens…if the farmer is doing all he can…following accepted safe practices…no concern for how to fix a problem…just if a kid gets sick, he’ll "own" the farmer.
When decent people see a problem that hurts folks, they try to help. When Marler’s type sees a problem they looks for a payoff.
When some folks see a car in a ditch they look to see if someone needs medical help, then help get the car out of the ditch.
When Marler’s type sees a car in a ditch they look to see if a tire blew out and what brand it is. They look at the brand/model of car and see if there are steering system recalls on it. If the accident involves an uninsured drunk, they search for the bar/bartender the drunk was served by so they can hit the bar’s insurance company for the bar’s overserving.
Marler’s type looks for payoffs rather than solutions. His type sues dry cleaners for multimillion dollars for losing a pair of slacks (yep…you might have heard of that recent case in NY or NJ).
People who really care look for solutions. You do, though we disagree on what those solutions should be. He, and his type, look for dollars.
We’ve all seen the ambulance chaser commercials on TV. The only difference between Marler and those guys is that he is famous/notorious enough to not have to spend the advertising dollars to get clients.
Am I passionate on theis subject? Perhaps overly so, though I don’t think so. I’m just really, really tired of folks like him who I see as part of the problem rather than part of the solution…I’m tired of bottomfeeders looking to scrape every dollar they can off of folks misery. Think about it…they are little different than the producers, big and small, they feed off of. Neither has any regard for fixing a problem, both just want all the bucks they can get.
Mr.Marler…admittedly much of my post was subjective, and responding would have been much like answering the question, "Do you beat your wife before dark or do you wait until the sun goes down?"
One thing I asked that was completely objective though, that you could answer without being trapped, was this, "Aside all other considerations, do you believe consumers have the right to make their own nutritional choices, choosing who they buy from and what they buy, or should consumers have to choose froma nanny state approved list of foods?"
Bob Hayles
Marler should know that you can’t own anyone. Slavery has been out of fashion for a long time. He might want to read the constitution.
I think that one statement sums up the character (or lack therof) of the man.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/366301_pigmrsa09.html
I don’t know if they are "hung over" but careless fits for many products including pasteurized dairy. No doubt many have bought milk in the past where it spoils long before the expiration date- most likely poor refrigeration during processing and/or transportation.
Regarding Marlar’s rudness, I was referring to some of his initial posts of last year or maybe it was the year before. Childish name calling doesn’t endear anyone to a person. His posts reminded me of those who are not tolerant of anothers beliefs/lifestyle, etc. The words prejudiced and bigoted come to mind. Those initial posts made by him left an impression of his character, or should I say questionable character? That was the first time I had ever heard his name. I looked at his blog/web site; he is very derogatory towards many issues and people. His web site is not one I return to nor do I recommend it to others. Fair and balanced is not in his vocabulary either.
It looks like the only tomatoes available this year might be locally grown, homegrown tomatoes.
Good…theyare healthier and tastier anyway.
Maybe, if we get really really lucky this will be a first trembling of the foundation of big agri’s stranglehold on our food supply.
Bob
One of the latest E.coli 0157:H7 outbreaks (the church meatballs) shows the callousness of the company who sold the meat that sickened the church group. E.coli 0157:H7 is classified as an adulterant and is not allowed to be present in any food source sold in the U.S.. Despite this fact, the company blames the church women for cooking it wrong. The issue is0157:H7 shouldnt be in the meat!
This same typed of logic has been echoed by some in the raw milk community. If raw milk happens to become contaminated, its the consumers fault. They knew they were taking a risk when drinking raw milk and its their fault if they didnt know the sanitation/feeding practices of the farmer who sold them the milk. Its all about personal responsibility. Does anyone see the glaring problem with this type of thinking? How do others outside the raw milk community view this type of thinking? The issue is0157:H7 shouldnt be in the milk!
Bill Marler represented families in the Washington Dee Creek E.coli 0157:H7 outbreak. He has experienced first hand the suffering that can be caused by contaminated raw milk. There are the health stories of consuming raw milk and then there are the illness stories of consuming raw milk. Bill Marler represents the illness stories and the ugly facts that are attached to these stories.
Im sure he could have a calm, rational non-insulting discussion about raw milk, if the other side could follow the same verbal etiquette.
