For the last ten days or so, Mark McAfee has been building up the April 15 hearing before a joint California Senate committee as “the biggest raw milk event in history,” something akin to the shootout at OK Corral. Top guns from the California Department of Food and Agriculture, the California Department of Public Health, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, along with their minions of Ph.D. scientists, facing off against scientists and others who back raw milk as an important whole food.
I’ve been skeptical about this scenario. The government types just don’t like bright lights and real debate. They like to work from damp dark places, in secret, posting biased PowerPoint presentations on their web sites, pouncing on unsuspecting farmer victims when they least expect it. Last August, when a Washington radio show proposed a debate on raw milk, the FDA refused to send a representative, saying, “This is not a debatable issue.”
In the last couple days, the government types have reverted to form, with the CDFA and the CDPH bowing out of the April 15 hearing, offering the lame excuse that they feel inhibited by the court suit brought by OPDC and Claravale Farm over AB 1735 and its coliform standard. Poor little babies don’t want to impede the wheels of justice.
But the state senator in charge of the hearings, Dean Florez, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Food-Borne Illness, isn’t buying the CDFA/CDPH excuses.
“Your attempt to hide behind ‘pending litigation’ between Organic Pastures and the State of California is not well taken,” he said in a letter to the heads of the two bureaucracies. “There is no question that the participation of CDFA and CDPH at this hearing is both necessary and appropriate…Your lack of participation in this hearing will be seen as a public affront to the oversight function of the Senate as an institution, and will not be well taken. Please confirm your attendance at the hearing by 4 p.m. Monday April 7, 2007.”
If I hear Sen. Florez correctly, he’s sending a couple messages. First, don’t bite the hand that feeds you. Second, the April 15 hearing is a command performance.
Yet these bureaucrats have become so comfortable in their power, and their ability to scout out the political landscape, they may calculate Florez doesn’t control enough votes and that they can defy him anyway. Should be interesting to see how this little power struggle plays out. The last things these rascals want is an open public debate. The truth can be upsetting, and unsettling.
Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead
Jasper, GA
Thornberry Village Homestead…a small goat dairy, owned by God, managed by Bob and Tyler.
It’s not entirely about votes. There is a longer game here: Florez plans to run for state office and could be overseeing these offices at some point.
***
In the run-up to the April 15 hearing and considering that David is busy, here’s some hypothetical questions to see how hard-core everyone is:
Q: Would you drink raw milk that has been officially recalled for some sort of pathogen?
My answer: I have but I don’t think I would again.
Q: Would you drink raw milk from a random bulk tank in America?
My Answer: If I lived on a dairy or had a direct connection and an easy way to get it, I am sure I would. My own dairy aside (which I do not have), I wouldn’t give it to my son.
Q: Do you drink your milk after it has spoiled?
My Answer: No because it’s nasty. If it’s on the edge, I culture it. If I miss the boat, the chickens get it.
Q: Do you love raw milk so much that you want to marry it?
My Answer: I was mad at my husband last week and certainly would have answered "yes" at that time. Generally, "no," I am happily married.
What are your answers? Add more questions!
Amanda
So, the answers are:
Q: Would you drink raw milk that has been officially recalled for some sort of pathogen?
My answer: If I were a brand new customer of that producer, probably not…BUT…if I were a long time customer, familiar with the producer’s animal management and milk handling methods, which folks should know if they "know their farmer" like I think they should, then yes, I would drink milk under an official recall, unless the farmer told me that he reccomended caution because he thought there might actually be a problem. A huge part, possibily the biggest part, of "know your farmer" is developing a trusting relationship with him, and in this case, having developed that trust, I would far rather put my trust in a farmer I have a relationship with than in a government bureaucrat whose agency mandate is, at least partially, the destruction of raw milk.
Q: Would you drink raw milk from a random bulk tank in America?
My Answer: Not on your life. Back to my first answer, I would have a relationship with, and trust, a farmer I knew. It’s kinda hard to have a trusting relationship with a "random bulk tank".
Q: Do you drink your milk after it has spoiled?
My Answer: No, for the same reason as you. Do I think it is dangerous? No…but I have too much respect for my taste buds to torture them with something vile tasting.
Q: Do you love raw milk so much that you want to marry it?
My Answer: I’ve been married twice, and both of them decided they really couldn’t put up with me…something about my being an opioniated know-it-all and WAY too political, or something like that. I’d hate for the next rejection to come from a pail of good, fresh goat’s milk, so I think I’ll answer "no" to that one…or at least plead the fifth…
Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead
Jasper, GA
Thornberry Village Homestead…owned by God, managed by Bob and Tyler.
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/2008/04/articles/raw-milk/don-schaffner-guest-barfblogger-raw-milk-seminar-series-update/
Based on that article it sounds like the big discussion was over that risk data. I would be really interested if someone could shed some light on that. I assume that Gebhart was using the CDC data from the FOI request. But what is the American Journal of Public Health reference? Does it analyze the CDC data? Does it use a different data source? Does anyone have a citation?
