Questions, Questions: Will WI Guv Sign Raw Milk Legislation? What Does FDA Want With PA Dairy Farmer? Stanford Studies Lactose Intolerance

Wisconsin Gov. Jim DoyleWisconsin legislation that would allow Grade A dairy farmers to sell raw milk directly from the farm has now passed both houses of the legislature by significant margins.

The legislation has all kinds of weaknesses from the viewpoint of Wisconsin dairy producers. By being limited to Grade A dairy farmers, it leaves out many small dairy producers that aren't necessarily suppliers to processors. Moreover, it is time limited--would expire after next year. That means opponents will be pushing to find "problems" even before it gets fully implemented. And it will be implemented by the state's notorious Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP), which despises raw milk and raw milk producers.

Still and all, it is a start, and it is a start in a huge dairy state. It would enable a number of Grade A dairies that have been struggling under the iron fist of the DATCP to legally sell raw milk. Oftentimes. getting a legal foot in the door leads to bigger and better things down the road.

Gov. Jim Doyle will no doubt be pressured by dairy processors and public health types, not to mention his own DATCP, to veto the legislation. That's what happened to SB 201 in California, which would have rescinded a stringent bacterial-count standard, and had passed the legislature by even larger margins than the Wisconsin legislation; Gov. Schwarzenegger gave in to the pressure and vetoed the legislation in late 2008.

But a lot has happened since 2008. Raw milk is ever more popular, and proponents more politically active. The key will be to convince the governor that the legislation is important to key segments of voters. At least one newspaper report suggests he's hearing the growing cacophany. If you're for the legislation, give his office a call, 608-266-1212, and say it's about SB434, the raw milk legislation.
***
A Pennsylvania dairy appears to be the target of an investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration into interstate shipments of raw milk.

Dan Allgyer, an Amish dairy farmer, had a visit Tuesday morning from two FDA agents, as well as federal marshalls and a state trooper. According to an account by Allgyer, the FDA agents presented a search warrant and said they had "credible evidence" Allgyer is involved in interstate commerce involving raw milk, which is a violation of federal law.

The farmer's account of the events of Tuesday morning are presented on the web site of the National Independent Consumers and Farmers Association (NICFA).

It's no secret that raw milk is pouring out of states that allow its sales--Pennsylvania, New York, South Carolina--into East Coast cities like Washington, New York, and Boston, where it can't be sold via retail outlets. It may well be that, following its typical modus operandi, as in the Max Kane case, the FDA is targeting a single producer for enforcement...hoping to use that example to scare off other producers and thereby reduce the supply.

Afraid not, guys. This trend is too far along. There are too many consumers desperate for their raw milk to let the FDA enforcers stop the supply. Maybe the enforcers will slow things down for a while. But I guarantee, it will pick right up. Strong demand always creates its supply. Economics 101.

***

We may receive actual "scientific' evidence before long about the influence of raw milk on lactose intolerance. Stanford is conducting a presumably double-blind study to determine whether raw milk eases lactose intolerance, which is a problem for between 30 million and 50 million Americans.

If you live in the Palo Alto area, and have lactose intolerance, you may want to consider participating--you'll earn an easy $250. The Stanford researchers seem not to be concerned about the explanation offered by the new semi-official web site, realrawmilkfacts, that "it would not be ethical to intentionally expose research participants to a high-risk product such as raw milk" as part of a scientific study.

A small study out of Michigan in 2007 showed as many as 80% of individuals suffering from lactose intolerance gained relief from raw milk.

David,

Nice piece...

I made my call early this morning. We need everyone to call and jam the phone lines.

When you call take 15 seconds to say why raw milk is important to you. Mention lactose intolerance or asthma or what ever raw milk has done for you.

After 20 months the Wisconsin regulators could become supporters of raw milk. This means doing it right and working with them and demanding good safety standards and testing. It is time to reach out and become collaborators. Be the first to reach out and work together. Put your pride aside.....it is time to work for a far greater good.

They are in a very tight spot and if they do not help....this will be exposed as well.

When this bill passes it is time to work hard...very hard developing and implimenting food safety programs that actually work and also selling raw milk and educating lots of consumers.

Wisconsin will not dare take away something that has been shown to be safe and popular.

It is time to work hard and realize the ante....the stakes are high and the benefits are huge.

Mark

David, I want to take a minute to say how much your site is appreciated for its openess. All sides are heard here, and I am glad that is so...be it total raw milk proponents denying any chance of illness, total raw milk detractors who consider it the drink of choice for Satan, and all in between. Even lykke and cp, while frustrating, are appreciated, at least by me.

