At the California Assembly’s Health Committee hearing Tuesday, several legislators allowed as how their offices had been inundated with calls on SB 201. The legislators didn’t say it, but presumably there were few or no calls against the proposed legislation. Even the conventional dairy industry supported it, and it passed unanimously.
Then yesterday, SB 201 passed the Assembly’s Agriculture Committee, again unanimously.
Now it goes to the Assembly’s Appropriations Committee, which earlier this year de-railed AB 1604, which was designed to rescind AB 1735 and its 10-coliform-per-milliliter standard. Not to worry, says Mark McAfee, owner of Organic Pastures Dairy Co., in his comment following my previous post—“the greatest hurdles have been passed…”
It’s easy to experience wild mood swings in watching the raw milk issue evolve. Today, it looks like easy sailing. Next week, another raw-milk dairy could be raided or another judge could throw a monkey wrench into efforts to expand availability of raw dairy products.
But what’s becoming clear is that not only has a movement taken root here (see the photo above of SB 201 proponents outside the legislature on Tuesday), but there’s no counter movement to oppose it (as in pro and anti abortion, or pro and anti gun rights). The government bureaucrats and public health experts who want to ban raw milk don’t count as a movement. They oppose food rights because it’s their job and they value their job security, but they don’t go home at night and post on blogs and write their representatives to oppose raw milk (except maybe for C2).
That’s not to say that the opposition isn’t serious, just that it’s difficult over the long term for a non-movement headed by paid professionals (a mercenary army) to defeat a passionate movement of real people. It’s why the non-movement prefers to operate in secret, in the shadows. The light of open debate and discussion is its worst enemy.
The Internet has made it ever more difficult for them to operate in secrecy. The nearly-real-time posting about legislation enables ordinary people to stay abreast of the details of legislative moves, as we see in the excellent recap and background about SB 201 from the California legislature (also posted anonymously following my previous post). (By the way, it’s interesting that, according to the legislature’s summary, three children became ill from pathogens in September 2006, not five or six.)
One of the outgrowths of the emergence of a movement is that the media are slowly but surely changing their approach to coverage of raw milk. A case in point is a National Public Radio segment on the growing popularity of raw milk.
It’s well balanced and informative, and reinforces yet again how rapidly the demand for raw milk is growing, how hungry people are for it, so to speak.
***
While the raw milk situation has been getting lots of attention, it seems federal authorities are cleverly creating “incentives” for expansion of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). They have pushed requirements in a few states to require 4-H participants to have their premises registered. Now, two Congressmen are pushing agriculture legislation that would require all providers of meat to school lunch programs have premises identification, which is the preliminary step before full animal identification.
Debra Eschmeyer of the National Farm to School Network who also raises organic fruits, vegetables, and chickens on her farm in Ohio, put it well when she states. "I respect Representatives Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and David Obey (D-WI) for championing food safety, but I am not clear that this provision to require the School Lunch Program to purchase meat products from NAIS registered premises is not about food safety. The downer cow that instigated the Hallmark/Westland beef recall was tagged and identified, but that did not make our school lunches safer. Farm to School programs are focused on children knowing where their food comes from and actually putting a face to the farmer—the ultimate traceability—by actually visiting the farm, not by putting a tag on each of my chickens."
Why is it that these people do their dirty work through the children?
"Think of the children" is the ultimate root password to the rule of law.
The idea that NAIS will keep the meat in the school lunch program ‘safer’ is a joke. Did anyone see the article in the Chicago Tribune last November saying that there’s a little-known loophole in USDA regulations that states if meat is found contaminated with e-coli in the slaughterhouse, it gets moved to a ‘cook only’ line? ‘Cook-only’ is the pre-cooked hamburgers, taco meat, etc. you buy in the freezer section or in processed foods (like pizzas and burritos). It also goes to the School Lunch Program!
I couldn’t find the link on the Chicago Tribune website, but here’s another. Please read it, and then ask yourselves, what is the REAL agenda of NAIS if not food safety?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2004007285_meat11.html?syndication=rss
Unfortunately many fall for it as they are falsely led to believe it’s a great safety feature for children (or whatever the reasons they are pushing).
Ms. Eschmeyer is very right, the downer cows were tagged and identified and still was of no service to "the children". The system failed.
http://www.farmandranchfreedom.org/content/follow-the-money (I don’t know how accurate the site is)
Could the 4-H participants who opt out of the NAIS, form their own organization?