Amanda
Q: Would you drink raw milk that has been officially recalled for some sort of pathogen?
My answer: I’m really not sure. At this point in time, probably not. But in reality, you don’t find out about the recall till after you’ve already consumed the milk, so it’s not often I suspect that we’d get such a choice.
Q: Would you drink raw milk from a random bulk tank in America?
My Answer: Definitely not. There’s pretty substantial research that significant quantities of ordinary bulk tank milk is contaminated with pathogens. It’s important to distinguish this from bulk tank milk coming from a farm you know well.
Q: Do you drink your milk after it has spoiled?
My Answer: I find that my milk doesn’t begin spoiling for at least three weeks. And even then, its taste merely seems to sour some, so I usually drink it (assuming it lasts that long).
Q: Do you love raw milk so much that you want to marry it?
My answer: Now you’re getting personal!
I have before and would again, since I know my farmer and trust the conditions of the dairy are safe.
Q: Would you drink raw milk from a random bulk tank in America?
No, for the antibiotic and hormone reasons stated by others. If I knew the farmer, and could tell that conditions were clean, I would without hesitation.
Q: Do you drink your milk after it has spoiled?
It has never lasted long enough to ‘go’. I would use it up or culture it well before that happened.
Q: Do you love raw milk so much that you want to marry it?
I am happily married to my wonderful husband.
Why are our federal taxes being used by the FDA to nose around in California’s business?
What standing does the FDA/federal govt have in this hearing?
Why is the FDA being allowed to attend?
Is the federal gov’ts investigation into OP’s sale of pet food across state lines relevant in this hearing? Will testimony regarding it be allowed?
My (Indiana) reps and senators will hear about my disgust over FDA’s interference in this matter.
Florez should bar the feds from attending.
Florez should subpeona CDPH and CDFA chiefs and personally and publicly reprimand them for their tactics leading up to this mess.
In 1936, the supreme court ruled that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to regulate the production of agricultural products. However, the court left loopholes that allowed USDA to spend public funds. To some degree or another, they’ve attempted to separate their funded programs from the appearance of direct regulation of production. It’s time to close the loopholes. USDA has destroyed its own constituency and FDA has betrayed its public trust by assisting in mass epidemics of chronic disease. I say it’s well past time for a "retooling."
Amanda
My answer: I suspect that I would already have drunk it, although I wouldn’t be too worried given raw milk’s resilience (thanks to an abundance of coliform and other good "balancing" bacteria). I would be much more concerned about residual pathogens in a pasteurized product (or one of any number of other high-risk foods about which we routinely hear these days), since pasteurized milk is basically sugar water and the bad bacteria would have no real competition once they get rolling.
Q: Would you drink raw milk from a random bulk tank in America?
My Answer: Nope; that WOULD be playing "Russian roulette with your health" given the reliance on pasteurization "clean up" in typical large-dairy practice. This is not to say that many farmers (I know several) don’t drink raw milk from their bulk tanks destined for pasteurization. I forget the numbers, but this on-farm raw milk consumption is tallied by the government and it is not insignificant, so many farm families drink this milk – or perhaps, from the separate "family cow." Even so, I’d think twice before drinking such not-yet-pasteurized milk to which my system had not become accustomed, as opposed to the farm families who likely have become adjusted to their animals’ milk,
Q: Do you drink your milk after it has spoiled?
My Answer: Haven’t had the chance. Just finished up a gallon last weekend that was three weeks old with no noticeable change. If the milk were sour on day one, I’d probably not drink it because souring that quickly might indicate a problem, and I’d notify my farmer ASAP (just in case others were having the same experience and he could then react). Such a radically short shelf life would indicate the milk hadn’t been cooled soon enough after milking; had lost refrigeration somewhere along the line; or there might be a contamination issue in the milking system (breach in a vacuum line which permits ambient air to be drawn into the system). Any of these problems need to be tracked down and fixed, since such super-high coliform counts (probably, well into the six-figure range) would surely be a shelf-life issue. If it soured at the end of our normal two-week cycle, I’d use the opportunity to learn about the benefits of other "down stream" milk products.
Q: Do you love raw milk so much that you want to marry it?
Lawyer’s answer: no, that would be bigamy (gotta be a kill-joy in every group).
"Q: Do you love raw milk so much that you WANT to marry it?"
Bigamy would be actually marrying it. Wanting to marry it is philandering.
Bob
The Seattle Times ran a few words yesterday as well:
Seattle attorney Bill Marler is suing Organic Pastures, the nation’s largest organic raw milk dairy, on behalf of two children who fell ill after consuming its products. Testing at the dairy farm near Fresno, Calif., did not detect the strain of E. coli that sickened the children, but a government report said the dairy was likely responsible. Marler, who has sued other dairies as well, criticized states for bowing to pressure from farmers and allowing raw milk sales to go on – legally or not.
