I’m struck in some of the discussions on my recent postings about just how much rope some people are willing to give the government apologists. When I wrote about the stuttering stammering performance of a supposed public health expert about raw milk, Amanda Rose and cp2 thought I had gone too far in criticizing the poor guy because he couldn’t formulate a coherent sentence to back up his claim that raw milk is “deadly.” The data’s all in his packet of data, advised one. If you look there, you’ll see that he is, indeed, coherent. No, I’m afraid not. That packet of data is just a compilation of supposed illnesses from raw milk—some questionable and some for real.
I think it’s this desire to believe that’s behind the sometimes lengthy discussions that go on here about whether raw milk is, indeed, as dangerous as the officials would have us believe. Some people just want so badly to trust that the authorities have our best interests at heart. After all, they dedicate their lives to public service and science. They must know something.
Unfortunately, the real intent of many of these authorities is to scare and deceive us, not to protect us. Because the raw milk “problem” in the context of the whole of food-borne illness and public health as a whole is the equivalent of a pinprick.
So why do they want to scare and deceive us?
Here is where the latest action on the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) becomes so important. It’s all about business—the business of business, and the business of control.
The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund’s Notice of Intent—even allowing for the fact that it is an argument on one side of an issue—is refreshing for its success in capturing the underlying issues. Steve Bemis summarizes it clearly following my previous post. They want to scare us into believing we need a totally unwieldy and intrusive system for tagging animals for the same reason they want to scare us about raw milk: so that big business can consolidate its factory-food path and government can move further down the road of ever-stricter control.
The primary obstacle in their path is the growing numbers of small sustainable farms, and the message they communicate about food and health. In the business scheme of things, small farms might be viewed as custom producers in a sea of factories.
Now, in most industries, the factories care little about the custom producers. The factories tolerate the custom producers as serving niche markets.
But in farming, it’s different. The problem with food is that it is such a staple, such a necessity. As much as agribusiness and government say all food is alike, growing numbers of people are coming to understand that is not the case. That truth is terribly threatening to the existing structure. The existing structure doesn’t like to be threatened. Expect this case to be fought tooth and nail every step of the way.
I can envision the factory farms buying water beds for the cows. (said with tongue in cheek).
http://www.articleclick.com/milk-fatories.html
What is the process used to make all milk have a 3.9% fat content?
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/263
I listened to the talk that you linked to, but didn’t hear anything about milk and bacteria. Did I miss something?
That aside, it was nevertheless instructive, for this reason: The speaker’s educated, strongly expressed but mixed up opinions (combining truth–sometimes insightful truth–with thick-headed school-boy howlers) are the reason this issue is more about rights–the right to choose one’s own food and the right to reject or accept others’ ideas about food–than about science.
Once we give power to regulators (or worse, intellectuals) to determine what we may or may not do based on "enlightened" opinion and "science," both of which will inevitably be at times mistaken, massaged, and manipulated, we have lost our humanity. Yet that is what we have today, in spades. Every good idea becomes a law or a rule.
I received responses from two legislators to protest letters I sent regarding the Mark Nolt situation. Both made the point that raw milk sales are legal in Pennsylvania, but merely require a permit (which they emphasize is "free" as if a permit fee is the only way to add costs to a product or infringe on freedoms). The notion that there’s something fundamentally wrong when a consumer cannot buy milk from a farmer without a third party giving that farmer permission to sell it, is beyond them. Both legislators also, by the way, mistakenly referred to regulation as "law". These attitudes are symptomatic of an overly powerful government. Gary Cox is right about them working for us, but these days that’s only in theory.
I apologize for the bit of snark perpetrated on C2. For someone so offended at being referred to as a "lab tech" (in a previous post), she could certainly learn a thing or two from one. She asked if goat milk could harbor E. coli. If you look, you can find E. coli in any milk anywhere, whether it be pasteurized, unpasteurized, prairie dog, or hippopotamus.It’s a really good growth medium.
Other than that, I could appreciate Mr. Bittman’s characterization of government officials in the clip: either decieiful or well-intentioned and stupid. I’m willing to accept some middle ground, but so far I haven’t seen any.
I figured that was directed at me and it was deserved. Not the part about goat milk–someone was emphasizing cow milk and I wanted to know if they saw a difference (not meant to imply that goats would not be able to harbor E. coli or other foodborne pathogens). It was a dumb question.
Regarding the lab tech comment, I became wrapped up in some digs by another poster and was totally out of line following her lead and insulting lab techs. My sincerest apologies to any and all lab techs out there! Lesson learned (avoid responding to nasty personal comments with more nastiness).
C2
Pasteurized milk is a highly processed food.
First the butterfat is measured. (Jersey milk is the richest and is usually around 5%. Holsteins produce more milk but have a lower butterfat content.) Farmers are paid more for higher fat content and penalized for less.
Once the butterfat content is determined it gets separated from the milk. It is then added back in 1%, 2%, and 3.5% (aka "whole" milk). This process is known as standardization. "Whole" milk used to be 4% but corporate greed has been skimming it off. It may even be as low as 3.25% now.
After standardization comes pasteurization or heat treatment. Before homogenization, or when the butterfat gets evenly dispersed, bactofugtion must occur. Bactofugaion is the centrifugal process used to remove the leukocytes (dead bacteria), spores, and dirt particles from the milk. For some of the milk filters I’ve seen from Grade A commercial dairies, this step is necessary. Without it a gray sludge would settle even after homogenization. Not too appetizing in the bottom of your glass.
I have to agree with C2.
Who and/or what organization is behind promoting the raw milk movement in the U.S? Who is pushing for all 50 states to legalize the sale of raw milk?
The Real Milk website promotes drinking raw milk for infants and children and encourages small farmers to get into the business of selling raw milk because it can help supplement their farms income. Where on this website is the dos and donts information for new raw milk farmers? Where is there educational information about pathogens and possible illnesses they could cause? Where is there information about things to be aware of for first time raw milk drinkersespecially children?
The irony about the group the blogs on the Complete Patientthey are anti factory farmed meat, produce and dairy because these products contribute to Americas health problems. However, the logic they use regarding pathogens in raw milk islook at all the other foods that have pathogensthe foods that they wont eat. But for some reason, raw milk gets a pass for pathogens. All food carries a riskyeah, the food from factory farms and processed foods that you dont promote eating.