One thing I really appreciate is your willingness for it to "all hang out"...little to no censorship, even when a post totally opposes your POV. I wish all involved were as willing to hear all sides.

Case in point, I was in a lively but civil discussion with a man in the comment section of Marler's blog. We were having a good back and forth on my favorite defense of people's access to raw milk...that the government had no constitutional authority to deny folks nutritional choice. The discussion was, as I said, lively but civil...and ended when I posted a word for word listing of what the constitution says the feds can do, and the 10th amendment limiting government powers to those specifically listed, and asked where in that the government got the power to make nutritional choices for us.

Well, unlike your blog, and mine, www.JuicyMaters.com, Marlers is completely moderated with Marler having to approve each post before it shows up. Mine, a simple cut/paste of part of the constitution and the 10th amendment, never showed up...Marler is afraid of the truth.

I take that as a good thing. Regulators, and their minions like the ambulance chasing Marler, see the writing on the wall, and they are afraid...very afraid.

The truth will win. The truth always wins. Marler and his ilk know it...and try to postpone it with, in Marler's case, censorship. You have to wonder about someone...anyone...who is afraid of the constitution.

BH
http://www.JuicyMaters.com

More media coverage on DATCP's grudge with Trautman Family Farm:

http://hartkeisonline.com/2010/04/23/trautman-wall-may-be-local-food-movements-line-in-the-sand/

www.realrawmilkfacts, that "it would not be ethical to intentionally expose research participants to a high-risk product such as raw milk"

As said many times, if raw milk was so dangerous, why aren't the many consumers dropping dead or ill from it? Ha, it's not ethical to research with raw milk but it is with the drugs? What BS. Follow the money.

BH, didn't the last sitting prez say that was "just a GD piece of paper"?

From cp's link: "Though the Wisconsin company that purchases the farm's regular milk (about 2,000 gallons a month) recently said it would stop buying unless the couple ceases selling raw milk, they vow to continue."

Why would it matter to the processor if the farmer sells raw milk? What is he fearing?

"Drinking contaminated raw milk can cause vomiting, diarrhea and abdominal pain."

Duh, consuming anything contaminated can cause illness. Processed phoods are promoted constantly along with "medications" and that is condoned by many. IMO they should all be jailed for poisoning people.

yes sylvia, follow the money.

which begs the question: who is funding the stanford study? the funding source will most likely dictate the results. i guarantee it.

as for a "personal decision or public danger," at what point do automobiles become a public danger? at what point do handguns become a public danger, or cigarettes, or alcohol, or processed foods that lead to diabetes and obesity? should we outlaw all vehicles, all weapons, all cigarettes and booze, and even processed foods because of the injuries and deaths they produce or the costs to society they impose?

if the proponents of the "public dangers" of raw milk were objective, reasonable and had any integrity at all, they would strive to outlaw vehicles, weapons, alcohol, cigarettes, booze and processed foods because of the greater "public danger" these elements present than the alleged public dangers of raw milk.

David:

I haven't seen any reference to the James Orchard case on your blog. Campylobacter from raw milk consumption; Guillian Barre Syndrome and partial paralysis, hopefully temporary; hospitalized in Pittsburgh. Certainly one of the most serious raw-milk induced illness cases in recent years.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/valleynewsdispatch/s_677255.html

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/health/23199238/detail.html

Prediction: If the Stanford study finds an association with raw milk consumption and lactose intolerance, it will result in a marketing blitz by raw milk fans. If they find no association, the raw milk movement will scream the study was nothing but a big ag, big pharma conspiracy against their product.

Do the lawyers know - if someone contracts a foodborne illness from raw milk during the study, could they sue Stanford (or does the release form exempt the university from liability)?

Hey Regulator,
Long time no hear from. We've missed you.

I haven't made reference to the Pennsylvania illness you link to, but a few commentators have...and now you have as well. I don't write about every illness ascribed to raw milk (or fast food, or ground beef), though I have encouraged proponents of raw milk to establish high sanitation and production standards; I've also encouraged regulators to establish education programs for raw milk producers as a more effective way to avoid illnesses than confrontation.