Content of Letter to Appropriations Committee and Signatories:
http://farmandranchfreedom.org/content/files/SignOnLetter080625.pdf
I think this should be left up to people over 18!
"They oppose food rights because its their job and they value their job security, but they dont go home at night and post on blogs and write their representatives to oppose raw milk (except maybe for C2)."
Not really the motivation (opposing food rights), but agree that there could be a deeper analysis of the issues by the scientists and regulators alike. No letters written on C2’s part for either side–still researching the topic beyond the office/lab point of view.
"The nearly-real-time posting about legislation enables ordinary people to stay abreast of the details of legislative moves, as we see in the excellent recap and background about SB 201 from the California legislature (also posted anonymously following my previous post)."
I also read the assembly analysis–they don’t always get every fact straight (especially if the state analyses have not yet been submitted), but agree it is great for *everyone* to have real-time information. Discovered you can subscribe and get regular updates to follow SB 201 in California (all states should provide this valuable service to the public). Go to the bottom and click subscribe on the bottom left, if interested.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_201&sess=CUR&house=B&author=florez
Hear, hear!!! Judith rocks! I’ve met her and talked on the phone with her (asking stupid questions, and she never makes me feel dumb).
She’s smart, committed, and if we prevail against NAIS, it will be largely due to Judith’s tireless,perceptive and ‘leave no stone unturned doggedness. They’re huge, but she won’t give up.
She has sliced up NAIS into pieces I can understand. Get on her mailing list, answer her calls to action.
It’s high time to put the raw milk movement on autorun, and fight NAIS with the same passion focus and commitment as Judith’s.
Otherwise, you can probably kiss your raw milk goodbye.NAIS will kill small farms.
Blair
-Blair
All that nice stuff said, Blair. I must stay true to my sarcastic, darthly nature about food safety: so based on the German study, would you call raw milk mixed with differnt amounts of cow (or goat, camel) feces brown, semi-brown, or chocolate?
Take care!
We are the decisions-by-research culture. It is the ethos of our time. Layperson, bureaucrat, and of course scientist, find research to be the only reliable basis for decision-making. To buck that trend is to risk ridicule and worse. But we can do better.
I am not opposed to honest research by any means, but we have whittled our decision-making process down to such a fine nib we can longer see the forest for the trees. Today EVERYTHING must be justified by a controlled-variable, double-blind study, and we have come to love our studies so much that we no longer acknowledge their limitations, which are deep and many, especially in the regard to human and other biological systems where it is truly impossible to control all significant variables even if we could identify them, which we emphatically cannot. Yet we press ahead anyway, determining this or that action based on this or that hyper-focal study; often wrong, never in doubt.
What we so desperately need now is to balance our western research with a broader, more human viewpoint. We need to accept that a narrow study is just thatnarrowand we must be far more skeptical of the value of study-based knowledge. And we must, absolutely MUST, begin to pay attention to anthropological and demographic data. If we see, for example, that a certain culture eats saturated fat and has little to no heart disease, we ought to acknowledge it and look into it, instead of our habitual reaction of tossing it off as an anomaly or a paradox (theres a word that should have no use in western science) since weve already proven the opposite.
That is, by the way, how I was first drawn to the Weston A. Price Foundation. Prices anthropological data was, I discovered, extremely good. Price was clearly an exceptionally diligent scientistan obsessive and careful observer and documenter as well as logical in processbut more important he knew where to look for truth. He sought out health, and worked backward from there to discover its underpinnings. Such anthropological study is extremely potent if the study groups are segregated (i.e. isolated) population units, and Prices subjects were just that.
I am content to rest on the traditions of natural, raw foods, very much including raw dairy, while the food safety experts fumble through their details. And I would prefer to be left alone while they do it.
I should note that the farmer takes great care with his milk, as he does his cows, and their grass. I meant to say "not that he would (add manure to the milk), but he could", and feel perfectly safe,
I am sure this is shocking to germophobes, but my perspective is no longer governed by fear. That makes a huge difference in how you read this.
-Blair
"Of 1,700 domestic and international tomato samples collected so far, none has tested positive, said David Acheson, associate commissioner for foods with the Food and Drug Administration.
