The Reality of Raw Milk Illnesses, and How They Allow the Debate to Be Hijacked; Pig Slaughter in MI
Like a lot of people, I appreciated Tim Wightman's comment following my previous post. Especially his observation: "To blame health authorities for an outright bias and or 'conspiracy' allows those who make the claim to ignore their own limitations in understanding any possible threats to the product and limits the effort for constant learning needed to produce a product of increasing safety and the developed practice to do so."
As it turns out, I heard from a couple of other raw milk proponents--James Stewart of Rawesome Food Club fame and Rahman Dalrymple, a Los Angeles raw milk activist going back more than a decade (to helping lift ban on raw milk in Los Angeles in 2001)--and they argued something similar, that I missed an important nuance in how I made my argument about the scapegoating of raw milk producers.
One problem with outbreaks of the type happening in Missouri and Oregon is that they distract the debate from the real issues, the two feel. "It's not about raw milk versus pasteurized milk," Stewart explained. "It's about dirty versus clean milk...They (raw milk opponents) want it to be about raw versus pasteurized." The reason is that the producers of "dirty" raw milk will inevitably be held up as evidence that raw milk is inherently unsafe.
While he has no inside information on the dairies in Missouri and Oregon that are being blamed for sickening people, Dalrymple is inclined to believe there's a problem. "If people are getting sick, it's because the milk isn't clean," he said. That can occur as a result of any number of husbandry problems.
In the early 1900s, "You had dairies producing dangerous milk. I understand why the regulations came in."
Stewart and Dalrymple are at odds with others in the raw milk movement, who claim the officials are unfairly blaming raw milk for illnesses. Says Dalrymple: "Before any discussions on this topic take place it is imperative that both parties distinguish whether the raw milk in question is 'clean' or 'dirty' and maintain this clarity throughout the debate. Otherwise both sides are simultaneously right and wrong." A key indicator as to whether milk is dirty is if people are getting sick.
Stewart pointed out that in six years of running Rawesome, and offering raw milk from dairies via herdshare or lease arrangements, there was never a single complaint about anyone getting sick from the Rawesome milk. He says he had members from Rawesome who knew something about dairy operations scout out the dairies he worked with, including living at the dairies for short periods, to confirm they were feeding the cows properly and using sanitary milking and handling methods. He says he was obsessive about cleanliness at Rawesome.
The key to determining whether milk is clean, in his experience, is seeing how long it lasts in the refrigerator without smelling bad. "It should last three weeks in the fridge without smelling."
Milk that begins to smell bad after a few days should be avoided, and the dairy that produces it should be avoided, he said.
The only complaints of people reacting badly to food at Rawesome, he said, came from Rawesome co-founder Aajonus Vonderplanitz, and one of his nutritional clients, who complained about physical symptoms from eggs that came from Sharon Palmer, a farmer who supplied Rawesome.
He notes that, ironically, nearly all the felony and misdemeanor charges against him, Palmer, and Victoria Bloch filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney had to do with distributing raw milk. (There was one charge for selling improperly labeled eggs.)
A few others have made a similar complaint here in the past--that a few raw dairies whose milk has led to illness make life difficult for the vast majority that do a good job. It's a provocative view in the sense that it implies a lack of unity. I've long felt that the purpose of the Raw Milk Institute was to investigate situations like these, so everyone could learn from possible screwups. After all, the fact remains, the best way to shut up the critics is to not have any illnesses.
**
The reports out of Michigan about its Department of Natural Resources sending out teams to slaughter heritage pigs, or force farmers to slaughter their own pigs, including newborns, raised on small farms are truly disgusting. NaturalNews says that two farms have been raided in recent days.
There are additional discouraging details from the web site of Mark Baker, a Michigan farmer who has been lobbying legislators to block the order that took effect April 1, mandating elimination of so-called feral hogs. Seems as if the only hope may be for some kind of court order blocking the rampage.
This site's mission is to provide news and analysis about food rights and raw milk. Increasingly, our access to privately available food is under attack by government and industry forces that seek to impose their choices on us. The Complete Patient seeks to provide up-to-date information and encourage the development of community to maintain traditional food acquisition options.
Yes, we really need a national standard for consumer accessible raw milk production (like the California Grade A Raw standard) that has appropriate checks and balances to keep raw dairy farms clean and honest while preventing any unnecessary over-regulation that might force raw dairies out of existence as was the case between the Los Angeles Medical Milk Commission and Stueve's Certified Raw Milk (formerly Alta Dena) which led to their eventual bankruptcy. Whole Foods claimed the lack of a national standard was the primary reason for pulling raw milk from their shelves (and, of course, pressure from their insurance company).
National standards and other third party checks and balances can't, I repeat, CAN NOT, get you clean, safe raw milk. If they did PMO milk would be pristine and certified organic food would all be perfect and we wouldn't be having these discussions. Badly produced raw milk made people sick and badly produced (and regulated) pasteurized milk still makes people sick.
