We’ve been very fortunate on this blog to have had a number of people willing to share their experiences and knowledge around food-borne illness.
First, there’s Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy Co. Mark is open almost to a fault. He can’t resist commenting, and in so doing, turns himself into a lightning rod. He discussed his views of what happened regarding the illnesses of the six children, ad nauseum.
Then there’s Mary McGonigle-Martin, mother of Chris Martin, followed by Melissa Herzog, mother of Lauren Herzog. They both discussed the situations from their perspectives, to the point of exhaustion for many readers.
And finally, we’ve had any number of extremely well informed participants in these debates—Miguel, Dave Milano, Steve Bemis, Sylvia, C2, Kirsten, milkfarmer, and many others too numerous to mention.
Now, we can dispute these individuals—especially Mark, Mary, Melissa—in terms of what they said, how they said it, when they said what, and so forth, but the simple fact that the discussion took place is highly unusual.
The reason it’s so unusual is that, despite the fact that millions of people (the CDC says 77 million) are victims of food-borne illness each year, there are three huge obstacles that prevent the kind of discussion that took place here.
The first obstacle is the legal/public relations obstacle. There are very very few business executives who, when their companies are identified as possible sources of foodborne illness, are willing to candidly talk about it. Most fear the Bill Marlers of the world, and are advised by their attorneys not to say anything because it could be held against them in a court suit. Mark is very much the exception, for any number of reasons.
The second obstacle is the privacy obstacle. Patient privacy is protected, as well it should be, and so it’s difficult for the media to locate victims of food-borne illness. Many of these victims don’t want to get in the middle of media debates about the topic. In the September 2006 California case, only two of the six have come forward—Mary, to the extent she shared many personal and painful details of her family’s ordeal.
The third obstacle is that our government officials and their scientific advisers refuse to be candid about the subject. So we are left with documents like those produced by California public health department and the CDC that raise more questions than they answer.
Now, why do the government officials and advisers—these lions of our scientific, public health, and medical establishment—resist being candid? As much as we want to blame conspiracies, I think the real reason is very simple: they don’t fully understand the problem of food-borne illness.
In fact, none of us fully understand it. If we did, we wouldn’t be having the debates we have here. Some of us think we understand it—I agree with those who see our obsession with pathogens and food sterilization as having created the unintended effect of weakening people’s immune systems. But I can’t prove it conclusively. The establishment view that we just need to tighten cleanliness up some more to completely rid ourselves of the pathogens holds sway. But they can’t prove their case conclusively either.
The government’s problem is that the officials are unwilling to admit they don’t have all the answers. There was an interesting exchange in Congress yesterday to this point, in hearings about the salmonella outbreak affecting tomatoes, reported by The Wall Street Journal. “Some lawmakers expressed exasperation with the (FDA). ‘The longer you sit on this committee, the more depressed you get, because the issues never get resolved and crop up again and again,’ said Rep. Diana DeGette (D., Colo.), who for years has urged the agency to develop a program to track food from the farm.”
We can argue about this legislator’s perspective all we want [just over the fact she wants a tracking system for all food], but the reality is she is frustrated because the scientists at the FDA won’t tell her/us they don’t fully understand the food-borne illness phenomenon.
The same frustration is spilling over onto this blog. There’s this feeling, I know I get it sometimes—why the hell don’t Marler and C2 and CP see the big picture? And they get frustrated with being labeled and mocked, and the beat goes on.
I’m not sure exactly why the scientific establishment can’t bring itself to admit it doesn’t fully understand what’s happening. Maybe because Congress appropriates money and drug companies come up with highly profitable products and so on and so forth based on the conventional wisdom. To say you don’t know—as admirable a human trait as that might be–well, it doesn’t inspire the confidence that legislators and investors like.
In terms of this blog’s etiquette, I urge people to be more respectful. In that vein, I strongly suggest avoiding identity switches. The most disrespectful individuals seem to be those hiding behind ad hoc signatures. Don’t write stuff here you wouldn’t say directly to another individual in conversation. The way most blogs counter such problems is to require signup info. Let’s see if we can avoid that.
I’ve been on this blog long enough to know that is not what most participants are implying, and the real question might be (correct me if I’m wrong–gently, please)…how should the government go about "helping" industries correct possible problems that could lead to illnesses while at the same time not taking away farmer/consumer choice?. And, yes, I still believe the "nanny" government has a role in studying these outbreaks and making recommendations to reduce future risks to the public (down to the very, very lowest level of sh** happens–the high plate counts and coliforms at Dairy A combined with another outbreak the following year suggest–but doesn’t prove–to me that they were not at that level of "just a mistake, stop picking on us…").