Heres some very specific data from the Dee Creek December 2005 Ecoli 0157:H7 outbreak:
1. 18 people became ill (median age 9 years old)
2. 5 patients (age 1 -13) were hospitalized
3. 4 of the 5 patients who were hospitalized developed HUS
4. Of the 140 person who reported consuming raw milk from the farm during the time period of the outbreak, only 18 became ill
5. E.coli 0157;H7 was isolated from raw milk samples obtained from the farm and one shareholder. No E.coli 0157:H7 was isolated from stool samples of any of the farms five cows (makes a huge argument for why they didnt find the matching fingerprint of Ecoli in the cows during the OPDC linked outbreakneedle in the haystack)
6. Dee Creek was an unlicensed cow-share program
Is this what people in the raw milk movement want to see happen? Farmers that decide to go into the raw milk business need to be educated and so do their customers. Why doesnt the Real Milk website provide this educational information?
"The irony about the group the blogs on the Complete Patientthey are anti factory farmed meat, produce and dairy because these products contribute to Americas health problems. However, the logic they use regarding pathogens in raw milk islook at all the other foods that have pathogensthe foods that they wont eat. But for some reason, raw milk gets a pass for pathogens."
You came to this conclusion how? Do quote where you got "raw milk gets a pass for pathogens." I don’t recall reading anything like that.
"Is this what people in the raw milk movement want to see happen? Farmers that decide to go into the raw milk business need to be educated and so do their customers."
Where did you read that anyone on this blog wanted anyone to become ill? I believe education has been promoted on this blog. Numerous sites/links have been posted for education.
"Why doesnt the Real Milk website provide this educational information?"
Why doesn’t the govt entities provide the correct and unbiased information?
http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/raw_milk_safety.html
http://www.karlloren.com/aajonus/p15.htm
http://www.newfarm.org/features/2007/0607/rawmilk/bowman.shtml
http://www.nofamass.org/programs/organicdairy/pdfs/Raw%20Milk%20Use%20and%20Safety%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
http://www.newtrendspublishing.com/USOMilk/Chapter15.pdf
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/foodsafety/educators/index.cfm?parent=2
"Caveat emptor" is a very important phrase to know whether your purchasing a house, raw milk or stock. As long as the seller doesn’t make any false claims, it is up to you to perform due diligence, especially if you are a parent. There is nothing uniquely dangerous about raw milk and the risks are in no way hidden.
C2,
The Raw Milk Cheese Association is working to develop protocols and an HACCP plan for members to post on its website. Perhaps you would like to advise?
Thank you for listing the other resources, but I was asking questions specifically about the Real Milk website. This website was founded by the Weston A. Price foundation.
Don’t you think an organization that promotes the use of raw milk in infant formula should have an ethical responsibility to provide some factual information about pathogens/illness that could happen if the raw milk was contaminated? Shouldn’t both the pros and cons be presented.
We’re talking children’s lives here. Although I know the "pinprick" of a number in the last few years with Ecoli 0157:H7 and raw milk (around 25; 6 HUS) shouldn’t really bother anyone. If other foods can become contaminated and make children ill, what’s the big deal about raw milk?
If I send, as a gift, not selling, a container of my raw milk Feta to someone in another state who is craving my Feta, have I violated the FDA’s "no raw dairy across state lines" rule?
Pure gift. No sale. Not a sample to encourage later sales. Gift…period.
Bob
Several have mentioned here that a person’s starting point in this debate is very significant. You may have been one of them. I think it was C2 that suggested that raw milk supporters are from a different planet.
Well, I am one of those aliens. But it’s critically important to note that my alien status is conferred as a result of a revolution in food production that occupies just a tiny sliver of human history–the era we’re in now, of course.
Today the average Joe has no difficulty defining an industrially processed "fruit bar" (with a mile-long list of ingredients more appropriate for a chemistry lab than a grocery store) as breakfast. Soy formula, despite the facts that it contains phytoestrogens and is a relatively poor quality protein (as compared to milk protein) is today considered appropriate food for infants. Where are the warnings? Where is the outrage? Nowhere, because we are culturally and educationally as homogenized as processed milk. We have no doubts that our modern foods are anything but appropriate because that is all we know. That’s the starting point in the raw milk debate for many people.
But the "live food" crowd (of which I am one) sees things differently. We START the debate with a healthy distrust of industrial food, and rightfully wonder why natural foods that have healthfully supported mankind for many thousands of years, are now deemed unsafe and dangerous, while industrial foods get a free pass despite being strongly implicated in our newly epidemic levels of heart disease, cancer, degenerative diseases, emotional diseases, obesity, allergies, and on and on and on.
Accusing raw milk drinkers of promoting an unsafe food is, from that very reasonable perspective, narrow minded, short sighted, and sad.
What I would like to see you discuss more is your comment in this post where you state:
"That packet of data is just a compilation of supposed illnesses from raw milksome questionable and some for real."
That ties in well with many other discussions on this post. A few months ago I expressed my concern that this WAPF page showed no California outbreaks:
http://www.westonaprice.org/children/rawmilk.html
I am of the camp that raw milk can have pathogens. Apparently many people think the risk is more theoretical.
Caveat emptor is well and good if there is a decent information environment. Parents going to that WAPF site are left with the impression that there really isn’t a risk of illness with raw milk at all. The risk does appear to be pretty small, but there is a big difference between "zero" and "itty bitty."
Amanda
There should not be deadly pathogens is any of our foodorganic or processed. Youre preaching to the choir with me. My diet includes as much of the good stuff as possible. The state of affairs with our food supply is appalling.
What other live foods that have been around for thousands of years can be contaminated with pathogens because of the natural process of how it needs to be obtained? Poop is the problem. Everyone is in agreement that raw milk can be contaminated if sanitation is not taken seriously.
As far as I know, raw milk is the only live food that can carry pathogens. For example, promoting the use of fruits and vegetables in a persons diet is not inherently dangerous. Pathogen contamination has occurred in these natural foods because of mass production (which is something outside of nature). Prepackaged fruits and vegetables can be dangerous. However, growing fruits and veggies in your backyard is not (unless you use manure contaminated with 0157:H7). Nothing is simple anymore.