What will get us good clean raw milk? Education of farmers and consumers. Allowing consumers the freedom to access and choose clean milk. And removing barriers to entry for new small dairies so that new clean operations can get started. Regulations will accomplish none of these.
David, you may be right that this isn't about raw vs. pasteurized. But neither is it about clean vs. unclean. Follow the money. Raw milk is largely produced by unregulated, small family farmers selling direct to consumers. Clean or not, such farms do not make money for dairy processors nor provide job security for bureaucrats.
Pete, I understand the point about regulations not being effective in guaranteeing clean raw milk production. And I certainly don’t like the idea of government over-regulating raw milk out of existence – as they nearly have. However, from Lakeside, Arizona (where my mother lives) the closest raw milk is “Sunrise Dairy” and they offer “State Approved” raw milk in addition to Pasteurized. Their raw milk tastes bad and is so dirty that it turns sour in a couple of days no matter how diligently it is refrigerated.
Contrast that to “Save Your Dairy” in Queen Creek, Arizona, just outside Phoenix. They produce an extremely clean product and even feed their cows probiotics. Their milk tastes amazing and lasts nearly three weeks before souring.
I understand that capitalism will eventually settle the issue because Sunrise Dairy will go out of business – in fact, I think they are giving up the dairy altogether due to the cost of alfalfa and feed costs and converting the farmland to sweet corn.
But I cringe for all the people who are trying raw milk for the first time and end up with one of these remote, less than stellar dairies, and maybe get ill or just plain reject raw milk altogether due to a bad experience.
Pasteurization has always been about covering dirty milk production and those standards are not adequate for raw milk. We need a universal minimum for raw milk standards, otherwise greedy farmers, whose pasteurized sale price point is dictated by the Government will see raw milk as an opportunity to make a lot more money (raw milk prices are currently unregulated) without regard to the milk quality.
In the long run this will damage the public image to the extent that it will be more difficult for the rest of us to get legally produced raw milk.
We will always have greed and less than honest folks chasing money. Regulation never stopped that. If you think it can, you havn't been paying attention lately.
PMO farmers selling dirty milk is already a problem. Except they usually sell it at or near their take home price from the processor. So they do two damages: they sully the reputation or raw milk and the create unrealistic price expectations. But people keep buying it. Why? Because its cheaper than the 'too expensive' pasteurized store milk because it tastes marginally better. You start charging more and people start having a lot more expectations.
raw milk versus pasteurized milk, dirty versus clean milk
How about my choice what I consume? As to the 'clean vs dirty' I expect the milk to be clean. The cafos cannot be clean, they must pasteurize the milk or it will surely kill.
"Milk that begins to smell bad after a few days should be avoided, and the dairy that produces it should be avoided"
Something to keep in mind. You are correct, there doesn't seem to be any unity. RAWMI cut any ties to small dairies early on, on this blog. Trust is earned and once it is lost, takes a long time if ever, to regain.
Squash the small dairies, squash the small hog farmers, etc.... Soon big ag will be controlling all our food sources.
And let's not forget; raw milk intended for pasteurization IS dirty milk and should not be consumed raw.
I do not know the specifics of the two “farms” mentioned in the article regarding DNR actions. We have been assured by producers near us-actual farmers- that domesticated hogs-that are dark in color etc. are not being targeted. I have not personally heard from any of our producers that domesticated heritage hogs have been killed. Are there any examples?
The two “farms” featured in the article are hunting “ranches” in Northern Michigan. The only hogs mentioned on their websites are Russian boars-these are not domesticated heritage hogs. (http://www.renegaderanch.org/default.asp, http://www.deertracksranch.com/) .
Game ranches backed by big money---- brought into our state infected animals that have had a huge negative impact on our agricultural community-TB and wasting disease. Our state fought hard to achieve split state status and have our lower 57 counties classified as “accredited TB-free.” Though agricultural enterprises, game ranches-hunting preserves are regulated differently and do not fall under the same umbrella as what we think of as “farms.” I think it is important to distinguish our farm community from the “guided hunting ranch community” Distinguishing the two does not to justify State questioned actions-just a request that we deal clearly with the fundamental issues and not use a game ranch as an example of a small family farm having its herd of dark hogs wacked.
And I am not saying that the regulations should not be rescinded, that Constitutional rights have not been violated and the issue not reevaluated with more public input. Let’s just get the stories straight.
Seems to be a lot of dirty raw milk out there. Here is the list since 2010. http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com/PDFs/Dairy-Outbreak-Table.pdf
• 26 raw dairy outbreaks with 333 illnesses, no deaths (24 fluid raw milk, 2 aged raw milkcheese)
• 2 pasteurized dairy outbreak with 39 illnesses, no deaths
I like the use of the word “dirty” milk. It sounds so much nicer than saying cow poop is in the milk.
It is really a pathetic shame that the govt doesn't work with dairy farmers to ensure 'clean' milk. They obviously have their own agenda and raw milk isn't included. Raw milk consumption, (just like prostitution and a whole slew of other issues) isn't going to go away.