Also, it is very tough to find common ground when one side at its extreme says ban it and the other extreme side says increase access to [high risk] populations such as children. Sorry, but the data available now, with all its limitations, shows the risks are greater than the benefits for children.
David–I agree this has been an unusual gathering of people with different backgrounds and unprecedented openess on your blog from farmers like Mark and Bob, patients (their parents), government folk, consumers, lawyers, and others. Not what goes on in the usual meetings about food safety, consumer choice, etc.
You know better than to ask that question 🙂 No stone left unturned is a foreign concept in this age of budget cuts, lack of leadership…on the one hand research is bringing all these great technologies, but on the other hand circumstances in the public health system are moving things into the dark age.
It really depends on your ‘data’….and where you are looking. If you are looking at the ‘research machine’…scientific studies funded by industry you are sure to find unbiased findings =;-) Basing your opinion on ‘peer review’ limits you…just as logical reductionist thinking eventually paints one into a corner. It’s better to go out the door and look in the window.
I have dozens of kids that drink my milk (one of them is my own). They are healthier because of it. Thousands of kids partake everyday, and just because no one is there marking it with a pencil, it doesn’t count? Talk about scientific blinders. No C2 you are wrong here. The ‘threat’ you are fabricating is false….at least when you take into consideration the benefits vs the odds of sickness. You haven’t a clue what us ‘fringe, raw milk lunatics’ are proving to ourselves everyday…and it flies in the face of your journals,and your government reports and your fear mongering.
Yes, it was sad that those kids got sick in CA. 6 right, out of what 60,000….600,000…. 6 million servings that day, week or month. The risk you speak of is a sham, fabricated to take away the right of access. If you knew the true breadth of the raw milk supply in this country you would realize how small the out breaks (if they are indeed not government fabrications) actually are. It’s so funny you worrying that more people might actually get what is distinctly a cornerstone of a healthier diet then the one you and your ilk recommend. Amazing…. :shakinghead:
Access is the key. If raw milk can stand on it’s own legs, and become more ‘widely available’ it’ll only be if the State stops lying to it’s people and let them get the stuff (legally without hassles).
As the conventional food supply becomes even more unstable (and unsafe, never mind more unhealthy)….us fanatics on the fringe will become more and more correct.
Dr. Mercola states:
So, what can you do to keep your bodys ecosystem thriving and, most importantly, in balance?
1. Avoid antibiotics if at all possible. Only take them as a last resort, and when absolutely necessary. If you do take antibiotics, be sure to take a high-quality probiotic supplement upon finishing the treatment to replenish your bodys good bacteria.
2. Avoid antibacterial soaps. They will cause the production of resistant bacterial strains and are toxic. Plain soap and water is all you need.
3. Eat a diet tailored to your nutritional type. This will give you the foods your body (and its bacteria) will thrive on.
4. Avoid sugar and grains, which feed bad bacteria.
5. Eat organic meat and dairy products, as conventional varieties can contain high levels of antibiotic residues.
6. Eat fermented foods like kefir, unpasteurized sauerkraut, or, my favorite, natto. These foods are naturally rich in good bacteria that will help to keep your gut bacteria in balance.
7. Take a high-quality probiotic supplement, particularly while you get your diet on the right track.
How can we get better statistics about the number of raw milk drinkers? I think that is key in this discussion. The government has no money (or motivation) to find these numbers. As you work toward changing minds (and policy)…sorry sounding authorative again…show us the data! This repeated 40,000 raw milk drinkers in California makes no sense looking at the actual quantity of milk sold in that state commercially (guess what, bet the number is higher–how much higher?).
We perpetually go in circles…I’ll circle around again too and say you have only 1 obstacle to get government off your backs: food safety. So long as we are concerned, we will be a distraction. If we lose interest, the big dairies will follow our lead on this one (the reasons why I know this are another subject)–we back off, they back off, so long as you don’t totally ruin the reputation of dairy products.