I did write in detail last year about a woman in California who developed Guillain-Barre Syndrome, apparently from contaminated raw milk, and about the heartache around the situation:
http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2009/5/27/a-husband-claims-his-wife-was-a-victim-of-betrayeal-by-a-raw.html

David

yes david, you did blog about the california case. and yes david, the raw milk proponets on this site do suggest improved sanitation and care and attention to husbandry practices on behalf of raw milk producers in order to ensure food safety.

however, the regulators and anti-raw milk advocates who blog on this site do not concomitantly question and challenge the existing industrial food complex on why that industrial food complex causes so many more illnesses and deaths than allegedly does the raw milk producer.

alas, the raw milk advocates appear to be reasonable and dedicated to food safety while the anti-raw milk advocates seem to be dedicated to vilify a particular food product while defending the unsafe industrial-food-complex-illness-causing system as a whole. it appears the anti-raw milk advocates have their priorities and vision skewed and out of kilter and instead have an axe to grind.

"...while the anti-raw milk advocates seem to be dedicated to vilify a particular food product while defending the unsafe industrial-food-complex-illness-causing system as a whole. "

Gary, do you actually read our posts? cp has discussed natural, unprocessed food alternatives to raw milk many times here. I cannot recall he/she ever condoning the "industrial food complex." This is a raw milk blog for the most part, which is why I discuss raw milk-related issues that David writes about (there are other venues where I discuss other food products). It is obvious from Bill Marler's blog that most of his lawsuits and activism in food safety has been directed at industrial ground beef and other mass produced products. And, yes these products cause more illnesses and deaths than raw milk. But, if the same number of people who ate deli meats and undercooked ground beef also drank raw milk, you bet raw milk would be high on the list of food safety threats based on raw numbers. The number of illnesses and deaths are only small because the number of consumers is small. Unless the practices do become safer as you claim to desire (e.g., the raw milk industry walks the talk instead of spending all their PR time denying outbreaks and pushing baby formulia), the numbers will climb as the market grows. For example, do you and others condone the practices in this video? There appears to be little regard for sanitation. Has anyone sent these folks Tim Wightman's videos to perhaps help them do better?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/ct-met-raw-milk-20100422,0,2185455.story?page=1

Bottom line: people who are concerned about raw milk advertising claims and raw milk safety are not automatically part of big ag and/or big pharma. It's not that simple.

Regulator,

The fact that you take one isolated case a try and make a big deal of it speaks volumes. Yes Raw milk isn't perfect and there are some risk involved with drinking it....but you could say that about much that the scum at the FDA allow the citizens of this country have access to. Nobody says raw milk is perfect....but if you add up all those who have increased their health via consumption, to those who 'don't', you'll find that the chances for benefit far out weigh the risk. If you apply the attitude of people like yourself (who 'supposedly' are protecting the public) to other products, their would be little that the people would be allowed to have. The double standard that you perpetuate reduces your credibility to near zero.

I think it important to find out who is sponsoring the Stanford study....before the results are made public. And I'm sure, depending on the results, either the pro or anti raw milk folks will be trumpeting the results. Lykke, your attempt to discredit the raw milk proponents is comical, especially when those who are against it rely on the same tactic.

I wonder if anyone has sued the myriad of Institutions of Higher Learning that have 'shown' that Monsanto's GMO crops pose no threat to the future of agriculture....and how many studys (financed by the corporate devil themselves) have been covered up or hidden away because they don't ascribe to the corporate line.

If your line of logic and reasoning can't be applied evenly to BOTH sides of an argument....it is beyond worthless.

David -

While you and I almost certainly disagree over the Wisconsin legislation and FDA enforcement actions, I agree with you that the Stanford study represents a great opportunity. If raw milk does in fact help relieve lactose intolerance, then by all means we ought to do the research and figure out how and why that would be. As someone who has cited that same quote about raw milk milk research being "ethically questionable," I'll swallow my words in this case. I supppose that if the research proposoal is good enough for the IRB at Stanford Medical School, its good enough for me.

As I mention in my piece on the study, however, it's worth noting that the researchers are screening out participants who fall into high-risk groups like pregnant women and individuals with weakened immune systems. Perhaps my biggest issue with raw milk proponents is the continued assertion that raw milk is not only safe, but it is safe for EVERYBODY - a fact that is as patently false for raw milk as it is for countless other (unregulated) foods.

Patrick
http://foodinamerica.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/stanford-university-school-of-medicine-to-study-effect-of-raw-milk-consumption-on-lactose-intolerance/

Its off topic, and Lord knows I'm not a defender of republicans OR democrats, Obama OR Bush, but in the interest of accuracy, since Sylvia brought it up, I would like to clarify something.

From Sylvia's comment on this post (comment number 6):

"BH, didn't the last sitting prez say that was "just a GD piece of paper"? " (referring to the constitution).

Sylvia, that allegation has been made, and, since I wasn't there I cannot say definitively that Bush did or didn't say it, but given the source of the allegation, I look at it with a great deal of skepticism.