Officials would not divulge if, or what, other produce was being seriously investigated, only saying that they would "continue to keep an open mind about the possible source."
This story alludes that the FDA hasn’t a clue and shows incompetence. Over 800 (of lab confirmed Slamonella) and growing.
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/food-poisoning/news/20080627/salmonella-tomato-outbreak-biggest-ever
I wonder why they didn’t specify that the 1985 outbreak was from PASTEURIZED milk? I would bet they would specify raw had the milk been unpasteurized. Both articles mention "repacking" along the processing chain; This only gives emphasis to the need for local-less packaging, less handling and hopefully no added chemicals or alterations to the foods.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/27/salmonella.outbreak/
"The true incidence is probably much higher, because the agency has estimated that about 30 cases occur for every one that is reported."
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/stories/2008/06/27/tomatoes_salmonella.html
"Other produce eaten along with tomatoes is being looked at"
Does that mean they didn’t look at the whole picture to begin with?
"We are the decisions-by-research culture… find research to be the only reliable basis for decision-making" "I am not opposed to honest research by any means…."
This critique is confusing. I’m researching food safety and cultural/social/demographic data among other things. Your comment suggests that you made some "decisions by research" too about WP. Are you saying that research should not include the science data, especially if it relates to food safety?
Blair,
Thanks for your sense of humor and clarification. I thought the poo would be added during the final stage of processing thereby cause a change in color 🙂 Filtration makes sense to get rid of the chunks. And, I’m not a germ-a-phobe, but have concerns about the pathogens and naive populations being exposed…and how to best address this risk…
There isn’t supposed to be a "naive population". That’s the whole point.
People living in Asia and Africa have a diverse population of commensal beneficial bacteria living in their bodies. These microorganisms help control hypertension, modulate the immune system, and protect from pathogens, among other things.
Once upon a time, Clostridium dificile was thought to be part of the natural gut flora of newborns. In the 1980’s, it was found in elderly people who received treatment with clindamycin. Now it is a community-acquired disease that can be contracted at any age after just one dose of almost any antibiotic.
We in America are crafting these "superbugs" with our formula-fed infants, antibiotic-laden foods and our over-medicated populace.
Thanks for asking for a clarifier…
My point is that there’s a hundred miles between a research-is-god attitude, and a research-is-good attitude (perhaps I should say good-research-is-good attitude) and we, unfortunately, are locked into the former. The results have been dreary to say the least. Weve lost our health, lost our understanding of the natural world that sustains us, and lost the traditions that ground us, all at enormous expense.
Now in disclosure I will admit to being a medical provider who from 8 to 5 lives in the research-is-god world. As you are probably aware, virtually all medical care is verified by research, from the overall themes to the tiniest protocols that support them. That the protocols often change, and that America’s overall health is degrading as we employ them, creates no wonder at all about the legitimacy of the system.
We would do well to recognize two basic facts. 1. Complex biological systems function optimally in their natural state, and 2. Manipulating the macro-biological world because of compartmentalized microbiological research is likely to degrade those systems.
In the case of raw milk, the powers that be are acting in classic modern form. Look into the microscope, see a microbe, note that an individual or group became ill after contacting that microbe, kill the microbe. Case closed, fee collected, go home. But the natural system has more to say about it! Thats what the immune-huggers and the enzyme-huggers and the soil-huggers and others have been getting to on this blog and elsewhere. We are missing something critical with our narrow, self-congratulatory, evidence-based viewpoints, and our systems are degrading because of it. Problem is, of course, that the narrow-view folks have established the official themes, written the rules accordingly, and quit the case.
On the other side of the modern raw milk research is a long traditionthousands of yearsof humans living well in close contact with their natural environment. That information does not fit well into the modern-science view (though Weston Price did a fine job of blending the two) so those of us who do not accept the modern party line must fight for our rights to ignore it (or spend mornings and evenings tending a family cow and garden).
C2, in your last comment you mentioned concern about nave populations (interesting use of the word) being exposed to pathogens. I immediately thought about my hospital, which is full of weak, nave patients for whom we maintain a hyper-sanitary environment and liberally apply anti-microbial agents. Unsurprisingly, the hospital format for health protection long ago leaked into the healthy world, with promotion of a kill-the-microbe prophylaxiseverything from anti-microbial soaps to ultra-pasteurized milk. There is, indeed, your nave population.