"My worry is that as it becomes more acceptable and becomes more commercialized, you know, it will reach a critical mass where all of the sudden you’re going to get a whole bunch of little kids poisoned," Marler said. "And then everybody will throw up their arms and go, ‘Whoa, we’ve got to stop this, we’ve got to pasteurize.’"
And, as Mark the Defendant said:
"They have never found a pathogen in our raw milk since we opened in 2000," dairy owner Mark McAfee said. But properly produced raw milk does contain bacteria that "help rebuild immune systems," he added.
Too bad that he fails to mention the Listeria <link>, Campylobacter <link> and E. coli <link> problems Organic Pastures has had.
"Top guns from the California Department of Food and Agriculture, the California Department of Public Health, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, along with their minions of Ph.D. scientists, facing off against scientists and others who back raw milk as an important whole food."
Can someone confirm?
concerned2 — perhaps McAfee is lying. Or, you simply do not understand that various strains of the same bacteria may or may not be pathogenic. Or, it could be that "problems" as you define them are simply more cases of public health officials making unfounded accusations without proof. e.g. "a government report said the dairy was *likely* responsible."
FYI — All of the strains in concerned’s posts are pathogenic. Two incidences were associated with illness; listeria was found in the cream but no illnesses were associated…
Amanda
1. "perhaps McAfee is lying." Obviously. See those listeria, campylobacter, and E. coli links on the Marler Blog and cross-check with archives here.
http://www.marlerblog.com/2008/04/articles/legal-cases/washington-dc-hattrick/index.html
2. "Or, you simply do not understand that various strains of the same bacteria may or may not be pathogenic." My life/profession is studying those strains, and perhaps that is what brought me in part to lurk on your site…I like the lively discussion and have learned much about how non-scientists view our work; bigger question: how to better communicate with the public, especially on something sensitive like this, Also, putting it into perspective (on all sides).
3. "Or, it could be that "problems" as you define them are simply more cases of public health officials making unfounded accusations without proof. e.g. "a government report said the dairy was *likely* responsible."
Reality: epidemiology and DNA fingerprinting for bacteria are not like CSI and human forensics. Conclusions in public health studies (from foodborne illness to cancer) depend on study design, statistics, and common sense/best judgement. Even with something so obvious like smoking/cancer, you still will see scientists using terms like "most likely," "highly suspect," "suggestive of," etc. "Definitive is almost unheard of in this type of science."
Here’s my question for you…sincerely trying to weigh the risks vs. personal choice in this issue. and having a VERY hard time with the marketing to vulnerable populations such as children and immunocompromised patients:
1. There are many great (and bad) diets out there from vegan to whatever. I don’t get the obsession with cow milk (raw or otherwise). How can something outside our species be so amazing and cure all (as the Marler blog notes)?
What makes you say obsession? I see the interferance of the governments as taking my right to choose what I consume away. A form of dictatorship. I see that others want to be able to make their own choices as to what they consume, and they should be able to make those choices without interferance from anyone. Do you really feel they require any entity to make that choice for them?
Fast food is very unhealthy, yet it is still sold(marketed towards the young), as is junk foods, sodas,etc. I don’t see nor hear of anyone making them illegal. Why is that?
Wow, Marler thinks "it’s a cure all?"
http://nourishedmagazine.com.au/blog/articles/weight-gain-raw-milk
From this view, marketing to vulnerable groups is a service because the food may improve their state and the risk is nearly nil.
With the increasing evidence here in California that milk carries pathogens even when produced in grass-based systems, some of the marketing claims are becoming problematic for me (and a few others who post on this blog and who do drink raw milk). I suppose we are in the second school of thought — recognizing the risk and still drinking milk. From my perspective, people should have choice in the marketplace but I am extremely sympathetic to parents who have made that choice based on exaggerated safety claims and who ended up paying a high price.
On the issue of a "definitive" finding, that would be a good post on this blog — norms of scientific inquiry and what we can expect in these outbreak studies. There are so many real-world constraints in collecting these data that I actually find it impressive what links *are* made. David has skinned me personally for commenting on outbreak data so I won’t go into detail.
Amanda
For those who have been pregnant (or men if you’ve helped a woman get that way), did you avoid sushi and soft cheeses? Sushi can be a great healthy food but I did avoid it while pregnant because I engaged in risk-reduction strategies. My husband even gassed up the car for the whole pregnancy. We were both really obsessive.
I would be curious to hear who was obsessive in pregnancy in these sorts of ways and whether you did or would have consumed raw milk at the time.
As I said in the post above, a lot of people see the risk of pathogens in raw milk as basically theoretical, so I can see someone avoiding the sushi but drinking the milk. I wonder if people who recognize the risks still drink the milk and, if so, do they also eat sushi.