Unless you own a cow (like you do), a consumer is dependent on another human being to do every right. Everyone has a right to make this choice (to purchase raw milk from a raw milk farmer) but the ethical responsibility and integrity of the farmer is the foundation of ensuring a safe product.
Where on the real milk website is this all stated? Where is it spelled out in black and white the possible dangers if the raw milk farmer does not have integrity or is ignorant of all the farming necessities for producing clean raw milk?
I am not accusing raw milk drinkers of promoting an unsafe food. Im simply asking questions. Does the real milk website have an ethical responsibility to educate possible consumers of both the health benefits and dangers of drinking raw milk in the 21st century? I consider Ecoli 0157:H7 a huge danger.
Does the real milk website have an ethical responsibility to call a spade a spade when an outbreak with raw milk occurs? Or is it O.K. to fabricate and twist facts with the sole intention of reducing peoples fears about consuming raw milk? In my book, this is unethical and irresponsible.
If anyone is interested there are two articles that can be compared on the Dee Creek December 2005 Ecoli 0157:H7 raw milk outbreak. I havent figured how to post a link on this blog, so I will just tell you the names of the articles.
(By the CDC) Escherichia coli 0157:H7 Infection Associated with Drinking Raw MilkWashington and Oregon, November/December 2005
(By Sally Fallon) E.coli 0157:H7 Outbreak in Washington State: Lessons Learned
"I think it was C2 that suggested that raw milk supporters are from a different planet."
As stated early on, the starting point related a desire to learn about the issue and ways to communicate food safety information to the raw milk community more effectively (especially at the grass roots level). It is hard to say if anything has been learned/accomplished on the second point. The planet reference and subsequent "star wars" theme were meant to be lighthearted–the discussions get intense here sometimes and a little humor takes the edge off (not meaning that the issues aren’t very serious).
curious,
I couldn’t find the second article on the web, but here is CDC’s:
http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5608a3.htm
Bob,
Who would know? I wouldn’t tell.
C2
I suppose there is more agreement on these issues than the blog debates might indicate. (I and many others certainly hope so.) I appreciate your hinting at that.
C2,
I hope I did not offend with the remark. I caught your humor, appreciated it, and tried (feebly) to bend it some.
Now…
Curious is certainly right that nothing is simple anymore. But perhaps that’s not so bad. It’s never a bad idea to re-look at accepted dogma, and perceived complexity may stimulate our desire to do that, just as over-confident understanding prevents it. (Of course, forward progress always depends on objectivity, and that is always in short supply.)
Here’s a complexity that I believe deserves some new attention: The common definition of "pathogen" is "A disease-producing agent." Why then does one person become ill and another not, or one gravely ill and another less so, when exposed to the same agent?
It is my opinion that our scientific and medical community (of which, in disclaimer I will admit, I am a minor member) has perpetuated a fraud that there is a clear line between "benign" and "pathogenic." The truth is (fortunately or unfortunately) far more complex than that. All of us, for example, have had infections in our families that did not strike everyone in the house. Likewise, there are documented cases of milk-related illness where consumers became ill but the producing farm family did not.
The connections between live foods vs. manufactured foods and immune strength, and other health barometers, are poorly understood (virtually ignored!) by our doctors and scientists. It’s unlikely that a fair discussion of raw milk can be had in that climate.
Earlier someone disparaged the notion that 0157:H7 came into existence on feedlots. I will agree, partially with that, but say that even if it did exist prior to the invention of feedlot beef, it was the feedlot that made it significant. There is every reason to believe that when cows were raised in their natural environment, especially in context with a human diet of mostly live foods, 0157:H7 was an insignificant bug.
I say that to point out that the kill-the-bugs mentality of medicine and food safety is at very best incomplete, and probably very dangerous. Also incomplete is our discussion of raw milk safety when we accept simplistic concepts of pathogenesis. A spade, it seems, isn’t always a spade.
The Complete Patient does well to consider ALL of that.
Finally, thanks to all on this blog and elsewhere who have invested time and energy to discuss these things gently and with civility, even when their toes get stepped on.
We have a family milk cow (and goats) and have personally benefitted from FTCLDF’s new booklet on producing clean milk. It’s very helpful.
Not offended at all.
Amey–is this the booklet? I’d like to get a a copy. Raw Milk Production Handbook
by Tim Wightman
Also, does anyone know if there are "fact sheets" or educational materials distributed by experienced farmers that are available on the web or by request (I have copies of some key government info sheets)? Brochures, for example, that address sanitation and food safety aspects of raw dairy production, especially for new raw dairy farmers (or, new consumers). At least one farmer mentioned that he gave his customers written information on the potential benefits and risks if my memory is correct.
A personal observation to share…
I went to the local co-op today and opted not to try the raw goat cheese, though gave it some consideration. Interestingly, the 2 types of cheese (raw and pasteurized, same variety) were placed side by side with identical labels exept a very small "raw" on one. It would be easy to grab the wrong one if the consumer had a preference. "Wrong one" depending on which point of view you were coming from. As is said here, I don’t know that farmer. Out of curiosity, I looked them up on the web and found a Listeria recall from a few years ago…it was pasteurized organic cheese. Otherwise couldn’t find more information including when they started selling raw products.
according to our expert witnesses at the california ab 1735 preliminary injunction hearing, the most bang for our buck comes from making the food safe and relying on its inherent immunizing ability rather than focusing on eliminating the pathogen. in other words, add probiotics to food to make them and the people who consume them healthier rather than trying to focus on eliminating the pathogen.
a person with a healthy immune system can ingest close to 1,000 harmful e. coli before the person gets sick.
so you see, our "licensed" food industry has it all wrong.
focus on improving our immune system (including with the use of probiotics added to foods) and the threat posed by pathogens slowly erodes.
quite a concept eh?