Darth and other scientists are starting to think that letting y’all go wild and sell raw dairy products as you please without regulation might be the next step (not that we could convince hard-headed regulators to give this approach a try). If we went to the light side and y’all could sell raw milk freely without regulation or oversight it would be an intersting and maybe definitive experiment. Things work out–public health goes away. Things don’t work out…Bill Marler "cleans-up" on the mess.
On that note, I will try to stop the fear mongering.
C2
How the heck does one get off of the Dr. Mercola distribution list? I must have linked to it at one point (maybe through this blog), and now he sends emails almost every day that do not go into "spam" despite my best efforts. I unsubscribed, but it came back. Nothing against sharing ideas, but I have information overload and want those emails to go away…that’s why I like this site: anonymous; it is encouraging that posters are behaving again so David can keep the option not to identify a specific email as a pre-requisite for visiting or posting (and subject us to spam email).
C2
I think more honest surveillance is needed – too often government agencies seem to be in bed with the industry they are supposed to be monitoring. I can’t believe USDA inspectors never saw slaughter house workers zapping downer cows or playing "football" with chickens. There have also been numerous instances of irregularities, including insider trading, at the FDA
Secondly, treat investigations of contaminated products with an even hand. Raw milk has an undeserved reputation as a lunatic fringe product, which is unfortunately fostered by the dairy industry. Thus there are too many officials who jump to conclusions. The "roll your eyes and round up the usual suspects" really gets in the way of understanding emerging pathogens. C’mon – there were only five samples – FIVE! Why not examine every one? Where’s the intellectual curiosity? Did someone have a hot date? I understand in this case that there was a larger outbreak occurring and things were frenetic, but I think in this case, raw milk may just have been a convenient scapegoat. It helps to keep an open mind just in case it’s not what you are 99% sure it is.
Thirdly, be more vigilant and consistent in recalling a product. OP was shut down immediately. Contaminated peanut butter sat on shelves for years. The current Salmonella outbreak has been going on since April. I would think that the Saint Paul strain is unusual enough for those in charge to take notice more quickly, especially because since 1990 there has been a 70% chance that there will be a tomato recall during any given year.
More rapid and candid identification of an outbreak’s source is necessary. Some industries appear to be shielded from public scrutiny by government officials. Right now we don’t know where the Salmonella-tainted tomatoes come from even though each store-bought tomato has a PLU coded sticker. Likewise it took too long to nail down the source of the spinach e coli outbreak even though those bags had bar codes.
Meanwhile, the clean growers go broke via association. Is it simply coincidence that they are often small growers and the "dirty" party is a large corporation?
Better I should stop drinking the conspiracy Kool-Aid.
Thanks for keeping the lines of communication open and having an interest in opposing views. I think listening is perhaps the best thing the government (and citizenry) can do.
"Why not examine every one? Where’s the intellectual curiosity?"
You should FOIA the scientist’s emails to "management"…this system is so broke. I agree with just about everything in your post.
C2
40,000 drinkers, drinking a gallon a week would be over 2 million gallonsso even if it was OP milk (or colostrum which really confuses the issue) that caused sickness we still come up with 1 in half a million. Do you know what the odds of being struck by lightning in the US is? (its more than this). So by your logic we should all stay inside because the risk is to great for death or injury from lightning. Wanna discuss car accidents? or playing the lottery?.
With so many out there looking to ban the stiff outright, or other seeking to coopt the raw stuff into the established delivery system (see Utah)it would be highly unlikely that most raw milk providers will have the trust necessary to come out and help the authorities. Frankly, few officials have actually earned the respect that they demandespecially when they flatulate the party raw milk is dangerous lines. I wouldnt hold your breath for the data. You should however try and get out and speak to raw milk drinkers. Listen to what they say. Itll change your mindclearlyif you expose yourself to it. Im certain there is a farm selling the good stuff near you.
Done /ongoing (exchange on this blog).
"Im certain there is a farm selling the good stuff near you."
Haven’t found one in my area that I trust, sigh. I’m picky.
C2
The people who are drinking raw milk, for the most part, are committed. Like the kids who get to taste the ‘real stuff’….they just can’t ever go back and drink ‘that yucky stuff from the store’. This indeed is the real fear that you should be ‘creating’…and the notion that Big Dairy isn’t scared manureless about the prospect of ‘more widely available’ unadulterated farm fresh milk is poopycock.
Raw milk is here to stay. Many will go to extreme lengths to procure it, and that’s not going to change. Many farmers providing it are willing to suffer financial ruin and jail to do so. C2…your side is defeated already, and you don’t even realize it. The Truth is out there, and the more people that become aware, the more the lies become obvious.