Amanda
I do the same with sushi that I do with all my foods now-I know the source. There are three places near me that serve sushi, (just like most food, I would NEVER purchase sushi from the grocery store) I have taken the time to get to know the chef and the buyer (one place has one of each)and ask questions in each establishment. Two of those places I do not feel comfortable purchasing from, the third has become the sushi equivalent of my grass-fed milk farmer. I also talk to lots of other people to see what impressions/feelings on an establishment they have developed.
Information, education, location and discussion are very important in food choices.
I’ve had raw dairy off and on my whole life as have my adult kids. We’ve never been ill from any of it. I’ve always been very picky where that dairy came from. I buy very little from the grocery stores.
Compare this to the spirit found in the typical factory farmed chicken:Caged ,drugged,forced to eat food that it would most certainly reject if it had a choice,afraid of freedom(too dangerous),certainly depressed.Its not really what I would call living.
I wonder if this is the spirit that those who finance the factory farms want in the people?
I cannot spend too much time on this site (busy practicing public health)…but, feel compelled to say that you, in particular, seem to approach this issue with an open mind, and that suggests "we" may be able to find common ground and reduce illnesses from this sometimes contaminated product. It appears that this group is not very interested in learning more about the science behind public health reports (and your comment sounded a bit fearful of retaliation, which is concerning). Just one more thought to addclearly, there are bigger issues in public health and safety than raw milk risks. One example in the food world: the obesity epidemic, including children who may grow up to suffer from diabetes and a multitude of health and social problems. But, no one has figured out anything close to a solution. In contrast, the risk from raw milk may impact a much smaller population, but even a single child dying or suffering long-term consequences of HUS (as one example) is unacceptable given that we have a solution: pasteurization.
Sure there is; Outlaw fast foods, added sugars, added chemicals, processed foods, etc. That would take away much of the contributing factors of obesity and all it entails. That would be a huge start. Not rocket science and the start of a simple solution.
Concerned2, since you are so busy "practicing public health", what country are you in, here in America I’ve not heard anyone voicing the unhealthy attributes of the aforementioned…and I am not referring to the tiny squeaks that come out in the media every blue moon about the fast-foods/obesity links..I would expect to hear a big outcry from those who are "practicing public health" especially for the "safety of the children", AND a strong voice pushing to ban/out-law the above mentioned. I hear none.
"In contrast, the risk from raw milk may impact a much smaller population, but even a single child dying or suffering long-term consequences of HUS (as one example) is unacceptable given that we have a solution: pasteurization."
A single child dying? Well hell, abolish vaccinations, as more than one child dies from that each year, and the jury is still out on the link between Autism and vaccinations. To use your words, we must keep kids off bikes, playgrounds, out of pools, cars, amusement park rides, sterilize all foods, etc. Life can be dangerous, kids are killed and/or injured on all items mentioned.
"It appears that this group is not very interested in learning more about the science behind public health reports"
You appear to assume much. Because people don’t view issues as you do, you assume others aren’t "interested", is that correct? On this blog and others, many of those "science/public health reports" have been shown to be biased or out right lies and/or misleading.
"reduce illnesses from this sometimes contaminated product."
So your solution is to ban it? What kind of solution is that? Will you be pushing to ban ground beef? Or lunch meats, hot dogs? Raw fish? Perhaps certain religions should be banned too? Books! How about banning some books?
I am curious what the obesity rate is among raw milk consumers (has this been tested?). As a group you seem to care so much about nutrition, and are obviously involved in food choices for your children, friends, etc., I would hypothesize that obesity rates are lower. Any data?
I still say that if we had a silver bullet for obesity like we do for raw milk risks (pasteurization), we’d shoot. But, perhaps fail due to a loud group opposing the effort.
However, the socioeconomic problem is the "bullet proof vest". Real whole foods ARE expensive unless you can grow it yourselves. How many poor people can do that if they don’t own or rent actual land? Some cities and communities are starting programs that have garden "plots" for rent or free use so people can grow some of their own food. We need more of this stuff.
Banning ANYTHING is not an answer. Education and access are the keys to getting back to health. We already have too many laws and regulations and fewer freedoms. I am all for people not consuming sugar, trans fats etc, but it should be up to each individual to CHOOSE NOT to consume those things, like cigarettes.
-Amanda-I tried to email you on your site, but I think it may not have gone through. Would you contact me on my email? I have an important question. Thanks!
Amanda
Don’t ask about the body weight index of we posters. *That’s* getting personal. 🙂
I do wonder about banning things like trans fats. If we’re standing for food choice, that’s a choice too, as bad as it may be. I don’t know where I would stand if it were put to a vote.