Their obvious agenda isn't health safety and that further divides the people. It appears anything from marlars blogs are nothing more than propaganda to drum up business, not worthy of opening.
“Milk that begins to smell bad after a few days should be avoided, and the dairy that produces it should be avoided, he said.”
So is James Stewart suggesting that if you consume raw milk you should wait at least 3 or 4 days after purchase before you drink a new bottle of raw milk? This way if the coliform bacteria are high (poop in the milk) and it begins to sour, this is a signal the milk could be dangerous to drink.
Just for the record, the contaminated milk Chris drank was purchased on a Friday and it soured by Monday.
From the cdc wib site: "Six cases were identified; four persons had culture-confirmed infections, one had a culture-confirmed infection and HUS, and one had HUS only."
Was it your son that had HUS only? Never any confirmation of e-coli? No matches from the dairy A?
Sylvia, you claim to be a nurse. Why don't you educate us how all about how cultures are taken in a hospital setting? What does it mean if all cultures came back negative and a child developed HUS?
Remember that most doctors adhere to a monomorphic theory of disease and illness: A bacteria is a bacteria, a virus is a virus, a fungus is a fungus, a sarcoma is a sarcoma, etc. And they believe that we are exposed to, and catch these various diseases and illnesses from outside sources. Very few Doctors understand the pleomorphic reality. A bacteria can evolve into a virus and a virus into a fungus or sarcoma and into a cancer. It all depends on the health and internal chemistry (acidity or alkalinity) of the host.
Florence Nightingale recognized this when her hospital rooms were seal off and brand new diseases would spread throughout her ward. Likewise, Antoine Bechamp (the real chemist and rival to Louis Pasteur), Royal Raymond Rife, and Gaston Naessens all figured this out; the last two had to invent their own powerful optical microscopes to witness and prove it.
Well, in this century, when you child is in the hospital shitting his brains out, they test for bacteria. They culture a fecal sample to see what will grow. This will tell you what bacteria your child ingested to make him/her ill. Sometimes the culture will not grow out, but it doesn't mean the bacteria wasn't there. That is why I asked Sylvia the question. What happens in the lab to prevent a postive growth when the bacteria was present? Did someone make a mistake with the sample?
It means the doctors need to search out the cause. Did they do that? I doubt it.
Please elaborate. What do you mean by search out the cause?
You don't know what 'search out the cause' means?
If you have a negative sample, and suspect the bacteria, you retest AND also look for other causes of an illness.
Some of the causes of HUS:
genetics in some families, during or soon after pregnancy, allergic reactions due to medicine, bacterial infection, and autoimmunity just to name a few.
If you want details on lab routines, you must ask someone in the lab.
Sylvia, nursing was your profession. If a child came in with severe diarrhea, along with vomiting and blood in the stool and it takes 3 days for the culture to grow and on the third day, after all the different bacterial cultures that were taken came back negative (meaning not one culture for any type of bacteria was positive) and the patient is getting worse not better, what would be their next move? He now has severe pain in his stomach which is bloated and very hard. He also experienced rectal prolapse.
What tests would they run to figure out a diagnosis?
Wow, are you saying the doctor waited 3 days to make a move? If I recall, the doctor gave your son antibiotics, which probably made a bad situation worse and from what I've read, may have caused the HUS. Only a fool would 'treat' something blindly.
Sylvia, I’m surprised you don’t know the medical protocol for a suspected E.coli foodborne illness. Chris entered the hospital Friday morning after spending the whole night in the emergency room. The admitting doctor suspected E.coli or a viral infection. The order was no antibiotics (E.coli) and no morphine because it will cause constipation (viral). All they can do at this point is take cultures, give IV fluids for hydration, & anti-vomiting medication. They can’t make a move until the cultures come back. That takes 3 days. During this timeframe he was not given antibiotics.
So back to the question. All the cultures come back negative for all the different bacteria cultured. What do they do next? What tests do they need to run to determine what the problem is if it is not a bacterial infection? Again, the pain is unbearable, his stomach hurts and is bloated and hard and he experienced rectal prolapse. What could be the problem if his symptoms are not caused by a foodborne illness? What is the next move?
Sylvia, what is important to note is that this was day 4 of unstoppable diarrhea and vomiting. The vomiting occurred with each round of diarrhea because it was so painful. At this stage (day 4), if this was a typical bout with a food borne pathogen, he should have shown some signs of improving. For example, his diarrhea should have begun to slow down. This didn’t happen for Chris. Instead of showing signs of improving, he was declining and becoming more ill with new symptoms. And to top it off, all cultures for bacteria came back negative. What’s a doctor to do?
Mary,
I'm confused when you say, "They can’t make a move until the cultures come back. That takes 3 days. During this timeframe he was not given antibiotics." At marlerblog.com/CHRISTOPHERMARTIN.pdf it says that on September 9, 2006, the day after he was admitted to Kaiser Riverside Chris received flagyl, and that he was also given claforan September 10-11, 2006 after being admitted to Kaiser Fontana. These are both antibiotics, which seems to contradict the statement I quoted, or am I missing something?