"This same typed of logic has been echoed by some in the raw milk community. If raw milk happens to become contaminated, its the consumers fault."
Not here. If I produce dirty milk, it’s my fault, period. I didn’t clean the equipment properly. I didn’t handle the milk right. I didn’t get my containers from a reputable source…and the list goes onand on.
Bottom line is that my dirty milk is my fault.
With that said, shouldn’t folks that look to "fix" a dirty milk problem actually look for an actual fix that improves things, rather than just looking for a big payoff like Marler does?
Bob Hayles
You may be an exception. I’ve seen the claim that there have been no raw milk illnesses since 1973 (or some such). A few months ago I posted a link to the WAPF baby-feeding page which showed no raw milk outbreaks in California, even in AltaDena days. Academics got tenure on the AltaDena outbreak data, there was so much of it. A WAPF research assistant was supposed to look into that list, but I’ve heard nothing since, so I assume official word from WAPF is that there hasn’t been a raw milk illness in a very long time.
Unfortunately in these personal injury lawsuits, the "fixing" isn’t about improving "dirty milk," but about giving the victims the financial resources to help solve the problem the pathogen created. Disability is a huge expense. Just my own short-term disability from perinatal and postpartum depression set back my business many dollars and many years (and it’s a condition you can possibly recover from without on-going medical expenses).
Amanda
Some food-borne illnesses aren’t really anyone’s fault. Even in this garden we walk in there are serpents. I agree with Bob. Unless there is negligence or malice, we should be looking for solutions, not someone to blame.
Amanda
Do you REALLY think that all the fundraisers, all the community support, all the handholding…all of which should be done…would stop parasites like Marler?
The answer is no, because all of that…all the things that should, and often do, happen don’t line the pockets of bottomfeeders like him.
Strictly personal opinion here obviously, but I think folks like him lay awake at night trying to find a way to sue God for natural disasters and collect on those suits.
When my neighbor is hurting, I ask how I can help.
When parasites like him have a neighbor in need, their only way of helping is to ask that a retainer contract be signed.
Bob Hayles
Professionally, Bill Marler’s accomplishments are quite impressive. I read somewhere that he is quite generous to charities and causes with his money.
I think you should do a little research on the history of the Jack-in-the-Box E.coli 0157:H7 outbreak and then you may have a different opinion of him.
I think you and Bill have much in common. You’re both sharp with the tongue, care about people, want to contribute something of worth in this world and are men of integrity.
You can’t have it both ways:
"especially when the trail was so cold and the source of the child’s illness was never discovered?…I agree with Bob. Unless there is negligence or malice, we should be looking for solutions, not someone to blame."
These trails are not cold (not cold cases–hot and open investigations–slowly becoming available to the public through postings of the reports and trickling into scientific literature)–look at the DNA fingerprinting and other advances in disease investigation.
I am totally on board with you about problem solving–but want it the be as "pure" as humanly possible: not skewed to help industry (big or small–including raw dairy); not skewed to help government officials get promotions, etc.
As a scientist (or one who understands science–you’ve never stated your background)–doesn’t this seem like a fair approach?
C2
In the medical field, there is a powerful entity called "process improvement." When one way of doing things is statistically proven faulty, it is ditched for a better way. Food production systems have become very corrupt.
Pasteurization of poorly produced milk is more of an accident-waiting-to-happen than OP. In fact it is an accident-already-happened. People have died already. The system the way it is set up will continue to deteriorate, with or without the help of the raw milk promoting segment of society. The reason:
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely." – Acton
Gwen
It was a shot at a system where McDonalds gets sued for serving a hot bevarage hot…whe the lawyer should have told the lady, "Sue ’em when they give you cold coffee for crying out loud."
It was a shot at a system where some POS lawyer sues the local dry cleaner for a million bucks for losing a pair of his pants.
It was a shot at a system where someone cannot even say, "I’m sorry. I made a mistake. I’m human, but I’ll try harder next time.", without a legal vulture there to, as you said yourself, own the person who was…human. A system where folks cannot even apologise without opening themselves to legal action.
Perhaps I’m wrong about you personally. I don’t think so, but maybe I am. One thing I do know though…I can sleep well knowing that my house payment, my next meal, isn’t dependent on someone else’s misery.
Bob Hayles