Sorry, I must disagee (with the caveat that I may be misinterpreting your comment). The best approach to disease control is a combination of "science-based" approaches. I see no problem researching the "probiotic" effect of the raw milk matrix, but am not yet convinced of their ability to represent a "kill" or control step for pathogens. It seems unwise to rely on only that biological property (assuming into the effort, especially if you are going to bypass the proven "kill step" for pathogens (pasteurization). Although I won’t disagree that large commercial dairies have issues with manure accumulation, there are many steps during the milking process to keep poop out of the milk (not relying 100% on heating to kill pathogens).
No disagreement that people’s immune systems are not alike. But, not all bacteria are the same either. Some strains of E. coli in some people may never cause symptoms. Other strains are highly virulent and will make even a young, healthy person sick with just a few cells. The large number of hospitalizations among healthy adults during the spinach outbreak illustrates this point. Some very fancy comparative genomics studies are available relating to the "virulence factors" of this and other outbreak strains. It is important to appreciate the complexity of the pathogens and the food product.
It seems unwise to rely on only that biological property (assuming it is shown to have an effect, especially if you are going to bypass the proven "kill step" for pathogens…pasteurization.
In response to the ethical questions regarding WAPF etc. If only yes or no are acceptable answers, then yes, they should take the high road. There have bee questions in the past regarding WAPF information on outbreaks etc.
I will ask you a question as well though. Do you think the "establishment" should be held to that same standard? Shouldn’t the government, Monsanto, Cargill, ADM, Merck, Bayer etc have to do the same things?
I think one of the things that frustrates so many of us who have educated ourselves and CHOOSE to eat local, unprocessed food items is that those who think we are quacks or weird for doing so have NOT been educated by the entities I listed above. AND, in many cases, we are DENIED OUR RIGHT TO CHOOSE.
In a perfect world, everyone would do what is "ethical". But then, this whole argument would be a moot point if we lived in a perfect world because corporate greed would not have changed the way our food is produced to such a degree that you need a degree to decipher a food label. Or even need a food label in the first place.
I think any organization that "promotes" anything should present all pros & cons. Do the makers of the infant formulas provide factual information about them? Do the drug companies present the factual information of their products? No to both cases.
"Why doesnt the Real Milk website provide this educational information?"
If you want answers to your questions about the Real milk web site, send them an email.
Per your recent raw vs pasteurized cheese experience:
Presumably the raw cheese would have had to be aged 60 days in order to be legally sold in the US. At this point the current scientific wisdom is the cheese is deemed "safe" because no pathogens would be able to survive in it.
C2
The perception is that pathogens can’t survive.
WAPF is an organization that is promoting a healthy life style using traditional foods. They go so far as to say that raw milk can heal the body. Im not disagreeing with this claim. I believe raw milk can assist in healing a person from diseases. Its loaded with probiotics. The digestive track is the foundation of a healthy immune system.
WAPF is leading the way for the legalization of raw milk in all states. This organization is seen by many in the raw milk world as a leader and authority on the subject of traditional foods and raw milk consumption. This organization has been quoted many times on this blog. I own a copy Sally Fallons cook book. Its filled with fabulous information. I have actually given it as a gift at bridal showers with the disclaimereverything but the raw milk. In my opinion, when your raising a family, raw milk to too great a risk if you have to depend on someone else to provide the clean milk for you Adding powdered probiotics to the familys diet can be just as effective. Were living in the 21st century. Everything about our world is toxic and contaminated. Were destroying ourselves and our world. Cows poop is not the poop of 100 years ago.
I do hold WAPF to a higher standard than corporate America. They stand for something good and preach know and trust your farmer. According to WAPF, a farmers integrity lays the foundation for safe and healthy milk. If they expect farmers to have integrity then I dont think it is unrealistic to hold WAPF to the same standard. I do expect honesty and integrity for this organization. And if many of you were honest with yourselves, I believe you expect the same also. Without integrity, we have nothing.
Im not personally attacking any one on this blog. If you drink raw milk, more power to you. But dont forget the families who are just like you and their children became quite ill from consuming raw milk. These children cant be swept under the carpet as if it never happened. WAPF has done a lot of sweeping. We all owe it to these children to figure out how the contamination happened; learn from it, so it can never happen again.
C2, If you do a search using Sally Fallon and Lessons Learned you will find the article I referred to. Thanks for posting the one from the CDC.
With what has been presented, I have deduced a hypothesis that the Dee Creek December 2005 Ecoli 0157:H7 raw milk outbreak was not caused by cow manure from the Dee Creek farm. Perhaps it was caused somehow by contamination by European starlings from a nearby factory farm. I propose that same hypothesis as the cause of the organic spinach outbreak. So where are we if this is true? "Pasteurization fixes all ills," becomes more complicated. What if a starling or its feces somehow gets into a pasteurization factory? Judging from the listeria contaminations, it wouldn’t be pretty.
In a complex way, pasteurization caused the problem to begin with, because it created the farms that spread the disease. Do we therefore make even the smallest farms pasteurize? Or will this cause the monster to pop up somewhere else even bigger? Maybe the real monster is not the bug, but is the process combined with the laws or regulations that insist upon it – a combined entity that needs to be broken down completely in order to fix.
If the consumer gets to decide, what happens then? Maybe the monster will have more attackers (from a militaristic point of view). Maybe the institution will be called back to its mission (from a pacifist point of view).
It has long been known that formula companies have not been forthcoming about the dangers of feeding baby formula (raw milk or no) rather than breastfeeding, and there are current lawsuits going on to 1)Keep them from marketing formula from hospital OB floors and 2)Limiting the false claims formula companies can make to new mothers. BTW, how to you process baby formula from raw milk? Is there such a thing as powdered or canned raw milk?
When our daughter was 6 months old, her first non-breast milk was goat milk that I gently pasteurized in an enamel pan by myself, from our own goats. I did not want her to have storebought milk, organic or not. Frankly, it has always smelled a little rotton to me, although I do drink it when we aren’t milking, and we’re not milking most of the time. My husband and I milked our goats into an open container in our very messy barn, after cleaning 2 goats’ udders with bleach water each day.
I would in a heartbeat, being a nurse even, buy milk from a farmer with 50-100 cows, no matter how dirty their barn was, filter it and pasteurize it at home, and consider it safer to drink than a gallon from the store. Why? Because I have, being a nurse even, seen pathogens spread under the most sterile of conditions and become virtually invinceable.