The allegation was made in an article for "Capitol Hill Blue" by Doug Thompson. It allegedly occurred during a private conversation in the oval office in November of 2005. Thompson supposedly verified the allegation with three sources...but does not name the sources. Also, Thompson has a long history of un-verified claims, and has had to retract many of the "facts" in his stories that turned out not to be facts after all. By his own admission he often writes based on unverified information, but then expects us to believe this one.

Sorry...but it doesn't pass the smell test.

We raw milk advocates get understandably upset when regulators go off half cocked with unverified allegations about outbreaks with no actual evidence. Let's not do the very thing we complain about.

BH
http://www.JiuicyMaters.com

I think it's time once again to review the greater ecology into which raw milk and humans fit.

That ecology begins with the most abundant and durable crop on earth---grass---which unsurprisingly is a tremendously effective solar collector, a perfect companion to the soil and its microbial colonies, a cleaner of water and air, and a marvelous carbon store. Virtually indigestible by humans, grass is a necessary food for cattle. Fortunately for cattle, eating grass is the best way to generate more of it, since grazing it, walking on it, and expelling wastes onto it, stimulates root growth and balances and maintains the complex biological and geological factors that create healthy soil, water, and air (which is necessary for grass, cattle, humans, and everything else). Cattle transform that grass into milk, a food very easily digested by most humans, which happens to contain an astounding mix of ingredients beneficial to human health, including a complete protein, beneficial bacteria and enzymes (that can be enhanced by culturing, which also preserves the milk), calcium, vitamins A, D, B6, B12, and the anti-cancer agent, conjugated linoleic acid. Not incidentally, human exposure to that ecology all along its chain creates a strong immune system, and probably resistance to many non-infectious diseases (a process that we are just beginning to understand). That is at very best a mere glance at the glorious interconnectedness of milk ecology.

Now put it all into its historical context as a supporter of human health and economies since the dawn of man, and one might begin to understand how fatuous, silly, and really puny is the notion that we can improve lives by wrenching mankind out of nature and into our modern industrial/technological/legal/regulatory systems.

But worshippers of manmade systems apparently cannot be dissuaded. They are confident. So confident in fact, that they would use force to wall natural men off from Nature.

This is, I suppose, how we got to the point where presumably intelligent people argue that low immunity---created in large part by living in an industrial/technological/legal/regulatory system---is why that system must now rule.

Lykke,
You sound a tad nervous about that Stanford study, as well you should. But I'll predict it's your side that will have the ready-made "heads-I-win-tails-you-lose" approach to the study's outcome. You see, if it's like the studies out of Europe that demonstrate raw milk's role in alleviating allergies and asthma, the researchers will say, to effect: "Yes, raw milk has a significant effect in relieving lactose intolerance...BUT because raw milk is dangerous, we can't recommend it be used for those purposes." (That is, if they want the study published in an American scientific journal, they'll say that.) And if it has no effect, they'll say, "See, what'd we tell you."

There's no way of knowing whether your prediction might work out, since there hasn't been a serious study at a well-established research organization conducted in this country in recent years comparing raw milk with pasteurized milk, and for good reason--the health establishment has been afraid of the results.

David

Dave Milano's comment here...I'd humbly submit, is the among the most well articulated distillations on this to be found on this blog, or anywhere else.

David,

I'm not against the study, per se, and am curious about the results if it can be conducted safely. And, the extremes of the two "sides" of the debate will likely "spin" the results to suit their needs. The people not at the extremes can judge for themselves.

Despite the majority opinion on your blog, I don't do drug research, but based on the commercials and warning labels, I assume that anyone signing up to get $250 to participate are made aware of risks, like this one from raw milk:

http://www.triplicate.com/20091103107383/Online-Extras/Community/MARIS-CLIMB-3-Part-Series

The same could be said about a new vaccine or synthetic drug. Patrick points out that the study subject must not be in a "high risk" category - I assume they are not enrolling babies, children, and people with immune system problems.

In the not-so-long ago past, researchers (probably even Stanford) used to do feeding studies to learn about infectious diseases, sometimes using incarcerated individuals. That is deemed "unethical," today. Raw milk has been placed in the same category in the minds of many (equivalent to feeding a hazardous substance). Apparently, Stanford's human ethics/IRB committee doesn't view raw milk that way.

This will be interesting to watch on several levels.

"If they find no association, the raw milk movement will scream the study was nothing but a big ag, big pharma conspiracy against their product"

Or the raw milk people may ask why some can consume raw dairy without adverse effects, yet pasteurized dairy causes them to be miserable. Or as David's response says, ".BUT because raw milk is dangerous, we can't recommend it be used for those purposes."