Amanda
On the pregnancy issue, Evelyn — it doesn’t count if you weren’t pregnant! 🙂 If I were to push the very boundaries of human fertility and have another baby, I wouldn’t drink the milk. One of the worst things I can think of is ending up with listeriosis at week 25 in pregnancy and having a 25 week premie. They would have to put me on suicide watch. I don’t sit around thinking about stuff like this, but I have to consider that with my usual pregnancy obsessions, shouldering the risk of raw milk would not be worth it to me.
If concerned2 or someone else lurking knows, I would be very interested in how much listeria it takes to infect the placenta. In the 2007 cream recall at Organic Pastures for listeria, Mark stated that the levels of listeria were "subclinical." What I haven’t seen discussed anywhere is whether there is such a thing as "subclinical" levels of listeria if you are pregnant. Just as background, listeria causes miscarriages not just because a woman is immune depressed, but because it can get into the placenta and grow. After it reaches a critical mass in the placenta, the body realizes it poses a threat and gets rid of it. (This is obviously not my area, so feel free to correct me anyone.)
Amanda
And found the following:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:f_iTv1ecHX0J:diss-epsilon.slu.se/archive/00001611/01/Vishal_Thesis_Final_1.pdf+subclinical+levels+of+listeria+if+you+are+pregnant&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us
"Risk assessment made by WHO has given the guideline that 99% of all listeriosis could be eliminated if the L. monocytogenes level never exceed 1000 cfu/g food at the point of consumption." ("Plate count methods provide a direct count of living organisms expressed in CFU/mL or CFU/g (colony forming unit (CFU)) and estimate of the number of viable microorganisms in food according to the medium employed and the time and temperature of incubation.")
I read that as 1000cfu per gram of food or below would be "safe". Keep in mind I may be reading that wrong. Scroll about half way down and it tells about humans and pregnancy. I didn’t see anywhere about "how much" listeria is too much..If you are pregnant any amount would be too much IMHO.
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~mow/chap6.html
The infective dose of L. monocytogenes is unknown but is believed to vary with the strain and susceptibility of the victim. From cases contracted through raw or supposedly pasteurized milk, it is safe to assume that in susceptible persons, fewer than 1,000 total organisms may cause disease.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060710084449.htm
It takes one bacterium to get into the placenta apparently. I don’t know how many bacteria you have to ingest for one to make it past the gate. It sounds like the researchers are working on that. Certainly, it appears unlikely, but like 0157:H7 for a child, the consequences are pretty severe.
I took my son to a science museum and we saw a presentation on sea otters. Otters as a species eat a wide variety of foods, but the little family circles tend to eat specific diets, taught by the mothers. They have many choices of foods, all of which can make them healthy, but culture determines what they eat. I expect if I were pregnant again, I would choose a different food to eat. Surely the abundance of choices we have would keep me well-fed for nine months. I would miss the milk and the sushi a great deal.
Amanda
Also, giving up good wine during pregnancy might be hard for those who enjoy it, but wouldn’t most agree that is the right choice and public health message? Glad to hear some consideration that raw milk might be in a similar category for the health of the baby, although that is not the message being broadcast by the visible "raw milk community" to the public at large.
Also, wanted to note that Evelyn’s comment about school/community gardens is excellent–not a silver bullet, but a double whammy: getting kids/adults outside moving around and producing/eating healthy food. However, with the caveat not to fertilize the garden with fresh poop! Wish there was more effort in this area (maybe another blog to find and lurk on).
Manure should be composted for a minimum of six months to reduce the risk of contamination. You shouldn’t use "fresh" poop.
http://dovercanyon.typepad.com/women_wine_critics_board/2006/01/wine_and_pregna.html
It appears moderation is the key.
Perhaps one thing that causes some on this board to question the "official" dogma regarding raw milk safety is the governmental public health agencies poor record of being accurrate and providing true protection regarding what is "safe", and, alternatively, use scare tactics to discourage the consumption of raw dairy.
Fiorst, lets look at the poor record of folks like the FDA, USDA, CDC, and various local and state agencies on the safety of things under their pervue:
Thalidomide is a sedative, hypnotic, and multiple myeloma medication. The drug is a potent teratogen in primates, i.e. leads to severe malformations of the unborn child when taken during pregnancy [1].
Thalidomide, 2-(2,6-dioxopiperidin-3-yl)-1H-isoindole-1,3(2H)-dione, was developed by German pharmaceutical company Grnenthal. It was sold from 1957 to 1961 in almost 50 countries under at least 40 names, including Distaval, Talimol, Nibrol, Sedimide, Quietoplex, Contergan, Neurosedyn, and Softenon. Thalidomide was chiefly sold and prescribed during the late 1950s and early 1960s to pregnant women, as an antiemetic to combat morning sickness and as an aid to help them sleep. Before its release, inadequate tests were performed to assess the drug’s safety, with catastrophic results for the children of women who had taken thalidomide during their pregnancies.