I wonder how many incident fabrications there have been over the years….just to give the state officials the opportunity to put their scare campaign out over the airwaves.
In your earlier comment on this post (comment #6) you actually propose what I think should be the government’s role in food safety…ALL food safety, not just raw dairy.
"…and the real question might be (correct me if I’m wrong–gently, please)…how should the government go about "helping" industries correct possible problems…while at the same time not taking away farmer/consumer choice?…I still believe the "nanny" government has a role in studying these outbreaks and making recommendations to reduce future risks…"
Study and recommendations. That might also be termed education and communication, neither of which I would say is not in the purview of the dark side…
I’d even agree that SOME regulation is right. No producer should be allowed to lie to a consumer. I give every new customer a handout I prepared that gives BOTH sides of the issue of raw milk safety, including cites and links to FDA and CDC reports that I consider fear mongering, like the "Russian Roulette" comparison. I don’t think all producers should have to go that far (that’s just something I do…others may address the issue in a different manner), but neither do I believe that flat out lies should be permittable either. If a "newbie" to raw milk asks if raw dairy has ever made anyone sick the producer that answers "no" should be jailed. Exactly where in between these two examples honesty enforcement should land I can’t honestly say.
But that’s it. I see no constitutional way the state can tell people that their food choices must come from a nanny state approved list of foods. Education and information…yes. Forced "choice"…not in our constitution.
You should know by now that I am something of a "rights nut"…and it extends to more than raw dairy…that’s just the main topic here. The first thing that should be asked of ANY government action is, "is this constitutional?" If the answer is no it should die right there, and denying citizens the right to make their own nutritional choices is not constitutional.
Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead
Jasper, GA
706.692.7004
Thornberry Village Homestead…a small goat dairy owned by God,managed by Bob.
After being immersed in the raw milk fight and subsiquent foodbourne illnes research over the past ten years as raw milk producer and consumer advocate..tied to the native american understandings I was also taught in that time frame , it appears to me that we are witnessing the regulation of unchecked growth in the area of animal co-habitation.
Scrappee, mad cow disease.salmonella, johnees, e-coli have all been with us for sometime.
It is only in time of stress and or over popoulation do these thing begin to show themselves as a tool to thin out the numbers to a sustainable level.
Native americans knew that staying in one spot for too long only invited disease, hence summer camps, winter camps, and longer movements and splitting of the camps to other areas in order to be sustainable.
If we look at our current food production system on the commercial scale we have created large population in a small place and disease has interviend to thin the numbers.
Yet we have been able for a while to offset the effect of the thinning by the use of antibiotics.
However the thinning aspects will mutate to continue the job and we only have so many options to hold off the end result.
In the mean time we are seeing the end of cheap fertilizer and the thinning effect(pathogens) has now been transported to the fields of our other food stuffs grown in monocultures void of diversity, and times own thinning aspect of reducing these pathogens(composting) and it has begun to effect us in unintentional ways.
Last few years meats & eggs have been effected, last year it was spinach..this year tomatoes..next year your guess is as good as mine.
We do however have a Food dafety industry modeled very much on the medical industry of treating the symptoms not the cause.
Until we begin to peal back the layers of the real reason these things are happening raw milk will be held up as the traditional reason we are to classify all foods as dangerous (for at one time it was yet no longer) and an two industries will continue their own unchecked growth.
The food safety industry will come up with new ways to render our food safe.. and commercial producers will consolidate more and more animals in smaller and smaller places..all the while ruining our produce with the waste created.
Tim
http://bmartinmd.com/2008/02/doj-us-importer-conspired-to-b.html
When I read stories link the one above, it just reinforces the lack of trust of industrial and govt entities.
I don’t recall anyone stating that there should be NO regulation. Regulations are there to help keep people honest and safe. Unfortunately many are not from both sides of the spectrum. There should be basic guidelines that any entity is required to follow. They should all be fair and obtainable.
Of those who go above and beyond the "basics" I have no problem paying the extra that it may cost. Apparently others are of the same mind; the rbST added to cows has forced many to seek out dairy that does not have it added, and it appears to have upset the producer of rbST so muct that milk cartons have to be labeled that there is no difference. By forcing non-rbST dairies to state on the label there is no difference, only enforces who is running the "enforcers".