Sorry for the long-winded explanation. Hope I got closer this time.
A massive amount of the American population, including children, voluntarily take these medications with the blessing of our regulatory system.
Thanks – appreciate your insights, even moreso since you work in the health field. The Marler blog posted more on the topic (pros and cons)What do you think?
http://www.marlerblog.com/2008/06/articles/lawyer-oped/raw-milk-cons-review-of-the-peerreviewed-literature/index.html
Raw Milk Cons: Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Posted on June 28, 2008 by Food Poisoning Lawyer
Print
Comments
Trackbacks
Share Link
A summary of the peer-reviewed literature relating to the pros of raw milk consumption was posted earlier this month. What about the cons? The overwhelming con of drinking raw milk according to the literature relates to food safety hazards. The following is an overview of the literature describing pathogens found in raw milk and outbreaks associated with consumption of raw milk and products made from raw milk.
Another possible con not well-documented in the literature is cost. First, commercial raw milk demands a premium price in the US with a gallon costing the consumer ~$12 compared with ~$7 for a gallon of organic pasteurized milk and ~$3-5 for a gallon of traditional pasteurized milk depending on the region and other factors. Second, the outbreaks, illnesses, and recalls resulting from raw milk consumption also incur costs for individuals and society:
Medical expenses for acute care and long-term health problems
Lost productivity and other indirect costs
Costs to public health for investigation and control of outbreaks
Losses to the dairy industry as a whole due to reduced consumer confidence following publicized outbreaks and recalls
Sylvia, you too – apt follow-on.. Thank you!
C2,
Thanks for posting that Marler blog entry here; I’d rather not increase that website’s Google rating so I don’t click on that link. 🙂
I don’t know if we’ll ever see eye to eye on this; every bit of data you present as proof positive that real milk is dangerous I view with a very different perspective. It’s not that I disagree with the results, I do. But I have learned to understand the inputs..Garbage in, Garbage out.
One learns to look hard at "peer reviewed research". Ask yourself, Where did the milk come from that showed all these pathogens? How likely is it that the test samples came from large industrial dairies? Do they specify the source of their milk samples?
What that research tells you is most US dairies are very likely to harbor human pathogens. That milk is not fit for human consumption and those animals are very sick, (Most CAFO cows die within 4 years; the avg lifespan of a greasfed cow is 12-14 years. Which cow would you choose? You CAN choose, you know…unless NAIS succeeds.)
I agree with you about those studies. But they are not testing the milk I drink. They do not apply to me, or my source. We do not fit in their box.
There are two kinds of raw milk: clean raw milk and dirty raw milk.
If you’re with me this far, go read Dave’s post, and Sylvia’s post again. Unless you’re not ready to see what we’re talking about. How the heck did you arrive here, anyway?
-Blair
p.s. Don – more info please on the PA CARE letters? What is happening?
That was just part of the article–I didn’t want to fill-up the comments section with a long entry that may not be of interest to some.
"Unless you’re not ready to see what we’re talking about. How the heck did you arrive here, anyway? "
I came to this site to learn more about "the other side" of the raw milk issue (and I have an interest in local foods and some of the "bigger" picture topics on this blog).
It is really unfortunate that you would shut out a resource to avoid increasing someone’s google rating. If you read the whole post, you’d see many examples of outbreaks linked to certified dairies and some cow shares. There are also outbreaks from mexican-style raw cheese, which I agree is a different discussion.
What I found most remarkable reading through the list of literature was the lack of "dirty dairy" related raw milk outbreaks–we know that workers on the big dairies routinely drink raw milk from the bulk tank and take it home to their families. If its so dirty, why aren’t they getting sick? Could be immunity, lack of medical care? It’s not because there aren’t pathogens in that milk.
It would be interesting to know how many of the illnesses from certified raw dairy products were in new customers not used to drinking raw milk. It still bothers me that to get the benefits of raw milk, some children must pay a big price with HUS or other serious health consequences. Blair–did you read the "pro raw milk" post that has a link within the con post…probably not since it was also on the "forbidden" website…
We know that animal health (related to feed, husbandry, species hybridization and other factors) significantly affects milk quality. We know that milk handling can have significant positive or negative effects. We know that immune system strength between individuals is very variable, and that immunity can be strengthened or weakened by environmental factors. We know that certain food-borne pathogens have sickened one but left similarly exposed individuals in good health. We know all that, yet when it comes to validating this or that study, or justifying this or that regulatory action, milk is milk, and milk consumers are milk consumers.