My grandfather learned what bacteria do in milk in a college laboratory, and explained it to me simplistically when I was a child. There is always a chance that a large innoculation of the milk with a pathogen will give a pathogen the upper hand, but the good bacteria usually keep that upper hand. The make-up changes over time; and you can usually tell by smelling, color, taste or consistancy what is in the milk or what it was doing. This way to tell was basic knowledge for the past 2000 years before pasteurization. If you make enough cheese, you learn how this works; and you also learn that under "sterile" conditions, cheese gets contaminated too. Ask any cheesemaker. And why wouldn’t pasteurized milk that has been given a clean slate as a medium?
That someone would pass up raw milk cheese over that made from pasteurized milk leaves me chuckling. I recently read an article that said people in Haiti eat dirt biscuits to keep from starving. They’re cooked.
If disagreeing with someone and expecting them to back up their arguments is harsh, so be it. I can back up mine just fine, and I work hard to do so. Why wouldn’t I expect the same of someone else? Making belittling arguments and making valid ones are two very different entities. One is simply condescending. The other is a way to solve problems and come to an agreement.
Gwen
Gwen
"Samples of air and surfaces in the clean rooms at three National Aeronautics and Space Administration centers revealed surprising numbers and types of robust bacteria that appear to resist normal sterilization procedures, according to a newly published study."
"Samples taken from clean rooms at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the Kennedy Space Flight Center in Florida and the Johnson Space Center in Houston revealed almost 100 types of bacteria, about 45 percent of which were previously unknown to science, the study said. While some were common types that thrive on human skin, such as Staphylococcus species, others were oligotrophs, rarer microorganisms that have adapted to grow under extreme conditions by absorbing trace nutrients from the air or from unlikely surfaces like paint."
"Traditionally, NASA has examined clean-room bacteria by taking samples of air and surfaces and trying to culture bacteria present in the laboratory. Dr. Venkateswaran said only a small fraction of bacteria could be found this way because most grow only in their native environments.
For their tests, the researchers used a genetic testing method not employed in clean rooms before, known as ribosomal RNA gene sequence analysis, which allowed them to study and decode a genetic marker common to all bacteria. The unique sequences of each type allowed the researchers to identify a greater number and diversity of bacteria than previously detected in the rooms."
So cultures only showed a small fraction of the bacteria. I wonder if this ribosomal RNA gene sequence analysis as ever been used on pasteurized milk, especially on pasteurized milk taken from a store shelf. It may shake C2’s belief that pasteurization is a sure-fire method of killing bacteria.
I do think most everyone on this blog would LOVE to know HOW those contaminations really happened. You cant fix a mistake if you dont know how you made it in the first place.
They seem to be taking steps in the right direction of educating raw milk farmers with the book put out by the FTCLDF Raw Milk Production Handbook by Tim Wightman. (available here: https://www.ptfassociates.com/secure/ftcldf/ftcf_store.htm) I was at the picnic that launched FTCLDF and seem to remember something about a few WAPF folks being instrumental (Sally was one of them) in starting FTCLDF.
Education is the key for everyone, farmers and consumers alike. One thing to remember though, is that no matter WHAT information you are trying to learn, you need more than one source, and should not just go with that single source before making your choice. You have to ask a lot of questions of a lot of people. You cannot make an informed choice without first seeking the information. So, yes, WAPF should have all the facts correct and share them, BUT THE CONSUMER IS ULTIMATLY RESPONSIBLE for making the choice using the information they find. Part of the problem with todays society is that people do NOT want to take responsibility for them selves or their choices. They expect the government to do it all for them and we all know, that just doesnt work.
A quote from you below.I’m glad you put science based in quotes.Maybe we could discuss the science that shows that pasteurization is effective against all "pathogens".
"The best approach to disease control is a combination of "science-based" approaches. I see no problem researching the "probiotic" effect of the raw milk matrix, but am not yet convinced of their ability to represent a "kill" or control step for pathogens. It seems unwise to rely on only that biological property (assuming into the effort, especially if you are going to bypass the proven "kill step" for pathogens (pasteurization)."
How can you kill the "pathogens" and maintain the beneficial bacteria that keep them in check?I can’t imagine any way to have it both ways.
I think the real reason that you hold so tight to pasteurization(the silver bullet AGAIN!!!!?) is that pasteurization equals control for the industry,which to me means farmers selling at wholesale prices,industry adulterating the milk,making a huge profit off their control and poisoning consumers with a disgusting product.This will force the farmers who have had the courage to become independent to cut quality(to cut costs) and they will have to become slaves again or drop out of the market.
Been there ,done that,no way will I ever go back.
I can boil raw milk and drink without problems
but not the homogenized ( does not matter if it is organic ) one – it seems that this
process adds even more problems for us.
that’s why we should not pasteurize our milk. raw unprocessed milk has inherent capabilities that are lost once pasteurized.
the only reason to pasteurize is to kill the pathogens that come from the mixture and co-mingling of hundreds of dairies.
milk that is intended for human consumption is a different product entirely and does not need to be pasteurized.
"It may shake C2’s belief that pasteurization is a sure-fire method of killing bacteria."
I never said pasteurization and sterilization are the same or that milk should be sterile. I assume most here understand the difference between the two processes, and there is no need to say more.
C2
Of course other methods may be used, such as chemicals (phenol, ethylene oxide, etc), irradiation, high pressure, or filtration.
"I have deduced a hypothesis that the Dee Creek December 2005 Ecoli 0157:H7 raw milk outbreak was not caused by cow manure from the Dee Creek farm. Perhaps it was caused somehow by contamination by European starlings from a nearby factory farm. I propose that same hypothesis as the cause of the organic spinach outbreak."
Will you let me indulge in a bit of humor…
I ran into some starlings today and really got their feathers ruffled after sharing the suggestion from this blog that they were behind a raw milk, spinach, or any other outbreak. Since they cant type on the Internet, I agreed to pass along the messagethese birds believe any studies linking them to E. coli O157, Campylobacter, Salmonella or other bacteria are: 1) links, not proof, and 2) fabrications of the government and university officials out to destroy starlings (many of which also promote the huge expansion of the domestic cat industry across the country). They claim to have proof that their species was nowhere near a feedlot or those particular farms at the time of the outbreak (something for the experts and lawyers to figure out).