Food Safety? Safe food handling is an expected function of anyone that produces/sales/gives food to another.
"denying citizens the right to make their own nutritional choices is not constitutional."
This is true Bob. Bob, about the McDonald’s coffee case. That coffee was at 185 degrees, which had she taken a swig of it, it would have been her mouth and throat severly burned. That particular McDonalds along with others had been court ordered to reduce the temperature as others had been burned, it was a safety issue. McDonalds declined to lower the temperature, thus further causing other injuries.
Have you never blown across a too-hot cup of coffee served by your neighbor? If so, did you consider a lawsuit?
I understand your point, and myself am no fan of big business or big government, but these whiny lawsuits emphatically do NOT get to the problem. They tend to do the otherwise, by making these industries look like victims.
"…how should the government go about "helping" industries correct possible problems that could lead to illnesses while at the same time not taking away farmer/consumer choice?"
Before we answer that, we should first look at the big picture as David suggests, and consider this question: What were the consequences of allowing food production to become an "industry"?
This is part of my answer:
Once food production became controlled by massive systems–corporate, government, and corporate-government hybrids–systemic third-party (i.e. government) controls became inevitable and necessary. It couldnt be otherwise because industrialized food production (especially manufactured rather than grown food) so distanced consumers from producers that consumers could no longer judge the safety or nutritional quality of their food. (Truthfully, these days few even know what food is anymore. Take margarine as an example. It’s seed oil-based–historically a new "food"–mixed with metals, emulsifiers, and starch, subjected to high pressures and heat, bleached, dyed, and sold as health food. What are the consequences of eating that?)
I would suggest that a small farm selling raw milk or vegetables locally is more akin to a sidewalk lemonade stand than an "industry." Small-farm consumers can see for themselves whether their food is safe, and need no big-brother style rules and regulations. (Yes there can and will be accidents and even nefarious behaviors, but the former should be tolerated, and the latter will always be vilified naturally, without the help of government.)
Instead we have: Cargill and Monsanto and ADM and Tyson and the others on this too-short list working with government to develop regulations, which then get applied to poor schlubs like Mark Nolt.
Adulterations are the norm and appear to be accepted unquestionably by the majority. I agree with you, most don’t have a clue what they are consuming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adulterant
Dave, My neighbors have not served me 185 degree coffee. Yes, I’ve scorched my mouth on some hot drinks, I’ve even spewed the hot liquid out. I’ve never sustained a 2nd nor 3rd degree burn from consuming beverages.
I believe it was the media that made the industry look like a victim.
Again, I can only imagine the oral damage had she taken a drink of the hot coffee. Apparently the McDonalds Lady had 3rd degree burms, requiring skin grafting: don’t know if it was her own skin, a cadaver’s, or pigs. Skin grafts present complications. Many times the grafts don’t take and/or infection sets in. Burn and graft pain can be severe. She was burned in the groin area, thus her burn was more severe than had it been her hand. The tissues are more delicate leading to the potential of greater electrolyte imbalance, more fluid loss, infection and more difficult to heal and adhere grafts to,bowel and bladder elimination,etc.. It isn’t fun cleaning burns either for the nurse nor the patient.
http://www.forburns.com/press/BurnSafetyProtection.pdf
BURN SAFETY/ADD ONE
How hot is too hot?
WATER TEMP TIME REQUIRED FOR 3RD
DEGREE BURN
155 0F 1 SECOND
148 0F 2 SECONDS
140 0F 5 SECONDS
133 0F 15 SECONDS
127 0F 1 MINUTE
124 0F 3 MINUTES
120 0F 5 MINUTES
100 0F SAFE TEMPERATURE
What can I do?Set water heater thermostat at low. Adjust the thermostat setting on your water heater to produce a water temperature of 120-125 degrees or less. The lower the temperature, the lower the risk.Do not bathe at temperatures above 110 degrees, and 100 degrees is the safest.
"The thermostat of a new water heater offered for sale or lease in this state for use in a residential unit, shall be preset by the manufacturer no higher than one hundred twenty degrees Fahrenheit (or forty-nine degrees Celsius) or the minimum setting on any water heater which cannot be set as low as that temperature. Water heating systems may utilize higher reservoir temperature if mixing valves are set or systems are designed to restrict the temperature of water to one hundred twenty degrees Fahrenheit."
Regulation of raw milk, of course, is as good an idea as water heater temperature regulation. It’s for our safety, right?