Personally, I like my milk as fresh as possible and would drink it daily straight from the cow if I had the means. However, because I tend to live and work in large metropolitan areas, I tend to purchase my raw milk on a weekly basis. (I do inquire as to when the deliveries are made so that I obtain it fresh as possible.) By the end of the week, there should be little difference in the smell or taste of the milk - if it is clean raw. Pasteurization disguises milk purity & cleanliness and can smell neutral for weeks before the putrefaction sets in.
Then why did you feed it to your child? If it was bad already? Are you taking responsibility for him getting sick?
That comment/question was to Mary a few posts above. It won't post where I had clicked. Sorry! I don't know how to get it to the right comment.
I do not consider milk that has gone sour to have a bad smell. It makes an excellent cultured butter and butter milk.
I think it is important to not limit our definition of dirty milk to the presence of cow manure alone. The residual presence of chlorine, phosphoric acid, hormones, pesticides, antibiotics etc. is what makes milk truly dirty and the most likely reason as to why milk begins to smell bad (not sour). Their presence hampers the self-preserving qualities of lactobacillus thus allowing harmful organisms to multiply, which in turn results in a foul smell.
I agree with Mary and MW, cow manure or the organisms related to it are to a lesser or greater degree a given in milk. Where we go our separate ways however is that I do not consider their biodegradable, digestible and non-toxic presence to be overly harmful providing the cows are fed a well balance primarily organic grass (hay) based diet. The residues mentioned above however are indeed harmful and pose a substantial threat to the quality of our food, our digestive system and overall good health.
Ken Conrad
Well said.
And let us also not confuse a healthy detoxification of our body with illness brought on from the introduction of poisonous food. The problem with many of the reported "outbreaks" is that Doctors will only ask questions relating to the consumption of "raw milk" and "raw meat" products, never pasteurized products or fruits and vegetables -- and often blame the raw milk or meat before it has been proven to be the source of the illness. It is necessary to be scientifically diligent when naming a particular food as the culprit.
This statement is so FALSE. I lived this. They are very detailed in the questions they ask about what you ate and where you have traveled. The only question they did NOT ask us is if he drank raw milk. My husband is the one who mentioned the milk.
There are two steps to this process. The first is the questions asked at the hosptial. And if you are part of an outbreak, the second round of questions are from the public health department which didn't happen unitl weeks later.
oh, poor, poor you ... for what is this ? the 1000th time? Still down there, prostrate with grief, practicing your religion of son-worship, ... whupping the cause of the insult to your self-image as 'the perfect mom'
Meanwhile, several million Americans drank their REAL MILK today, and are much healthier for it
No, this statement is not entirely false. When I tested positive for listeria in the 80's I was contacted by the Health Dept in San Francisco. They asked me about where and what I ate, but they asked more than once if I had consumed raw milk. At one point I was asked, "Are you sure you didn't drink raw milk?" They even asked me to read the carton of milk in my frig to make sure it said "Pasteurized/Homogenized" when I seemed confused at their question. I was mystified as to why the question kept being asked. I now think they were trying to link my illness to the Alta Dena Dairy/Jalisco Cheese fiasco. I was never hospitalized, and the doctor I saw never asked much about what I ate. When the DOH contacted me they said it was because of the type of bacteria I had tested positive for, not because of an outbreak.
It may be that California is the only state where the doctors are instructed to ask such questions relating to raw milk consumption.
As a condition of Los Angeles County’s 2001 motion to allow Grade A raw milk to be sold within the county, the California State Department of Food and Agriculture, Milk and Dairy Foods Control Branch and the Acute Communicable Disease Control were commissioned to monitor the raw dairies and inform the various medical organizations such as the Los Angeles County Medical Association, Infectious Disease Society of America and the Los Angeles Pediatric Society.
Long story short - an entire medical network was set up to include the dissemination of prejudicial articles in medical newsletters about the hazards of consuming raw milk products, adding questions to ask if patients consumed raw milk products on case history forms for listeriosis, salmonellosis, campylobacteriosis, E. coli O157:H7, yersiniosis, & brucellosis and monitoring amounts and locations of raw milk sales.
ckrottruth,
Perhaps the medical community and public health reacted to multiple deaths among raw milk drinkers with HIV/AIDS at the time. Alta Dena was the cause (raw milk proponents funded some of the studies). The dairy shut down. A dark piece of history in the raw milk movement.
MW
I spoke to Herb Streuve while Alta Dena was still going ... still full of fight then, he'd been battling detractors and the Cult of the White Robe - and winning - for half a century. He must have been doing something right.
MW, I know the history of Alta Dena but I'm not familiar with the studies you're referring to; do you have any links or more info? I don't believe hiv/aids patients deaths had anything to do with the dairy shutting down.