BH, I didn't bother to verify the supposed statement by bush. I've heard him say really stupid things while playing govn'r of TX. Something I wouldn't put past him. I don't play the political party game either.

The children in Australia are having adverse reactions to the H1N1 vacc. The media didn't report the many here in the US.

David M,

How much vitamin D is in raw milk compared with pasteurized milk?

http://vitamind.ucr.edu/milk.html

Natural occuring Vit D in milk "roughly 35-70 International Units per quart as determined via biological assay (12) and approximately 50-80 International Units as determined by modern chemical mass spectrometric procedures"

The above link tells how man made Vit D is made. Just think, if people went in the sun, they'd get their Vit D. The fear mongers have people covered with clothes and slathered with toxic "sun screen" thus preventing adequate absorption of Vit D. As for skin cancer, using common sense would be wise.

Thanks, Sylvia. But how does vitamin D in raw milk compare with pasteurized milk?

Hey are you all comatose.....?

Stanford is in the great state of CA..400 stores carry state inspected and safe raw milk.

Stanford is using inspected and regulated human consumption raw milk not raw milk that is intended for pasteurization.

Stanford has its eyes open and looking for the truth.

Mark

Sylvia, I'm with you on stupid things politicians say...and Bush had more than his share, though he doesn't hold a candle to Joe Biden. Verifying stupid politicians' quotes would be a full time job.

With that sadi, the quote in question, if it happened, would not fall in the stupid catagory, it would be positively un-American, and, in my opinion, cause for impeachment seeing as a president swears an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. For that reason, before I'd repeat ANY such damning quote I'd verify it 14 ways from Sunday.

But then, that's just me...your mileage may vary.

BH
http://www.JuicyMaters.com

Lykke,

Are you wanting the comparison of natural Vit D to man made Vit D that is added in milk (made from cow,pig or sheep)?

If so, that would depend on what one believes is healthy, etc. There is no doubt that the majority of people have no clue how the food they consume is processed.

Many believe that irradiating, chemically spraying/inducing, subjecting to high temperatures, etc makes food safe, yet many believe the opposite. Mercury is a deadly poison(along with other additives), yet it is in vaccinations. No amount is safe. You break a thermometor in the mall and the HazMat team has to come clean it up. It's a proven fact (you can search out the research yourself) that processed foods have less nutrition than unprocessed foods.

BH; I care for a few schizoaffective patients, some believe God speaks through them as bush has often stated. I believe that some of the politicians start out with positive intentions,sadly, somewhere along their journey, they change and not for the good of the people.

To Lykke and All...

While I feel the the artilce was balanced and fair...
I personally do not support many of the practices or conditions of the animals or the facility represented in the Chicago Tribune video.
I would be more than happy to work with them on issues I feel need adressed but have not been asked to do so.
While most of the issues will be addressed in forth coming Videos, some of the issues would be addressed in Chore time.
I will petetion the Fund to send a complimentary copy to the farm in question.
Tim Wightman

According to Aajonus Vonderplanitz, Ph.D., and William Campbell Douglass, M.D. in their
"REPORT IN FAVOR OF RAW MILK":

"Among the fat-soluble vitamins, some are classed as unstable and therefore a loss is caused by heating above blood temperature. This loss of Vitamin A, D, E and F can run as high as 66%."

Sylvia and Jeannette,

What I meant was, if you took raw milk and measured the vitamin D, then pasteurized (not ultra-pasteurized) the milk and measured the vitamin D, what is the difference? If it is low in raw milk to start with, it really doesn't matter if it drops by 66%. But, I haven't seen a side-by-side comparison anywhere and was interested in the numbers if someone has them.

Tim,

Probably awkward to tell another farmere their practices could be better in some areas, but would be good to see improvements. It is striking that two raw dairy farms now have been knowingly video taped by the media and did not seem to even try to look sanitary. Maybe some type of seal from a voluntary national or state raw milk organizaiton would help (with a requirement to follow a set of standard along the lines of your videos). However, if the only requirement is private lab testing like they do in Colorado, the seal wouldn't have any meaning other than a "feel good" thing. Just some thoughts...

Mark,

You make a good point. If consesnting adults can read the warning label in California and purchase/consume raw milk, then it isn't a big stretch to consent to a study (as long as children are not used).

2010 Orwellian doublethink.
Natural Wholesome Real food is against the law. [new slogan]
Where did this doublethink come from? Maybe the folks in this article should recieve some of the blame or credit depending on your view?
http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20100424.htm

"(as long as children are not used). "

Children are used in drug studies often. Children are fed highly processed foods daily. Children are subjected to toxic products daily.