In an age when freedom must take second place to everybody’s good ideas, and lawyers and judges and juries can ruin a person or a corporation for subjective infractions, we will likely get what we ask for and get it good.
I don’t say this to be argumentative Sylvia. I suppose that I am, like Bob Hayles described himself, a "rights" nut. I think you should be happy that I am, for if I step in a hole on your property and break my ankle, you can bet that I won’t sue you. I will instead, pay more attention next time.
No, not at all the same or as good as. I’ve said before that I have no problem with basic regulations as long as they are fair and obtainable (I don’t believe the 5ml law is).
Bob had made a previous referance to the McDonald’s suit, that particular one, I feel was just. The media exploited it and did make McDonalds the victim. This McDonalds suit is a good example of a problem and the industry not correcting it. This particular McDonalds had previous complaints/injuries from burns. They refused to correct it. A blatent disregard for safety.
I’ve not met Bob, from what I’ve gathered on this blog, I would say if I told him that there was something not right about his milk, he would research my inquirery and make adjustments if need be and/or explain to me whatever it is that I was questioning. I would expect that from a small farmer. I would like to even think that Claravale owners and Mark at OP would do the same. In reality could I expect that from a factory farm or other large industry? I doubt it.
If the raw milk has to be 5 ml of bacteria then so should the pasteurized milk,how about both at the bulk tank? (I am being factious about the 5ml). The fox isn’t being regulated by anyone, allowing it free range in the hen house is not the best way to raise chickens.
"I don’t say this to be argumentative Sylvia. I suppose that I am, like Bob Hayles described himself, a "rights" nut. I think you should be happy that I am, for if I step in a hole on your property and break my ankle, you can bet that I won’t sue you. I will instead, pay more attention next time."
I feel very strongly that it is each individuals right to make their own choices. I also believe in informed consent. Withholding or manipulating information is no different than lieing.
I can say that I wouldn’t sue either should I stumble on your land. I didn’t sue when my son was injured at his friends years ago, after insurance, the medical bills were $28000. Crap happens, he is healthy for which I am grateful. I am not sue happy, I do believe there is a place for it.
"I am not sue happy, I do believe there is a place for it."
What do you think about this one?
The human face of E. coli O157:H7: 3-year-old died in 2000
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/2008/06/articles/e-coli/the-human-face-of-e-coli-o157h7-3yearold-died-in-2000/index.html
"Genetic testing showed the microbes that made the restaurant patrons sick matched microbes contained in an unopened package of meat."
I find it amazing that they found matching microbes in regards to the steak house and the govt officials cannot find matching microbes with OP and the 2006 incident. No consistency from the govt officials,
One explanation…meats have a longer shelf life (including leftovers in the freezer)… which allows investigators the opportunity to test the implicated product (lot). Milk has a short shelf life and tends to be consumed (gone) by time an investigation is initiated.
But, I agree with your observation that the way these investigations are conducted vary across different jurisdictions depending on their resources, capabilities, and motivations. No doubt, this leaves the public confused.
It is a mistake to discount findings from a foodborne outbreak investigation (epidemiology) and the lessons learned just because the "outbreak strain" wasn’t isolated from the implicated food. Great to have the "smoking gun," but if you hold us to that bar always, many emerging and ongoing problems would never be discovered or mitigated.
E. coli death case settled for $13.5 million
By Tom Johnston on 6/16/2008 for Meatingplace.com
The family of a 3-year-old girl who died nearly eight years ago as a result of E. coli O157:H7 sickness has reached a $13.5 million settlement with Excel Corp., the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported, citing court documents filed Friday.
William Cannon, an attorney representing the family, said the settlement is the second-largest in the nation involving a food-borne illness, and perhaps the largest award for a single victim.
Brianna Kriefall, 3, died in July 2000, following a battle with E. coli O157:H7 after dining at a Sizzler restaurant with her family near their South Milwuakee home. She and 140 other people were sickened with E. coli during the related outbreak.
Excel, a subsidiary of Cargill, had denied that its product caused the outbreak, but genetic testing showed the microbes that sickened the restaurant patrons matched those that were contained in an unopened package of meat, according to MJS.
Lawyers for the Kriefalls argued that while Brianna did not eat meat, the watermelon she ate was contaminated by the E. coli after it came in contact with the fruit.