If you follow the money, you find that it's Big Agri backed Wall street that ultimately benefits from keeping the focus on the pervasive "Us Versus Them" mentality that keeps various types of Farmers at odds with their fellows. Whether you're a COFA Pig Producer or Pasture Fed, Raw or "Standard" Milk Producer, Commodity or Organic Grower, you're a Farmer. If you ever drop the artificial barriers and start really communicating, you'll find you can learn from each other, that you're issues come down to "Favored Flavors" choices, and at the end of the day, you are mostly part of the 99%, with Wall Street and Big business yanking your chains.
so true, Dr Rex. What I've seen over the last 12 years, is ; those practicing true capital-ism, with real capital of their own, separating from those tricked into borrowing imaginary "money" from some usurer, who are then compelled to keep up with servicing that debt. Self sufficient farmers in a genuinely free market, will outperform the Marx-ist model of industrialized agr., with its strings of control leading back through share-holder control in corporations, exercised via proxies held - ultimately - by the Banksters.
A free holder with productive chattel ( cattle) can tell the Banksters to go to hell ... when the usurers have no one to parasitize, they'll shrivel up and die. Every state house in America has a replica of the Liberty Bell, waiting to be rung on the day of release = the Jubilee. In that day the bells on the horses will say "holiness to the Lord"
"After all, the fact remains, the best way to shut up the critics is to not have any illnesses." (from raw milk)
I think it is only in a parallel universe or some raw milk utopia that that can happen.
The laws of supply and demand say that if a farmer sells" dirty milk" and people get sick people will stop buying that milk and the farmer will go out of business. Raw milk farmers have incentive to provide a "clean" product, they stand to make a lot more money selling raw. But at the end of the day this is still about the consumer, it is still the individual’s choice to drink raw milk or not. The reality is that foods produced under the delusion of food safety through standards and regulations are no "cleaner", they just offer a predictable percentage or an acceptable level of risk. Those who don’t connect the dots between official reports of “outbreaks” from raw milk, and heritage pigs being out lawed as an invasive species are truly in denial. Many millions of Americans survive on cheap food and really don’t care where it comes from… they are easily manipulated, and the market share and voting power they represent are fiercely fought over. Whoever offers the cheapest, easiest, safest lifestyle wins. That’s what has to change.
The found E.coli 0157:H7 all over the place. In the cows, on the farm and in the milk. So sad for the families and sick kids. This farmer had 4 cows and had been producing raw milk for about a year. I wonder if he had a clue about what he was doing? http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2012/04/lab_tests_confirm_e_c...
E. coli has long been vilified by the media.
Escherichia coli O157:H7 is most commonly found in the fecal matter of cows that have been raised on hormones and anti-biotics. It is a genetic mutation of one strain of the E. coli family and is most commonly associated with raw beef that has been contaminated during slaughter.
There are hundreds of coliforms that are not pathogenic and do not cause disease. They actually act very effectively to protect raw milk against pathogens like E. coli 0157:H7. Coliforms make vitamin K, B-1, B-2, B-6 and B-12 and without coliforms, and the beneficial colicins they produce we would die.
California Grade A Raw milk standards require regular testing for total bacterial plate count per milliter which serves as an early warning for serious infections. In addition they are regularly tested for quality, cleanliness and pathogens including: listeriosis, salmonellosis, campylobacteriosis, E. coli O157:H7, yersiniosis, & brucellosis.
Organic Pastures Dairy Company even injected his clean raw milk with listeriosis, salmonellosis, campylobacteriosis, E. coli O157:H7, yersiniosis, & brucellosis and incubated the samples to test for bacterial growth. All the pathogens virtually disappeared except the E. coli O157:H7 which remained at the same introductory level.
Again, it is time for all of the raw milk devotees to realize that there is a fundamental difference between clean raw and dirty raw milk. Dirty raw milk is the reason that pasteurization was introduced to begin with.
The OPDC BSK study was discussed here:
http://www.ethicurean.com/2009/07/20/raw-milk-mem/
Perhaps RAWMI could work on clearing up that particular raw milk urban legend so that outbreaks like this don't occur. After all, if farmers think that milk injected with E coli will kill E coli, why would they take hygiene seriously? The BSK urban legend should be RAWMI's first focus.
So raw milk isn't inherently safe? It doesn't kill pathogens, huh? Then it's obvious: The "gubment" must know this, and that is why there is a grand conspiracy to taint raw milk bull tanks and cause outbreaks. Even a raw milk luminary such as Michael Schmidt believes this conspiracy theory as posted in the comments here.
Let me point out that most people who blog here advocate for the cow share model. They don’t want the government involved in regulating it. It is a free market for the farmer and the consumer.
This whole situation sounds like the Dee Creek 2005 outbreak all over again. I bet you a million dollars that this is a group of WAPF members. They wanted their milk because they heard about its wonders and a farmer is going to make money and provide it for them. Everyone thinks this is a win-win until this type of tragedy happens. All lose in this deal.
Who is the person who was providing the milk? Did he know anything about raw milk safety protocol or did he see some dollars coming his way and produced milk for families who thought they were making a healthy choice for their families.
I wonder if the farmer and all the families involved could name all the pathogens that can be found in raw milk, along with the illnesses that can result, before entering into the cow share agreement? Or did they only know about the so called benefits.