I know that my own health has improved tremendously (fewer illnesses, quicker recovery from the rare illnesses I do suffer, near complete abolishing of allergies, improved GI function, improved sleep, and more) since I changed from an industrial diet served up in a sanitized environment to a natural, more traditional diet (more old-fashioned, raw, and fermented foods, and very few non-organic foods) and a down-in-the-dirt lifestyle. There is no question that I am stronger, and not incidentally, happier. (Happier, I think, because in the process I have become more content with the natural world and its positives and negativeswild raspberries to poison ivyand am no longer driven to conform the world into the popular vision of what is good for us.) Of course I would not impute all that success to raw milk consumption alone, but neither would I allow that raw milk is not a significant factor.
Context is everything.
Consider, in context, the major points listed in Marlers raw milk cons:
1. Medical expenses for acute care and long-term health problems. While our medical machine has been ignoring health in favor of diligent detection and treatment of disease, the incidence rates of degenerative diseases, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, asthma, allergies, psychological disorders, and on and on, have increased. Meanwhile medical care utilization has increased on a per capita basis, and the cost for that care has increased at way more than the rate of inflation. In that light, the suggestion that raw milk-related illness is now expensive sounds like a schoolboy howler.
2. Lost productivity and other indirect costs. How productive is a chronically ill population?
3. Costs to public health for investigation and control of outbreaks. Shall we go over that again?
4. Losses to the dairy industry as a whole due to reduced consumer confidence following publicized outbreaks and recalls. Confidence comes from knowing the source of ones food. In an industrial food system there is so much distance, so much process, between food and final product, that NOBODY really knows their foods quality. If that decreases consumer confidence, fine. It ought to.
Now C2, I really think that none of this is news to you. Ive seen glimmers of acceptance of these sorts of ideas here and there in your comments, especially this recent one: What I found most remarkable reading through the list of literature was the lack of dirty dairy related raw milk outbreakswe know that workers on the big dairies routinely drink raw milk from the bulk tank and take it home to their families. If its so dirty, why aren’t they getting sick? Could be immunity, lack of medical care? It’s not because there aren’t pathogens in that milk.
That sounds to me like the early rumbling of an up and coming counter-culturalist, especially the part about people not getting sick because of a LACK of medical care (or am I misinterpreting your meaning?).
We have one thing in common–being professionals spending too much time thinking and writing on blogs 🙂
"That sounds to me like the early rumbling of an up and coming counter-culturalist, especially the part about people not getting sick because of a LACK of medical care (or am I misinterpreting your meaning?)"
I think you might be making some assumptions – I’m not drinking the Kool Aid, especially since watching my own family members and friends follow various "health" trends from super vitamins to raw foods to whatever. There’s always one to take the others place in the quest for health (while still eating too much and not exercising enough: obesity)..
I’m a hard-core public health practitioner (which includes animal health since we are interconnected), and one of the goals writing on this blog was to put it all in perspective. I visit other blogs too for information (no restrictions).
This dang raw milk thing "boils" down to one concern (remember, my original handle was "concerned2," but Bob Hayles introduced the star wars thing. LOL): there are very few illnesses linked to raw milk in the big picture, but lots of smaller outbreaks–more than expected based on the number of consumers. I’m very serously thinking that the silver bullet is not the final asnwer, but at the same time want to prevent even a single child or other person from going on dialysis. Following SB 201 is interesting because it could be a model for other states (or it could be more of the same per this entry from David–just government "working" in conflict with raw dairies).
Back to the quote you liked: you can’t have it both ways. The dairy workers (mostly from Mexico) drink the dirty milk and are fine…unless they make nasty bathtub cheese out of the dirty bulk tank milk, then they go to jail potentially.
The small farm cows and goats that are well cared for in my interpretation of a "typical" raw milk system from this blog represents a positive step, but you can’t eliminate the pathogens or risks by just loving the cow and keeping her clean and eating grass (hey–what’s the problem with occasional grain anyway–not as a staple, but I’ve had livestock and sometimes they need it, and they really enjoy a nice mash once in awhile).