The Sizzler restaurant chain, the local franchise and an insurance company also are suing Excel. The trial on the remaining issues of the case is slated for July 7.
Apparently a small clarification is necessary. My point in saying the above was that rule-making is a slippery slope, and that in the great land of politicians and bureaucrats there will always be enough support for just about any good idea to have it written down and enforcement placed behind it. There is ample evidence of that in every walk of life.
Sane, qualitative judgments such as those that Sylvia might make are washed away in the Tsunamis of political pandering, governmental nannyism, and corporate controls of government controls.
David, I think the lack of confidence grows when the statement ends with the above. Perhaps if it was continued with–I’ll research it and get back to you with the answers (and follow through): the "I don’t knows" would be accepted. Maybe I’m simulating
reality?
C2, I am aware of the difference of shelf life between meat and dairy. Perhaps had the investigators taken the milk offered by one of the mothers of the ill children, the 2006 case would be difinitive. Since the investigators refused to take the milk and examine it, we’ll never know for sure.
I don’t think the public is confused by the govts behavior. I’ve no doubt that those who wish to see, see the illegal and unjust actions of the various govt entities.
Looking at the various govt web sites and the charts (1980-2007)that show food contamination outbreaks; dairy is a small slice and in comparison raw dairy is smaller that pasteurized.
I have yet to see the govt come down (in the same manner as they do on raw dairy) on the meat, poultry, produce, pharmaceutical entities. Why is that?
Dave, I am not sure about "sane". I’ll try to take my blinders off, when forming an opinion, I tend to only think how I would react (because I know I cannot think for someone else) and I forget that in reality, many issues/problems are "washed away in the Tsunamis of political pandering, governmental nannyism, and corporate controls of government controls."
I get my milk from a dairy, where I drive out and pick it up. I can see the cows, the grass, the fact that a lack of rain makes the grass less green and that the monsoons make it more lush, I can go into the milking barn and smell the ‘barn smell’ as I like. This is important to me.
However, much, much, much more important is that the dairy sends their milk for independent testing periodically and posts up the results. I can also verify the results by contacting the lab (to make sure that there is no cheating – not that there would be, but there you go).
This means that to me at least, my dairy is safe. Heck, when I start my garden I am going to see if I can make some sort of arrangement to get some of the patties from the pasture for it.
I think that this is a system of self regulation that allows me as much or as little information as I would desire. There is a built in check (being able to contact the lab), and this balances well so that the people that would not be able to drive out to the farm would still be able to assure themselves of the safety issue (no nasty pathogens).
The milk I get varies a little in sweetness, depending on how much rain the farm gets, but has NEVER made anyone I feed it to sick. If it did, I would be able to talk to the farmer and we would figure it out.
He does the posting, specifically so that consumers know how often he tests and for what. He does not do it because of regulations.
Now, this is an ideal situation. However, I am asking why something similar would not work as something that is regulated (working for laws for minimum frequency of PATHOGEN testing and what to test for – say, once per month), and then letting the farmers work on top of that so that the ones that pay attention and do it right will be the ones that everyone can benifit and benefit by. Or even, how about a simple and straightforward approach along the lines of "you have to post your test results, including, but not limited to, frequency of testing, pathogens tested for, and place that the test sample comes from". Then the consumer can make their own decision.
Most water heater regulations govern how the heater is set at manufacture, and/or at installation. It doesn’t govern how hot the homeowner may choose to set the tank. There are dials on the heaters which permit the homeowner to adjust them cooler or hotter than 120-125 degrees at will. Some people will choose hotter temperatures due to personal preference, getting the dishes or clothes cleaner, preference for sauna-like showers or even for some medical conditions, etc. Others will be concerned about the possible risk of careless hot water use in homes where there are young children or the elderly, both of whose skins may be more sensitive to hot water and whose ability to modulate the temperature may be impaired.
This freedom of choice (i.e., each homeowner decides what is right for their family) is unlike pasteurization, where once the milk is cooked, there is no further choice available. You can’t un-pasteurize milk. Conversely, if you choose to obtain raw milk and for whatever reason, you wish to forgo its benefits, you do have the choice to "turn up the temperature" and pasteurize it on top of the stove.
Good point, well considered, but I would hope that we don’t forget that the DESIRE to regulate is a base requirement for developing regulations, and when that desire is unchecked we can expect to go in only one direction—more and more regulations will appear.