This whole situation is beyond tragic. It cannot be quantified.
Let’s see. What are the conspiracy theories going to be? Did someone sneak in late at night the put E.coli up the cows’ anus and then sprinkled it around the farm?
Pasteurization kills the milk’s natural antigens and as a result, bacteria increases at a geometrically unchecked rate after cooling.
Did you know:
• The blood-membrane barrier found in the cow’s udders, prevent tuberculosis from being transferred from a tubercular cow into the milk. Intestinal TB used to be caused by a tubercular milker hacking into the pail. Modern dairies use closed-system automatic milking machines, totally eliminating this danger. Be wary of the small farms that still milk by hand.
• Brucellosis or “undulant fever” is contracted through association with livestock not through the milk.
• Listeriosis is not destroyed by pasteurization and all of the known outbreaks have occurred only with pasteurized milk or milk intended for pasteurization.
• Salmonella is found in soil and water, vegetables, in your nose, on your carpet, on your cat, in your hair, on meat and fish and chicken and lettuce. It is ubiquitous. And again, all of the known outbreaks have occurred only with pasteurized milk.
As governments refuse to allow the legal commercial production and sale of raw milk, production will be unregulated and we will see more people being subjected to unhealthy milk and unfortunately raw milk's reputation will suffer for it.
HEY FARMERS! IF YOU CAN'T PRODUCE A CLEAN PRODUCT, GET OUT OF THE DAIRY BUSINESS!
ckroftruth,
I am a consumer of raw milk, a licensed Wisconsin cheese maker, and a founding board member of the Raw Milk Institute.
Almost everything you said above is completely inaccurate. But worse than this, by suggesting these half-baked conspiracy theories, you discredit the raw milk movement by making us look like science-denying lunatics.
I agree with your final statement, except "dairy business" should be replaced by "raw milk business." That is precisely the reason why we founded RawMI -- to draw the distinction between clean raw milk and raw milk which shouldn't be consumed in its raw form by members of the general public. The tools to do this objectively and scientifically already exist -- the Standard Plate Count (and its derivities, i.e. the PI Count, LPC, etc...), Coliform testing, pathogen testing, TB testing, etc...
Mary Martin is right about a lot of this. If the raw milk movement can't get its collective act cleaned up, the "free market" will clean up the raw milk movement, and it won't be pretty. If people are getting sick from dirty raw milk, there is this little thing called "liability" that can get really expensive really fast.
And will someone please put Gordon Watson in his place? Why I am always the one that has to counteract all the racist and right-wing political drivel around here? Has this movement no sense of social responsibility? seriously, folks. I'm all for raw milk. I'm against stupidity, ignorance, racism, and injustice.
"Almost everything you said above is completely inaccurate" could you be specific?
"half-baked conspiracy theories" which theories were those?
"to draw the distinction between clean raw milk and raw milk which shouldn't be consumed in its raw form by members of the general public. "
And in which of those two would your flagship dairy Organic Pastures fall? The same dairy which has had to cease distributing milk, what twice now, due to folks getting sick from it?
Mary,
I believe you understand the raw milk movement better than most people in the raw milk movement.
better than me ? who's been involved for the last 12 years, through 4 cowshares? Helping 450 households get the best food in the world? They-all seem to know a bit more about it than the perennial thorn in the flesh, M McM
When's the last time she ever so much as talked with someone who's heath miraculously turned around once they got REAL MILK into them? When's the last time she ever took in any new information ?
People still stuck in trauma are unable to disengage from their obession, so as to relate to the bigger frame of reference : ie. America repudiating the soviet model and turning back to the One who has healing in his wings. As Anne Landers used to say : "the woman needs professional help"
If we had to name all the pathogens and all the illnesses that could result from consuming food most people wouldn't be able to eat anything!
Sadly Mary, deliberate contamination is very real, all they have to do is put something nasty in the bulk tank. It would be very naïve to think no one would do such a thing. I hope that is not what happened to your son. Our government forces farmers to dump milk and shoot their livestock, they use armed force against farmers and their children, millions of tax dollars have been spent on surveillance of small farms and food clubs. Why? Mass food production and distribution carries much greater risk (recent cantaloupe tragedy). And what about the millions of people who get sick and die every year from tobacco and alcohol? Ask yourself why the government allows that and then ask yourself again if conspiracy is such an out there idea.
Dear friends,
I have been drenched in WAP Joel Salatin goodwill for the last two days, during and after the huge CHICO CA Food Summit. This was truly a monumental event. CDFA Regulators, Health Department representatives from arround CA all coming together with Cow Share operators and consumers to hear about raw milk. Then having Joel Salatin speak to the group as only he can speak. Huge!!!
I was honored to give a 20 minute pre-introduction and raw milk update as the lead-in to Joels speech at a packed church with about 1000 in attendance. This was all CA Chico area WAP chapters work...wow!
The Oregon Cow Share outbreak is truly bad news for every one. Sad....but not unexpected.