From 1956 to 1962, approximately 10,000 children were born with severe malformities, including phocomelia, because their mothers had taken thalidomide during pregnancy.[2] In 1962, in reaction to the tragedy, the United States Congress enacted laws requiring tests for safety during pregnancy before a drug can receive approval for sale in the U.S.
You talk of even one child being sufficient reason to ban raw milk, yet the same public health system you seem to revere killed and damaged over 10,000…and you wish us to just accept this systems decisions?
That was the 50’s and early 60’s…let’s look at the later 60’s. The tobacco companies, far from acknowledging the dangers of smoking, actually promoted smoking as healthy in it’s advertising. Where was the FDA’s and the USDA’s concern for public health there?
Of course science and testing back then was ancient by today’s standards, giving advocates of our precious public health system an out for today, so let’s not dwell on old news…let’s look at today.
Today we have a public health system with folks like you who claim we have a "silver bullet" called pastuerization. I would consider a silver bullet a cure-all, making the affected food totally safe.
Well, I think there are at least three older gentlemen in New England who, if they had not died last year from lysteria in pastuerized milk, just might disagree with your "silver bullet" characterization. One outbreak, one dairy, theree people dead, and one lysteria induced abortion.
How’s that silver bullet of yours working out there, C2?
Yet our public health system will adopt it’s best Darth Vader voice when warning of the dangers of lysteria in raw milk when, according to the CDC, there has not been ONE SINGLE DEATH from lysteria associated with raw milk in the US since the late 70’s or early 80’s.
Your precious silver bullet has allowed three deaths and a spontanious abortion in the last year, but this dangerous contraband (in most places) has not caused a death in 30 years.
Some silver bullet.
Let’s talk a bit more of how really concerned the public health system is with our health rather than taking care of corporate America. Let’s talk about the FDA, who started harassing me 10 days ago over cheese.
Let’s talk about the FDA that approved a drug to supposedly fight RLS (Restless Leg Syndrome). Two of the primary side effects of the drug are dramatically increased risk of gambling and sexual addictions. Oh joy…my legs will twitch less, but I’ll gamble away my 401K while I become a nymphomaniac…what a wonderful trade, all approved by the FDA. BTW, before you say that RLS is way disruptive in people’s lives and I might be more tolerant of a drug that gives relief if I understood that, know that I have RLS and deal with it drug free just fine. I DO understand.
Let’s take a brief look at some other offerings FDA approved.
How many drugs have been approved by your precious public health system that, just in the last year, have been pulled or black labeled for various reasons?
Antidepressants that dramatically increase the suicide risk in young populations?
Diabetic medications that are dangerous for folks disposed to cardiac issues. Avandament comes to mind. Avandament is a combination of Avandia and Metformin. I’m a diabetic, and was prescribed Avandament to control blood sugar…and promptly hat two heart attacks in two years, and guess what the cause, at least partially, turned out to be?
Yep…Avandament…that wonderful FDA approved drug. So…isn’t this just great…my blood sugar will be in the normal range when I keel over with an FDA approved heart attack.
Sorry C2, but our wonderful public health system, while well intentioned at first perhaps, is no longer about health. It is all about validating and protecting big pharma and big agri. And it did it to itself…it sold it’s soul.
Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead
Jasper, GA
Thornberry Village Homestead…a small goat dairy, owned by God, managed by Bob and Tyler.
Lets not ignore the poorly tested HPV vacc that is being forced upon our young girls…A long list for sure.
Yes indeedy, big brother is looking out for us…NOT
Lots of interesting points.
1. "…yet the same public health system you seem to revere…"
While recognizing the potential of the modern public health system, "revere" would hardly describe my point of view. Also doubt anyone totally comfortable in the system would write anonymously on your board (and take the chance your moderator is trying to track down the identityhad to do a verification last time). Every day is a struggle in varying degrees against powerful, incompetent and/or self-serving "leaders," apathy among some in government, lack of resources, and what seems to be an increasingly confused general population with regard to science (the last perhaps complicated by the extreme availability of good/bad information on the internet and other media combined with a general deterioration in science teaching in our K-12 public schools in the USof course, there are exceptions).
2. "Oh joy…my legs will twitch less, but I’ll gamble away my 401K while I become a nymphomaniac…what a wonderful trade, all approved by the FDA."
LOL. No specific expertise in drugs and my general philosophy is prevention not a pill. My jaw dropped when highly stylized, long, and compelling prescription drug ads began to explode on TV, many for ridiculous things like your example. IMHO–a possibly dangerous (and very annoying) path for our society regardless of whether these drugs are properly evaluated for safety and efficacy. My bet is that most of these drugs are fine for the right person and right condition, but why blast fancy ads non-stop on the TVshould be a 1:1 decision with a health care provider.
3. "Sorry C2, but our wonderful public health system, while well intentioned at first perhaps, is no longer about health. It is all about validating and protecting big pharma and big agri. And it did it to itself…it sold it’s soul."