Ingredients in vaccines are questionable. Some children have adverse reactions to those ingredients and I'm not just referring to egg products. An example is the HPV vacc; http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2008/jun/judicial-watch-uncovers-new-fda-records-detailing-ten-new-deaths-140-serious-adverse-e

If it harms one person/child is it worth it? If it has a potential for harming your child...is it worth it? Swelling/redness (the least of the side affects) of the arm is NOT normal, it is the body saying you've injected poison into it.

Perhaps it doesn't matter to you Lykke, regarding natural Vit D vs made made, it matters to others. If you don't wish your child to have something, don't give it to them. Don't dictate what others give their kids.

Sylvia,

You are evading my question. Why? All I am asking for is the quantity of vitamin D in raw milk before and after pasteurization. I am not making a case for or against adding vitamin D to milk. Put another way, if raw milk was your only source of vitamin D, how much would you have to drink to get the daily requirement?

Lykke,

What is your fundamental question regarding vitamin D?

Vitamin D content, like all nutrients, depends on the conditions present while the milk is being produced. Specifically, vitamin D3 is manufactured by the body - both animal and human - in response to sunlight. Therefore summer milk will be higher in vitamin D than winter milk.

To repeat Sylvia's earlier post, according to a professor at UC Riverside: "it has been determined that the concentration of vitamin D3 in milk provided by the cow is roughly 35-70 International Units per quart as determined via biological assay (12) and approximately 50-80 International Units as determined by modern chemical mass spectrometric procedures" (13). http://vitamind.ucr.edu/milk.html

Vitamin D wasn't such a big deal when we weren't indoors so much. There's not much need to get it from food if you're getting enough sun exposure regularly. Darker-skinned people need more sunlight exposure to manufacture equivalent amounts of vitamin D a lighter-skinned people, etc...

I'm curious what your concern about vitamin D is...

Jeannette-

The reason that Lykke is so concerned about Vit. D is because the large pastuerized fluid milk processors add synthetic Vit. D to the milk. And to top it all off, this synthetic Vit D. is actually added BEFORE pastuerization, so it undergoes the same nutrient de-naturization that the milk itself goes through.

Basically, Lykke is trying to set you up for an argument about why pastuerized milk has more nutrients than raw milk. Lykke is showing himself to be a shill for big industry.

Lykke,

You may find it interesting that the professor that is doing the Pasteurization Intolerance Study at Stanford was the same PhD that witnessed first hand the recovery of one of his Maasia students that was suffering horribly from Crohns disease.

The student had been in the US for seven years and had come down with a seriuos case of Crohns and had become highly lactose intolerant. After arriving in the US the student started drinking soy milk becuase he could no longer drink store bought pasteurized milk. The student had been raised until he came to the US on raw milk from grass fed cows.

The student visited the Stanford clinic to be told that he should have several feet of his intestines removed. Instead the student started drinking a half gallon of OPDC raw milk every day.

The Crohns was in remission or gone in a year. The Stanford PhD watched his student recover using just raw millk and wasso impressed that he wanted to know more.

The same thing happened to Jordon Ruben of the Makers Diet.

Yes....Raw Milk is a medical food and there is not a damn thing the FDA can do about it. Stanford will disclose the truth soon and although I have no idea what the exact data will be....I can only guess that it will closely match the other studied that have alrady been done....

It is not the milk or the human...it is the processing of the milk and what it does to man.

People are pasteurization intolerant....!! Jamie Oliver has started a Food Revolution on the crux of this issue. America has processed itself to fatness and death.

The truth will always come to the surface. In this case...their are Two Raw Milks in America...

One for People and One for the Pasteurizer. Each with their own rules, laws, conditions
( Millieu ) and standards.

The sooner that everyone can get this in their heads the better.

Lykke....Is it the safety of raw milk that bothers you or is it the medical claims that bothers you.

Either way...prepare to be very frustrated. Safety and well founed medical claims are very much a part of the New ( actually very old ) raw milk paradigm.

Mark

Lykke your question on Vitamin D is fair, although I do think you're being a bit cute in your approach to this topic. As others have said, I'm not sure what difference it makes, but I'm willing to colloquy since it may elucidate the point you appear to be wanting to make.