RAWMI has been embraced by few and stoned by many in the Cow Share movement. When people get serious about raw milk....they need to get serious about raw milk. They need to get trained and they need to get transparent. There is no faking with raw milk.
RAWMI has taken a new strategy with all of its potential mentoring partners. It is no longer the "authoratative voice of safe raw milk safety"...that was a mission dead end and screw up. Instead, RAWMI is simply a resource for the interested raw milk farmer that sees value in very high quality raw milk, safety and being able to show his hard work to his consumer.
RAWMI has collected feedback from its executive advisory board. It is now getting ready to collect feedback from the 40 self identified raw milk producers nationally that would like to join and embrace these common standards.
I guarantee that the Oregon situation would not have happend if that farmer was really taking his production very seriously. Risk can be reduced and it can be managed.
If raw milk is going to thrive in America....standards with at least self certification and consumer observation with transparency is going to have to happen.
We need producers bragging about their coliform counts...we need this information published and talked about....we do not need secrecy.
With freedom comes huge responsibility. It is like saying I do not want to pay any more taxes and I do not want a cop, fireman or paramedic to come to my house in an emergency. If this is what you want...then you better become very good at first aid, buy a gun and learn how to morally use it and defend yourself and learn how to fight fires and have the equipment to do it. Anarchy is not so great. Freedom requires responsibility. Size appropriate...but yes....responsibility. We have a society and we have created an interdependent network of humanity. We are Americans. That means reaching out to regulators and creating change. We saw this at the Summit. We saw cracks grow and we saw exchange and we saw the beginnings of an appreciation of a new emerging market.
We heard the regulators and speakers say...the raw milk community "self regulation and standards badly". We heard this... Why do we not act? Feeding Marler is not the answer. Giving raw milk a black eye...not the answer.
Consistent super clean raw milk with standards is a part of the answer. Embracing help is a part of the answer. We are inservice to children and families. This is very serious business.
More self aggrandizing garbage from Mark. So no one in Oregon would have gotten sick if they'd just joined RAWMI huh?
"I guarantee that the Oregon situation would not have happend if that farmer was really taking his production very seriously"
So does that mean your past problems were because you weren't taking your production very seriously? Maybe you were too busy marketing yourself?
We have a situation here where there is great demand for healthy, local, clean raw milk and no supply. So lots of new folks are getting into it. But there is next to no information out there for new farmers on dairy production and much of the conventional information will just cause problems. On top of all that there is a lot of contradictory and just plain wrong information flying around.
I would not be so quick to jump on someones case who had a sickness claiming they didn't take safety seriously. And in this particular case it looks an awful lot like the pot calling the kettle black!
No one can guarantee perfectly safe food. Its all a matter of relative risk and how you handle the problems that crop up.
Bill, the great thing about the new format is that you can see the picture of the person before you read the post. If you see it is Gordon, just skip it. He is fueled by people who pay attention to him. If he doesn't have anyone to play with, he may go away. I have no idea what the man has been writing.
David,
Why did you ban Flimm Flamm but haven't banned this yahoo from Can-nay-dia yet?
always amusing how one sentence of the Word of God drives the little anti-christs 'round the bend... calling for the authorities to come down with censorship. Whatever happened to that core value of commitment to freedom of speech, there in the land o' the Free and the Home o' the Brave?
... a pinprick like that and you start whimpering like a girl ... what next? having me hauled before the House un-Ham-merican Activities committee ?
Contrary to what you may believe, Gordon, your words are not the words of God.
David,
In my previous question, I asked about Flimm Flamm being banned from this blog. I would like an answer. If Flimm Flamm crossed the line, how much further does Gordon have to go to get to that same line? His comments are full of racism and hate, and he adds nothing to the conversation. Flimm Flamm didn't go that far, and he got banned.
"All views are welcome here, provided the individuals are sincere, and refrain from personal attacks and/or inappropriate language."
I would suggest that attempts to get someone banned are also equally inappropriate, and making direct public requests to the blog owner bring up awkward situation. If Gordon offends you just ignore him, no need for personal attacks -which this post is definitely not intended to be. Live and let live.
Ora,
If you reread what I wrote, you'll see that my question on Gordon is in relation to David publicly banning a commenter named Flimm Flamm. Flimm Flamm posted very interesting comments but never insulted anyone. Where is the line? It seems that Gordon's comments violate David's criteria that commenters be sincere and refrain from personal attacks, and I do not see a problem asking this publicly. It needs to be asked.
We can all argue that Gordon has "freedom of speech" to say what he wants, but let's not forget that Gordon's rights end where Mary's begin. Does Mary have the right to post her comments without fear that she will be personally attacked by Gordon? I have no problem with debate, but that is not what he's doing.
Ignoring Gordon is one thing I try to do. But he has insulted most everyone on this blog (myself included), and if that's all he's here for, then what is the point of him being here at all? I hope we don't think Gordon has more rights than Mary does, just because we think he's on our side and she's not.