Once we accept that good ideas can be improved by making them compulsory, we’ve gone over the deep end. I once heard it explained this way: If person A wants to help person B, fine. If person C wants to help person B, fine. but if persons A and C team up and decide to coerce person D to help B, then they’ve crossed the line.
That applies to everything from state-run welfare programs to raw milk and water temperature controls.
(Lastly, I am no expert, but if I recall correctly from my days in the design business, the Uniform Plumbing Code does set an upper limit on water temperature. I think it’s 140 degrees F, and may be less (120 degrees?) for bathtubs and whirlpools. Most all local codes fall back to the UPC.)
"Im sure the shyster bottom feeding pond scum represented this family. What a horrible thing to do for a livingrepresenting families whose children have either died or have sustained serious damage from a foodborne pathogen. I can see why he is the lowest form of life."
The truth is that what we have is so often not noble, but self-serving, representation. Marler himself made that clear with his pompous and bombastic comment "[if you do wrong] then I will own you." His use of the pronoun "I" betrays the reality. Pride, ego, and vanity. Far from the compassion, benevolence, and understanding we all know is necessary for graceful human existence.
I am sitting here trying to find the words I wanted to say: when products are mass produced, there needs to be some kind of standard for heath and safety so that the public isn’t subjected to contamination…
Then I remembered that the govt mandates standards and they are currently being used and because of the increase in contamination, especially within the last 6-7 years, it shows that having standards does not work,(Or would that be–It has not worked?)
Would it help in finding the broken links and correcting that? Or would that just be job security within the govt system?
"I am sitting here trying to find the words I wanted to say: when products are mass produced, there needs to be some kind of standard for heath and safety so that the public isn’t subjected to contamination…"
Sylvia, I think that should be the criteria for regulation. When products are produced beyond a small scale, shipped across state lines (or county lines?),and distributed to retail stores near and far, there should be regulation and controls imposed.
When products are produced on farm for that local community, it should be left to the farmer to self-monitor. The number of people involved to produce and deliver a product, and the time it takes to get to the consumer increase the opportunities for corruption of that product.
Same goes for NAIS – let the bigs guys play that game, but maintain an independant, local food supply that is untouched by federal regulators. Whoever benefits from the regulations should foot the bill for implementing it.
-Blair
Self regulation would compete with government regulation, and they hate competition. Its a great idea, but regulations are really not about safety at all, that is just the cover (knowingly or unknowingly). They are about power, control, and establishing barriers to entry.
Pete
"C2, Perhaps had the investigators taken the milk offered by one of the mothers of the ill children, the 2006 case would be difinitive. Since the investigators refused to take the milk and examine it, we’ll never know for sure."
Perhaps, if the government had taken the milk offered it would have been positive, but because it was opened or handled by the consumer–who knows, maybe their spinach, tomatoes, meat in the frig, or dirty unwashed hands after using the toilet contaminated it (not the raw dairy). Or, perhaps it would have been negative, which perhaps could be because the e. coli died off before the government tested the leftover milk; or perhaps because the government test wasn’t good enough; or perhaps the e.coli wouldn’t be found because it was never there.
Perhaps if the government had tested the cows on the farm a week earlier (or tested the cows in milk instead of the heifers) they would have found the "match." and that would have been definitive? Not really, because perhaps "indistinguishable" doesn’t really mean a "match," depending on your political point of view.
We’ll never know for sure: a perfect situation for spin on both sides and no useful action by either side.
Further, she expressed weariness of the continual string of outbreaks and has decided that she "isn’t giving in" because it is "too hard" to keep on top of it all. And besides, she likes caprese salad (tomato, fresh basil and mozzarella cheese) all year and doesn’t want to give into fear.
By the way, she has a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology and her food budget is rather elastic. We’ve had lots of great discussions about buying seasonal, local produce, but she can’t quite get past the convenience of the industrial "gourmet" produce at lower prices in the grocery stores than the farmer’s markets or CSA programs, or the idea that if she wants tomatoes, she should have tomatoes, even if they must be flown in from Holland.
So, a "smart" person continues to buy industrial produce, no matter what the season, or how far the distance, and even if the risk of illness from industrial foods seems to be getting riskier all the time, that sickens a multitude of people across a wide geographical area, that takes a great deal of time to investigate and then publicize, and there seems to be no end in sight.
And I’m labeled a "fringe lunatic" for buying, consuming, and feeding my family raw milk. Hmmm….