If Sylvia's quotation of the good professor's estimate of Vitamin D in milk is correct (35-80 IU per quart, depending on method), then whether or not the milk is pasteurized makes little difference. In other words, if no vitamin D is lost in pasteurization, assuming 50 IU on average per quart, you'd have to drink 2 gallons of raw or pasteurized milk EVERY DAY to get your RDA of 400 IU. If pasteurization causes the loss of let's say half of the vitamin D, then you'd still have to drink 2 gallons of raw, but 4 gallons of pasteurized milk every day to get your vitamin D from milk.

As I understand it, FDA requires that pasteurized milk be fortified artificially to 400 IU of Vitamin D per quart as a kind of across-the-board medicalization of milk in order to prevent rickets. This appears to have been a successful intervention into the food chain, since this fortification of milk was coincident with an 80+% reduction in rickets. Since it is highly unlikely today that most kids drink anything like a quart of milk daily, the lack of rickets is probably a result of the fortification of other foods with Vitamin D (why soda pop manufacturers haven't latched onto "Vitamin D fortified Coke" is thus a mystery), since most Americans don't get enough sun, especially in the winter, to produce sufficient vitamin D through conversion of cholesterol in the skin.

Current understanding (from most medical practitioners, from Mercola to my long-time family doctor) is that 400 IU is itself 'way too low a level of Vitamin D, especially in the winter. I have seen recommendations many times higher, with relatively conservative numbers in the range of 2000 IU daily, especially in winter.

So, I'm not sure what the purpose of the question about Vitamin D in milk, raw or pasteurized, is aimed at. Although the fortification of pasteurized milk might give it an edge in this regard, I don't drink raw (or pasteurized) milk for its vitamin D content, since neither appears to offer enough.

Thanks, Steve. Your last sentence is what I'm looking for:

" I don't drink raw (or pasteurized) milk for its vitamin D content, since neither appears to offer enough."

I'd still like to see the numbers (if it's higher during some seasons, the data can be expressed as a range or an average)...I checked the MI website, but they don't compare the "two milks."

"Lykke....Is it the safety of raw milk that bothers you or is it the medical claims that bothers you."

Mark's question is what I'm getting at...there are repeated broad claims about safety, medical benefits, and nutrients that are not backed up with any numbers. I just happen to be focused on the vitamin D claims right now. It has nothing to do with big ag, but that's fine if people want to believe everyone who questions raw milk claims works for big ag/big pharma (my guess is that raw milk proponents cling to that idea because it would be too difficult to accept that people with nothing to gain financially are still questioning their product's safety/health claims).

I'm not entirely certain of vitamin D, but both vitamins A and D are fat-soluble, only present in the cream and in regards to vitamin A the amount present is directly dependent on the cow's diet. The butter that I make from the cream of strictly pasture-fed Jersey-blend cows is a deep yellow color, which indicates high amounts of beta-carotene and also correspondingly high amounts of true Retinol. Commercial butter made from milk intended for pasteurization from cows in confinement dairies is a very pale yellow, or white in most cases. This butter contains almost no Retinol and is a very poor choice for nutrition.

My point is that milk/cream from pasture-fed cows inherently has a higher starting amount of vitamins A and D than milk from cows in confinement dairies, which is independent of final pasteurization,

Broad medical claims and raw milk...

When 80% of the human immune system is comprized of the biodoversity of colonized beneificial bacteria in the GUT and the American GUT has become a denuded and baren wasteland. Guess what...that is exactly why Raw Milk has such broad medical applications.

Everyone has become so accustomed to narrow drug thinking and narrow medical claims that when a medical food comes along that fixes the immune system it shocks the paradigm.

It is not so hard to think of a broad range of medical illnesses that raw milk fixes if you just rethink what raw milk does and what the human immune sytem is??!!

Raw Milk repairs the immune system. I

It repairs the GUT and in doing so...it fixes many of the critical challenges in the American sickness paradigm. In fact, all of the things missing in the common American diet are found in grass fed raw milk....enzymes, good raw fats, a biodoversity of beneficial bacteria and bioavailablity of minerals. None of these things are found in the common sterilized American diet....

When Weston A Price went arround the world in the 1920-1930's, he found that every successful remote culture of people had a diet rich in these elements from what ever source they got them from. Whether that was fermented seal blubber or raw eggs or raw milk. All had the elements found in raw milk.

When the FDA attacks Raw Milk medical claims what they are attacking is the failure of the American sterilized diet and all of its emptyness. The American diet is devoid of enzymes, minerals, a biodiversity of good bacteria and most importantly good fats from grass fed animals.

When raw milk fills the void and disease and illness stops happening then raw milk is villianized as a drug. Raw milk is a food....not a drug. This makes me want to scream!!

What a sick catch 22.