Hard to say, see #1 about the soul part. But, as part of a maybe small group of very dedicated scientists, we are finding things you and others (including big agri as you call it) likely will not agree with or welcome.
Finally, the examples you give of pasteurized milk outbreaks (or other ready to eat foods) should be handled as a failure of the system, and measures should be at least as aggressive as those for legal raw milk failures causing outbreaks or illnesses (perhaps moreso since certified raw milk includes a warning). Still, the denial of periodic problems in raw milk, resistance to improving sanitation, marketing specifically to vulnerable populations, and lack of communication between scientists/regulators/producers makes the silver bullet seem necessary.
Take care.
C2 (nice abbreviation–sounds like a character from Star Wars)
You actually sound like a reasonable member of the "public health system", someone who thinks and reasons rather than just spouting the official rhetoric, and is perhaps open to other ideas. Perhaps it’s because you are from the science side rather than the typical official,burocratic, administrative myrmidons…oops, left out power hungry…that "we the people" typically have to listen to and deal with, so let’s us…you and I, continue to discuss whether we the people are right in questioning and doubting…and sometimes refusing to comply with…the directives of "the system", as opposed to being simply sheeple that obey without question the directives of the government.
Let’s first look at your responses one by one…"
"1. "…yet the same public health system you seem to revere…"
While recognizing the potential of the modern public health system, "revere" would hardly describe my point of view.""
If my characterization of your thoughts were wrong, I apologise, BUT when you describe pastuerization as a "silver bullet" you invite that mischaracterization. To me, and most others I believe, silver bullet would be synonymous with cure all in this case, which we all know is not true, and your characterization that way does show reverance…reverance for a method that has been shown to be flawed. People are sickened and killed by milk that has been officially sanctified as safe by the system. Sickness and death in far greater numbers than from raw milk by the way.
"Also doubt anyone totally comfortable in the system would write anonymously on your board (and take the chance your moderator is trying to track down the identityhad to do a verification last time)."
Let’s deal with this part backwards.
First, I can’t see Gumpert trying to track anyone for nefarious purposes. As a writer, he MIGHT try to find contact info on a poster to contact them for info on an article he is working on…but I know him well enough to know that if the person said anonymous, he would respect that.
As for anonymous posters here, I personally am torn about that. My feelings are that if someone feels strongly enough on a subject to bother to post, they ought to have the strength of their convictions and be able to identify themselves. Our founding fathers put their reputations, their fortunes, and their very lives on the line in standing up publically for their beliefs, and I think we do them and the legacy they left us a grave disservice by doing otherwise.
On the other hand, people have families to support, house payments to make, cars to pay for, and can’t, or are afraid to, piss off the "powers that be". I don’t agree with that, but I understand.
It’s why I have far more respect for a Rosa Parks than a Ross Perot. Perot did it because he could, with impunity. Parks did it because, though she couldn’t, she had to because it was "right".
"Every day is a struggle in varying degrees against powerful, incompetent and/or self-serving "leaders," apathy among some in government,…"
A good description of the typical government bureaucrat that I, and many others rail against. "They" are not an anomaly in government, specifically the health care portion. "They" are the norm. YOU appear to be the anomaly.
…(… combined with a general deterioration in science teaching in our K-12 public schools in the USof course, there are exceptions).
Not just science education, and easily fixed. Can you spell vouchers and homeschooling?
2. "Oh joy…my legs will twitch less, but I’ll gamble away my 401K while I become a nymphomaniac…what a wonderful trade, all approved by the FDA."
LOL. No specific expertise in drugs and my general philosophy is prevention not a pill. My jaw dropped when highly stylized, long, and compelling prescription drug ads began to explode on TV, many for ridiculous things like your example. IMHO–a possibly dangerous (and very annoying) path for our society regardless of whether these drugs are properly evaluated for safety and efficacy. My bet is that most of these drugs are fine for the right person and right condition, but why blast fancy ads non-stop on the TVshould be a 1:1 decision with a health care provider.
I agree and disagree here.
Yes, what I do for my health should be a decision between me and my personally chosen health care provider. (Note "personally chosen". I want to choose who I want for health care advice…not have the government or some insurance company shoose for me, either through lisencing or "provider lists").
On the other hand, I think that if the FDA wants to be in the business of "approving" drugs, they should approve drugs based on effacacy and safety, not because big pharma can make big contributions to someone. Look at funding sources for university research, CDC studies, etc…the money comes from companies with a dog in the fight…hardly objective. Like the rest of us, researchers want to feed their families, pay their mortgage, and make the car payments, and they know that if they want another research grant from ABC drug company, the results of the research currently underway on ABC’s proposed drug better be favorable or the money might go to someone else next time.