Finally, the foodborne pathogens have evolved over a gazzilion years and do not make the animal sick–you can’t change nature with human ideals. Also, I’ve harped on this–there is no reliable, real-time test to "certify" the herd’s poop is pathogen free. Indeed, that also goes against nature.
So, as a medical person, how do you reconcile the risk vs. benefit?
Thanks for the good insight.
C2
C2, this is a very noble thought, how would you reach that goal? (Some of the anti-diarrheals can precipitate HUS in children-among other things) Balancing risks and benefits on such a diverse population would be extremely difficult and the accuracy of the analysis would be questionable.
How do you reconcile acceptance of pasteurized dairy? The milk for pasteurization is most assuredly changed from its natural state. Fats are removed, some may be added back, vitamins are added, enzymes are killed/added, the taste is burnt and/or watered and even with pasteurized dairy, there is the risk of contamination.
Acceptance of raw dairy? Thus far, it has been the pathogen fear. If the raw milk was from a containment dairy, Id fear that also.
What is an acceptable risk? Processed food? What is an unacceptable risk? Raw foods? Arent these determined by personal or social preferences rather than public health? Nothing can guarantee 100% safety.
How to Compare Apples and Oranges? People do this on a daily basis, and they do it without any entities mandating what they should do.
Looking over the "risk comparisons" they usually amount to little more than "fatality comparisons" and if you look further into the comparisons they appear not to be equally portrayed; death/illness appears to be the only factors distinguishing them. Not much of a comparison.
If both sides of the spectrum exhibited a neutral desire to inform and help put risks in perspective then people could make their informed decisions. Education and sanitation are the keys. Sh*t does happen, if the masses are educated, then those accidents would be minimal.
"…how do you reconcile the risk vs. benefit?"
I think I can answer largely with comments you made yourself, finding, hopefully, even more common ground. 🙂
1. "…the silver bullet is not the final answer."
Of course you are very right about that. There is no magic bullet, despite what the medical professions and the drug companies would have us believe. Health is far more complicated. Fortunately we need not have every detail fully in our grasp in order to get from A to B. Optimal health results primarily from optimizing, or more accurately taking optimal advantage of, our natural systems. Doing that well requires an attitude of submission more than one of control. Which leads me to another of your comments…
2. "…I’m not drinking the Kool Aid, especially since watching my own family members and friends follow various "health" trends from super vitamins to raw foods to whatever."
Again, I heartily agree with your suggestion that many of us are frenzied and stupid in our haste to accept every new idea. But traditional, natural, and raw are not new. They are the natural systems we should be encouraging. What is new is that we’ve allowed a hugely expensive, pathology-focused, interventionist-minded medical system to take charge of our health.
3. Finally, I am willing to accept some risk, as we all must or risk destroying everyone’s health, and in the process, everyone’s freedoms. You will understand how the famous point of diminishing returns applies here. If you insist on preventing "even a single child or other person from going on dialysis," then you will be unsuccessful, wasteful, unhappy, and worse, dictatorial. Therein we find Darth!
Thanks also for the insights, and the "bounce-back" help in discussion.
Dave
Can you please site where you read this? I did a search on the topic and could not find any information suggesting that anti-diarrheals can precipitate HUS. Mixed in the articles I found on this topic, it does state that antibiotics can precipitate HUS. It only mentions that anti-diarrheals should not be given for bacterial infections because it will prevent pooping and that is the only way to get the offending bacteria out of the system.
http://www.gi.org/physicians/guidelines/InfectiousDiarrhea.pdf
In patientsw ith enterohemorrhagic
E. coli (EHEC) infection, the hemolytic uremic
syndrome( HUS) may be facilitatedb y administeringa ntimotility agents (62) or these agents may worsen neurologic symptoms (63).
http://docs.ksu.edu.sa/PDF/Articles52/Article520614.pdf
"The use of antibiotics or antimotility/
antidiarrheal and antimicrobial agents in
the early stages of diarrhea has been shown
to increase the risk of hemolytic uremic
syndrome because the gut is exposed to a
greater number of toxins for a longer period
as intestinal motility slows.13,20"
http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic960.htm
The use of antimotility agents, antidiarrheal agents, and antibiotics has been reported to increase the risk of developing HUS.
http://www.in.gov/isdh/21361.htm
The use of antibiotics or over-the-counter antidiarrheal agents is not recommended; the use of these can lead to greater likelihood of developing HUS.