It is like a society of robots disagreeing with human nutrition and insisting that we humans all eat robot food.... all because robot food stays on the shelf longer and robots run the food machine in America. Jamie Oliver shook the nation with his exposure of the USDA highly processed food policies and how they are killing Americans. It is robots verses humans.

One last thing.....the truck driver that takes our left over waste organic skim milk away to be pasteurized at other organic creameries just bought a bunch of our GET RAW MILK shirts. He told me that they are the hot thing for Milk Tanker Truck Drivers to wear. Especially when delivering raw milk for pasteurization into Reno and Las Vegas where it is illegal to sell raw milk. It is becoming a rebellious Milk Truck driver cult thing.

Not all people are motivated or intimidated by fear...some people love the feeling of being rebellious especially when it is delicioius and does not cause gas pains and or give them Montazumas Revenge.

Especially when the government says not to do it. What a great reason to do it.

Who the hell died and made them God!! The more the FDA and USDA get their grimy hands on our food the more they screw it up. Food Inc said it all. It is the Greed and the money.

Well, now it is all out in the open and the greedy stink is all over it. The food revolution and dollar voting is upon us all. The delicious raw milk truth is hard for the robots to stomach.

Mark

Sorry to change the conversation, but I found this article posted on The Bovine.

http://grasshappens.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/a-farmer-wears-many-hats/comment-page-1/

It describes some of Michael Schmidts raw milk practices at Glencolton Farms. You were all quick to make fun of me when I suggested that when entering the milk house different clothes should be put on, along with some sort of lab jacket, as well as something to cover the hair.

Guess what? Michael Schmidt actually does all of this.

[Usually after barn and breakfast I head down to the cheese house. The cheese house is located right next to the milking parlor and the milk comes in from the parlor after the cows are milked and is stored in a bulk tank, which you can see behind us. The cheese house must be kept extremely clean, that means when I first step inside the entrance-way and before going through the plastic curtain, I change my boots, my shirt, put on an apron, a hair net and the quintessential beard net (which is terribly uncomfortable I would like to add). Here Felicity and I are bottling milk, we bottle the raw milk into one and two liter bottles that have been sterilized in our industrial dishwasher. The bottles are stored in the walk in cooler in those wooden boxes you can see. We are in the process of bottling about 720 liters, or about 190 gallons of milk]

Kudos to Michael for taking the subject of raw milk contamination so seriously. Not all raw milk farmers understand the necessity for extreme caution when producing raw milk. This is obvious from the last two videos of raw milk farmerscow poop everywhere while milking the cow.

cp

Lykke,

Is it impossible to move the conversation into a context? Into a perspective that considers milk and man holistically? You are looking at the world through a paper towel tube. You really must broaden your vision.

You say, "I just happen to be focused on the vitamin D claims right now." Well, you and so many other western-trained ideologues are CONTINUALLY focused on one tiny nib or another. You seem incapable (although I know you are merely unwilling) to see the big picture.

I hope that someday you will back up from the trees and take a good long look at the forest. It will be a wonderful thing for you. You will see that the whole is infinitely greater than the sum of any parts we humans manage to isolate out. But alas, for today at least, that is not to be. Instead you egg me on to adopt your dogmatically pinched methodology, and discuss perhaps the effects of pasteurization, or feeding, or season, or human biological idiosyncrasies, on vitamin D.

Please know that I would be willing to have that discussion with someone who could hold those narrow details in their proper context. But you, I'm afraid, are rather looking for a sniper's bullet.

Dave Milano's post was pure poetry.

It's so nice when one can take such a global view while others are jockeying just to justify their rather questionable existence.

Dave M.,

Fair enough. But, so you know, I got on this path while hiking through the forest trying to make sense of the endless minutia in the WAPF educational materials. If their approach is "holistic," would be curious to see how they define looking through a paper towel tube. I think we should call it a toilet paper tube from now on - both "sides" - lol.

cp, you try to justify your ridiculous suggestions concerning clothing by trying to compare apples to oranges and call them the same thing.

Schmidt is talking about the cheesehouse, a food production facility that simply happens to be on the same land as a farm, which is a totally different type of operation. The comparison is as silly as comparing a pig farm to an abbitore.

While obviously this legislation has many downfalls and really doesnt do enough, it is encouraging to see steps in the right direction. I wish that the general direction of our food legislation in this country was going more towards enabling small farms of whatever sort to make it rather than creating another way for big farms to make more money, but I am trying in life, and particularly in politics, to learn to take what I can get and then fight for more. As a resident of Minnesota, I hope that positive change in the surrounding states can lead to positive change in mine. Thanks for bringing these things to my attention.