Finally, the chief starling said even if these bacteria were in their poop, it does not make them sick because the starlings as a species obviously have a superior immune system compared to the inferior humans.
After listening to all this, I had 2 choices as a government worker:
1) shoot the birds and bring them to the lab for testing to prove them wrong, or
2) let them fly away and see what additional research reveals.
I chose the second option. Just passing it along for the birds
C2
Last night I told my husband that Ive come to the conclusion that the only way to drink clean, healthy milk and have a guarantee it is pathogen free is to buy it from a small farmer raw and then pasteurized it yourself at home.
Im curious, why didnt you give your daughter raw goats milk when she was six months old?
"The rise to popularity of fat-free or skim milk has been engineered by clever advertising and brainwashing. Here are some results from research conducted by E.R. Kuck, the early administrative director of Brookside Research Labs. His early research started in 1937, a year after the latest report of undulant fever in dairy cattle. He was considered the world’s foremost authority on milk and the dairy industry at the farm level. He was honoured by the French Academy of Agriculture.
Most animal disorders are caused by mineral deficiencies in soils that produce the principal food supplies for animals. By starting with a complete quantitative analysis of the animals and quantitative analysis of the milk, it is possible to control the usual disorders affecting dairy cows.
The farms where he did his research had no cases of bloat, milk fever or white scours – a usually fatal condition of young calves.
It was discovered then that skim milk was a drug on the dairy market. Farmers poured it down the sewers to get rid of it, since they were paid according to the fat content of the fluid milk and/or cream they sold to the creameries and processors."
"Moguls of the dairy industry decided to create a market for a near waste product – skim milk. Their success (if we can call it that) has resulted in almost 90 per cent of the milk sold to consumers is skim milk or modified skim milk with up to three pounds of fat to each 100 pounds of skim milk."
"It was not difficult to do this. They capitalized on certain unproved statements relating to fats in natural foods causing overweight, elevated cholesterol, hardened arteries and eventually heart disease. Few stopped to realize the differences – the vital differences – between fresh, clean raw milk as produced by nature and the liquid white stuff delivered to the supermarkets. Here are some interesting comparisons. Skim milk will not support life and natural whole fat milk is not fattening providing it is consumed as produced natural in its raw form."
"Skim milk is robbed of its vital nutrients particularly fat-soluble vitamins A,D,E and K.
To produce skim milk, whole milk is run through a clarifier, then a separator, to remove all the natural fat, then pasteurized at high temperature followed by homogenization. Such processes remove not only all of the fat-soluble vitamins but enzymes, minerals and natural hormones as well or altered or destroyed so as to render the end product sterile. Consumers actually buy the carcass of the milk carried in about 90 per cent water – it’s dead as any corpse."
http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1028369
I can confirm E. R. Kuck’s results about cows and disease,We have had no need for a vetrinarian in the past 5 years(since we stopped feeding grain grown on mineral depleted soils).
I don’t know except that the difference in taste between skim and whole milk yogurt is obvious (admission–I don’t drink milk, never liked it since a child…that has nothing to do with any opinions on pasteurization, disease control, etc.). The most interesting topics here are nutrition, food safety, and small farming. Off the top of my head, perhaps a less nutritious product produced from depleted soil could leave someone feeling "hungry." This is too far outside my area of expertise to comment further. On the other hand, I "get" disease investigation and how to generate a hypothesis on the source of a foodborne pathogen. Something this groups never seems to want to discuss openly, oh well.
Kristen,
An oversimplification, but what do you think about an argument against "over-pasteurization" of perishable products like fruit juices or milk…they have labels recommending refrigeration, but if consumers ignore the label, a "sterile" product could be at higher risk for botulism versus a product with some natural flora (including spoilage bacteria in properly pasteurized milk and juices).
An aside…what are the "good" bacteria and how do different raw milk practices promote them? How do they work (not just testimonials–what are their names and characteristics; how many are needed for the benefits; does aging cheese destroy them)? Does pasteurization really kill off all the "good bacteria?"
Back to the botulism, consumers should follow the labels and keep these products refrigerated, but if they dont, sterile does not translate into safe. Pasteurization when done properly, provides something in the middle: reducing known pathogens using proven time/temperature combinations, but not eliminating all living things from the product.
Someone mentioned 16s rRNA analysis to further characterize the composition of raw (and, presumably pasteurized) milk flora, including those organisms that cannot be grown by culture (non-culturable"). That would be interesting–compare milk from different production facilities (large, small) and species (cow, goat). The technology is advancing quickly and being exploited by the biofuel industry to look at whole genomes of previously undiscovered organisms in cattle rumens and termite guts. A fascinating article: http://www.jgi.doe.gov/News/news_11_21_07.html
Another comment (not directed at your post)….There are enormous limitations to culture, but PCR, sequencing, and genomics have limits too (for example, most of these tests do not indicate if the bacteria are alive or dead). PARAPHRASING, Ive read comments here that culture methods like BAM are so laborious, it must mean the bacteria are at such *low* numbers they are virtually non-existent. Some doing the tests might argue the opposite: if it is very difficult to culture bacteria like Listeria and E. coli O157 in food such as milk, then actually finding these bacteria suggests they started out at relatively high levels to begin with. What do you think (only with regard to culture where you have the actual live organism in-handnot talking about the "quick" commercial tests)?
C2
Surely you have read the study exploring how starlings can spread e. coli? It’s kind of like avians can spread avian flu. One is a bacteria, the other a virus. Still, they do get around somehow..
Both are very real routes of transmission.
Do you have a mph?
It could be the start of a lasting and warm friendship.
Of course. The question about birds as carriers of E. coli O157 (Campylobacter, Salmonella) was facetious. But, the application of this background information is important. One of the birds today asked about how the blogger’s hypothesis was generated. Was it based on visits to the farms and observations of birds moving between feedlots and the farm(s)? Also, when she did the work and mapped the farms, how far were they from the feedlots relative to the flight range of the starlings? It was just a birds eye view I was asked to share
C2
Starlings caring bacteria is real.