With all of that said, I really can’t blast the commercials on TV. A drug company is just that…a company…corporation…and corporations are legally mandated to make money for their stockholders, and commercials make them money. They are following their legal mandate…but we the sheeple don’t HAVE to follow them, any more that we HAVE to eat the crap at McDonalds. Choices…INFORMED choices. It’s up to us.
"3. "Sorry C2, but our wonderful public health system, while well intentioned at first perhaps, is no longer about health. It is all about validating and protecting big pharma and big agri. And it did it to itself…it sold it’s soul."
Hard to say, see #1 about the soul part. But, as part of a maybe small group of very dedicated scientists, we are finding things you and others (including big agri as you call it) likely will not agree with or welcome."
I’d welcome anything, if based on real, non-money, non-special interest influenced science, with one caveat…
Provide me the information, good and bad, then let me make my own decisions. Do NOY let that information give anyone, the government or anyone else, the right to be my nanny.
"Still, the denial of periodic problems in raw milk, resistance to improving sanitation, marketing specifically to vulnerable populations, and lack of communication between scientists/regulators/producers makes the silver bullet seem necessary."
There are probably some whackos out there that would deny that there have been periodic problems with raw milk, but I don’t know any. Most raw milk advocates acknowledge the potential for issues, but feel the benefits outweigh the risks. That is their right.
If you wish to address denial of potential risk, let’s look at the public health system’s denial in the case of the three deaths and one spontanious abortion regearding lysteria in Massachusetts reported in the last several months. I’m working from memory, and mine is notoriously bad, but I think those deaths were actually in 2006…but informing the public and shutting down the dairy took a year.
Can you imagine a year, or even a month, passing before the public health system raised a hue and cry if it had been raw dairy?
Similarily, while there may be some that don’t care about sanitation, they are few and in both the raw and approved industry.
For the most part, the folks that might be called uncaring, might be folks a lot like me.
I wanted to build a separate building for milk handling, and I wanted to do it right. First I checked state standards, and found them to be unreasonable and having nothing to do with food safety.
Without going into the whole thing, let’s just talk about the sink.
You probably know the standards…so big, so deep, such and such drainage, etc. Fine. I’m a cretified welder…I’ll get some stainless steel and build a sink that EXCEEDS standards. Oh no I won’t…it won’t meet certification because one of the standards is that it must be made by an approved company.
So I sent the state drawings of the proposed sink…materials list…type of steel, design, description of continuous welds, rolled edges so no place for bacteria to hide…asked for exception…NO DEAL.
So I did what I was already doing. Maybe it’s people like me you are talking about when you talk about "resistance to improving sanitation".
No…I run a sanitary operation. I’m "resistant" to ignorant, stupid government regulations that have more to do with some idiot in a cubicle justifying his job by making up more rules than he is in food safety.
And that is not an anoily, at least not here in Georgia…I’ll give you another example, totally off topic, showing how truly interested in food safety rather that political expediency our "protectors" are.
I make a killer banana bread. Killer. Best you ever had. Let’s say I bake one and take it to the local farmer’s market to sell it so I can help support my family. Wrong. Illegal. Baked in a kitchen not approved by the state.
OK…now I take that same banana bread to church because we are having a bake sale, and the church will get the money…oh, that’s different. A fundraiser is OK, just not for personal profit.
Wait a minute…I thought this was about food safety, not kissing the butts of any non profit that wants to make a dime? Is my cake safe or not? It can’t be both…safe for a fund raiser, but dangerous if it raises funds for ME.
Look…I’m not an expert, and I don’t know it all. All I am is a dumb goat farmer, and a citizen of a country that once believed in personal freedom and personal responsibility.
I want to make my own choices in nutrition, rather than have them dictated by the state.
I want the playing field level, not having the government blaring about every little thing regarding food they deem dangerous on a 10 second notice, while taking over a year to notify the public about deaths from government approved products.
I want the government to be a servant of the people, not a nanny to them.
But then I am, after all, just a dumb goat farmer, so what do I know?
Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead
Jasper, GA
Thornberry Village Homestead…a small goat dairy, owned by God, managed by Bob and Tyler.
You seem to be sure that pasteurization is the "silver bullet" that can make even milk from diseased cows safe.If you are familiar with the work of Lida Mattman( Cell Wall Deficient Bacteria-Stealth Pathogens) or Trevor Marshall( L-forms) and many others,you would have to doubt that pasteurization is really killing the bacteria.Many microbiologists now have proof that the bacteria have the ability to change form or break into fragments when challenged by heat or chemicals.After the situation changes they can rebuild themselves again.Lawrence Broxmeyer M.D. has shown that the TB bacteria can withstand pasteurization by shedding it’s cell wall.In this new form,it can pass through the blood brain barrier and infect the brain.This an example of pasteurization helping TB outmaneuver the immune system.I’m sure there are many examples of other bacteria that can do the same thing.Pasteurization as the "silver bullet" is one of those big lies that has been repeated so often that many people accept it as the truth.