Come off. Do your DIG.
CP, I can do with milk what I like, because I like to do it. The topic where I am concerned is the freedom to BUY raw milk from whom I please. If there is some argument someone has made about feeding babies raw milk, maybe you should take it up with them. I’ve made no such argument.
The milk I pasteurized was raised on ONE farm by goats only from that farm, pasteurized in its original WHOLE form without the addition of chemical residues from some tank, and filtered and pasteurized by ME at the temperature I wanted it cooked at for how long I wanted it to cook. Every consumer should have that right.
I’m still waiting for a valid safety argument; even a valid public ignorance argument compatable with all other food products currently on the market; and all that is being offered are insulting "humor" and leading questions. Where is the real argument? There are elusions to studies slowly emerging from the din, but they are hard to hear and make sense of just yet.
Gwen
Nope, but I have daar friends and colleagues with an mph. Is that your background (you sound very informed in food science)?
Not a good idea to be friends with a government person here, as a general rule, But, who knows. David’s last journal entry was unusually optimistic and ironic in it’s crossover with public health concerns ranging from the sweetened infant formula to the huge beef recalls/outbreaks. Then there are the issues with NAIS and it’s lack of a food safety objective…
C2
http://www.grand-island.com/departments/City_Administrator/Public_Information/docs/starlings.pdf
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/science/stories/2007/10/23/sci_ecoli.ART_ART_10-23-07_B4_H6877HV.html?sid=101
What has my intense curiosity is the issue of safety, and the lack of evidence for an argument for it. It isn’t even that I think raw milk is "safe." I’m aware that it has dangers. But as the arguments ensue about safety, the lack of a valid argument is so perpetual, that I am increasingly amazed at the boldness of the people making it. They can’t even say how unsafe milk is unsafer than safe milk in a relevant way. Its as if there is no research along those lines at all. And I am amazed that farmers are still being raided and taken to jail, and to court.
Yup, I’m going to keep asking, "But where are your facts?" And I’m not asking you, of course. Keep on arguing for choice – you are doing a pretty good job.
Gwen
Bob Hayles
"I "get" disease investigation and how to generate a hypothesis on the source of a foodborne pathogen. Something this groups never seems to want to discuss openly, oh well."
The assumption you are making is that the presence of a "pathogen" is the cause of an illness.I would argue that it is the presence of conditions that favor the proliferation of that "pathogen" that is the cause of the illness.
For example: A pile of garbage is rotting in the sun,flies are buzzing about it.Can we get rid of the bad smell by killing the flies?Flies can spread disease by moving from the garbage to something you are about to eat.The flies are actually there to help clean up the pile of garbage.It takes time but eventually they will lay eggs and the maggots will consume the garbage and fly away.If we get so focused on the flies and how to kill them or tracking them back to their source,we risk not seeing the obvious solution to the problem.If we eliminate the pile of garbage(the conditions that allowed the flies to proliferate),we will eliminate the flies.
It is healthy soil,healthy forage and healthy cows that will produce "pathogen" free milk.If we don’t deal with the garbage(sick soil,unhealthy feed,depressed cows) the flies(pathogens) will never go away.
If all producers, processors did what they were supposed to, there shouldn’t be as many recalls/contaminations as there are or have been. The majority of contaminations appear to occur before the consumer buys the product and unfortunately it is the consumer who suffers. Common sense should tell one that the larger an operation is, the more susceptible it will be to contamination.
If you don’t know the answer, the best response is, "I don’t know, but will try to find the answer". When questions are avoided; reasoning process is revealed as possibly weak …
I know who can and can’t carry infectious pathogens. I don’t care if big ag gets blamed or not. The context of disease transmission from farm to table has not, in my opinion, been established. It is based upon assumptions that regulations are built upon.
I’m pretty impatient with all the hedging and changing the subject, and the acting like it is a "no-brainer," with marshmallows and hotdogs being offered up for a bonfire as proof. I’m kind of done with this ride.
Bob, I’m guessing this is a trap, but that’s okay. There is no simple definition of "safe food." That’s my down and dirty answer.
To add a bit more and not look like I’m dodging your question…in the context of classical "food safety" and acute illness (not nutrition or chronic disease), a short definition might be:
safe food is free of microbes (bacteria, parasites, viruses, etc.), toxins, or chemicals at levels that could cause illness in the consumer.
Lots of caveats…
-no guarentee that any food will achieve this 100% of the time (especially with human error as a factor)
-where does consumer handling fit in?
-what is the definition of consumer (age, pregnant, on chemotherapy)?
-and so on
Darth
"To add a bit more and not look like I’m dodging your question…in the context of classical "food safety" and acute illness (not nutrition or chronic disease), a short definition might be"
So…you don’t feel that nutrition in a given product, or lack thereof, should be a component of food safety?
Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead
Jasper, GA
706.692.7004
Thornberry Village Homestead…a small goat dairy, owned by God, managed by Bob and Tyler.
to me, that means that we should all improve our immune systems. "sickness" and "safety" are all relative. to ensure safety in foods we should make sure that they contain all of the beneficial bacteria our immune system needs. that way:
(1)
that way:
(1) the bad bugs don’t have a fighting chance to survive;
(2) the bad bugs can’t activate their harmful mechanisms;
(3) the bad bugs can enter our cells
seems pretty simple to me.
by the way, pathogen as a "kill" step doesn’t even work anymore because the bugs have evolved to the point where a new form of "pasteurization" is required. if it was up to me, we would all live with raw foods and take precautions to prevent the introduction of bad bugs into the food production process. in other words, what a "haccp" is all about. i even think that uc-davis would agree with me on that point.
Food safety and nutrition are related public health issues, but I guess "safe/unsafe" doesn’t feel like the right word when describing food with low nutritional value (Is a donut and a coke for breakfast unsafe (once a year versus every day)? Is too much of a "good" thing like overindulging in high calorie raw butter and cream, unsafe? Just seems different (not meaning less important) than the use of the word safe when dealing with a pesticide in a food or a dangerous bacteria.
It is interesting to look at the FDA "definition," sort of reflected by the Center for Food Safety and Nutrition (CFSAN)’s mission statement: "to promote and protect the public’s health by ensuring that the nation’s food supply is safe, sanitary, wholesome, and honestly labeled, and that cosmetic products are safe and properly labeled."
And current areas of food safety concerns:
-biological pathogens (e.g., bacteria, viruses, parasites)
-naturally occurring toxins (e.g., mycotoxins, -ciguatera toxin, paralytic shellfish poison)
-dietary supplements (e.g., ephedra)
-pesticide residues
-toxic metals (e.g., lead, mercury)
-decomposition and filth (e.g., insect fragments)
-food allergens (e.g., eggs, peanuts, wheat, milk)
-nutrient concerns (e.g., vitamin D overdose, pediatric iron toxicity)
-dietary components (e.g., fat, cholesterol)
-radionuclides
-TSE-type diseases (e.g., chronic wasting disease in elk)
-product tampering
Hmmm, see anything missing from a public health viewpoint (versus USDA’s nutrition mission). Not much that fits with a classical description of nutrition…especially in contrast to UC Berkeley’s Nutrition Program in the School of Public Health which focuses on:
"national, state and local community programs designed to improve the nutritional status of the population as a whole and those at particular risk; on the social and behavioral factors that impact health in general and nutritional factors specifically; and on the design, implementation and evaluation of programs to improve the nutritional status of the population or subgroups in the population."
What is your personal down and dirty, short, sweet, simple definition of "safe" food?"
Darth
"seems pretty simple to me."
Yeah, but that approach requires changing people’s eating habits…lots of people to have a measurable effect on food safety and nutrition. That’s not simple.
"take precautions to prevent the introduction of bad bugs into the food production process"
Total agreement on that point.
C2
Bob
I think we agree (or I’m not quite getting the question–you’ll have to lead me through the maze a bit). One of my concerns raised before is the obesity epidemic that ties into poor nutrition. And, "food security" is critical–meaning having enough food to feed a population (not referring to "food defense," but that’s important too). All these things including food safety are components of public health that relate to food. -Darth
We do know that the same family can eat something contaminated with Ecoli 0157:H7 and not everyone will become ill. In the Dee Creek outbreak, 140 people drank raw milk in the same timeframe but only 18 became ill (many of course who were children). So there is evidence to support there must be something internally within a persons system that can fight off some amount of 0157:H7.
Where did you get your information from10 million for a person with a healthy digestive immune system, versus 10 for someone who is immune compromised? Was this someones professional guesstimation? How would this be proven? I would think it would be difficult to find people to participate in a research study.
You earlier used the example of a donut and a coke for breakfast once a year. That’s obviously not "dangerous food" in those quantities, and is equally obviously not nutritious in any quantity.
But we aren’t talking about a donut and a coke once a year. We’re talking nutrition in general…basically the SAD (Standard American Diet) promoted by folks like the USDA, CDC, and other agencies supposedly concerned with food safety.
When the SAD is comprised of foods with all nutrition processed out of it, when the SAD is comprised of vegetables grown in soil that is little more than chemical cesspools, when the SAD diet includes fruits and veggies that have been sprayed with, fertilized with, and washed in chemicals that are known carcinogens…when the public health burocracy declares this garbage "safe food" simply because it has been pastuerized, irridated, etc to kill possible pathogens, it kind of makes folks that want healthy, nutrient dense foods lose all confidence in those who would tell us what they consider "safe"foods.
It’s kind of like the kid who cried wolf one too many times.
When the public health burocracy says Viiox is OK, then says "oops" when it kills people, when they say the HPV vaccine is fine when there have been NO long term studies on any age group population, and only an 18 month study on adult women, when they hold up the lysteria bogeyman as a reason not to drink raw dairy when lysteria in raw milk has killed exactly zero people in the US since the early 70’s, but has killed people due to pastuerized milk within the last year, when it takes an undercover video to shut down a plant routinely selling us beef from downer cows, when we are told that SAD is good, healthy, safe, nutritious food when it is instead nutrient depleted garbage that leaves our bodies craving the nutrients it needs, thus making us eat more of the crap in a failing attempt to give our bodies what they need to be properly nourished, thus making us fat and causing diabetes and other cronic ailments….
When the GOVERNMENT does all this, why should we be expected to listen to ANYTHING they have to say regarding food safety?
When it comes to the grunts in the trenches, like you, I don’t believe there is some grand conspiracy to destroy small farms, raw dairy, and the like.
When it comes to the folks above you, like the piece of crap Chirdon in Pennsylvanis…well, when it comes to them just consider me a nutcase conspiracy theorist.
Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead
Jasper, GA
706.692.7004
Thornberry Village Homestead…a small goat dairy owned by God, managed by Bob and Tyler.
You are maybe suggesting a re-tooling of the government mindset. Whoa, have the experts in nutrition (screaming in the dark about chronic disease, availability and promotion of nutritious food across all sectors, breastfeeding–threw that in for Gwen) talk to the experts in bacteria, viruses, etc. (screaming in the dark about emerging pathogens, antibiotic resistance, lack of resources to study transmission routes and develop better tests)? Indeed, the powers would be shocked (and not invite you to their meetings).
Where next? Ignoring the hard work of the scientist grunts in the current version of food safety in government is not productive (Dave–where on earth did you get "10 million pathogenic e. coli and still not get sick," no disrespect, but someone is selling you a bridge).
Your suggestion has value, but not if one must trump the other. It will take a lot of coordinated, hard work to change anything (no names mentioned).
Taking antibiotics would kill all the good bacteria and make someone susceptible for becoming seriously ill for E.coli 0157:H7.if you believe the theory that enough good intestinal bacteria would make it difficult for someone to become ill even after ingesting contaminated food with this deadly pathogen.
By the way Bob…very well said about SAD!
Read Steve Bemis’s post #86 above. Sit with it for a while before responding. Digest it. It makes two points eloquently.
First, if the hypothesis is correct, it validates that current food safety, as viewed by the public health burocracy, is a large part of the problem, not the solution.
Also, it makes for strong argument in favor of consumer choice from ALL foods, not just the nanny state approved ones.
Bob