Barn = you have a very different concept of the term "rights" than I do. I suggest you'd be better off in jolly old England, where they have the Public Order Act in place now, under which, upsetting someone else's comfortable state of mind, is a crime. A friend of mine spent nearly 2 years in a mental asylum, for daring to rebuke a man whose dog was about to bite her. Of course you don't believe that ... you're one of the "double-plus-good citizens' whom George Orwell predicted would be so happy to live in a police state, where never a discouraging word is said. Your knee-jerk response is "oh that can't happen here". I remember an America in which freedom of expression was one of the most important of all the real rights
Flimm Flamm was clearly a troll, and is thus far the only person to have ever been banned from this blog.
I would like to retract my previous post about headaches, but can't.
David, would it be possible to implement a self-editing feature on the site? Occasionally I cringe when I go back later and re-read what I posted.
There are a lot of really good thoughts from various people that comment here, and I highly value that they care enough to post and, educate. David's articles are the axle and foundation that fuels the discussion, but all of us try to contribute in some way, some more inflammatory than others.
(Btw Mary, I would bet more people ignore your comments than they do Mr. Watson's. After a while we all know where you're both coming from and skip it. Do yourself a favor, and don't ever go to Mexico with your son and drink the water, and also warn him about undercooked meats and seafood. That is my public service announcement for today.)
Back to my point, as much as we disagree on many fronts with others, I return here because I am intrigued and educated by the differing perspectives. Preaching to the choir is fine, but often only helps one become more smug and does not advance the overall understanding of complex issues.
Ora Moose, I just removed that comment. I'll put self editing on the list of things to be checked out.
"Btw Mary, I would bet more people ignore your comments than they do Mr. Watson's. After a while we all know where you're both coming from and skip it. Do yourself a favor, and don't ever go to Mexico with your son and drink the water, and also warn him about undercooked meats and seafood. That is my public service announcement for today."
Ora Moose has reiterated everything that's wrong with the raw milk movement. We say we want to have a constructive dialogue with the regulator-types, but we don't really. We say we want to use science to support our position, but we we willfully ignore the science that shines an unfavorable light on our cause. Based on the best evidence, Mary was damaged by raw milk and the willful omission of its dangers, but we marginalize her presence on this blog. Do we want constructive dialogue or not? If we do not, we are going to continue to beat our heads against the wall as the regulator and scientific types continue to regard us as a fringe movement with cult-like tendencies.
(Think of this: if Mary's son was vaccine-injured, and she was on a mission to shed light on the dangers of vaccines, we'd consider her a hero. But because the work she does challenges our believe system ("the miracle of raw milk!"), we marginalize her. Mary has valuable insights and presents well researched documentation. The truth is never at the extreme ends, but somewhere in the middle.)
I started rebutting M McM a] - for redundancy, + b] for sheer quantity. For the last couple of years (?) she's overloaded this forum with the same-old same-old in microdetail, on and on with nothing new - let alone constructive - added except obvious glee at the distress of others, a rumor-monger of the worst sort. She's the mistress of the fiery dart lobbed at Mark McAffe, yet pertinent queries put to her remain unanswered.
In BC, intelligent discussion IS going with the regulators, behind the scenes. One of our sharemembers met with the Min. of Agriculture, and the opposition party is fully on-side with cowsharing to obtain REAL MILK. Intelligent discussion should be a 2-way street, n'est ce que pas? Genuine discussion only occurs with mutual respect. How much respect do I have for "the authorities" when they put out a public statement they'll leave our farm alone pending the outcome of a court case, then slap a couple of new Orders on our farm? Filed in our constitutional challenge is the Affidavit of expert testimony of Dr Ted Beals = the last word of real science on this topic. Has the constant critic read it? I doubt it... she'd rather be wilfully ignorant. She's no friend of the Campaign For REAL MILK
I would venture to guess that Mary would have a lot more respect for the Campaign for REAL MILK if the Campaign for REAL MILK would admit that outbreaks attributed to REAL MILK have happened and do happen, instead of chalking up EVERY outbreak to governmental conspiracy. The truth is in the middle, remember, not at the extreme ends.
Dr. Ted Beals is not the "last word of real science", he is the scientist who happens to agree with your Campaign. There are undoubtedly many more who do not. It would do some good for this movement to find some experts that are not associated with the Weston Price Foundation, since a cursory search of the internet reveals they are not respected in the scientific world.
read Dr Beals' curriculum vitae, before you say something as stupid as that. Read the testimony in the 4 experts in the Schmidt case, in Ontario, posted on the Bovine.wordpress website ; that IS the last word on science on this topic, at the highest level
I do not say that every outbreak is 'governmental conspiracy' Our experience here in BC was that the Chief Medical Health Officer outright lied through his teeth, claiming on national tv that "a child was lying ill in hospital after drinking raw milk from Home on the Range dairy" ... then 3 months later, he admitted on official stationery = it never happened. When I see the very same myth being peddled, repeatedly, all over America, our suspicions about the Powers that Be, acting maliciously, are well-founded
I'll be putting my 'conspiracy theory" before a jury ; when's the last time you saw the idiots who cry 'wolf' so quickly, slandering the Campaign for REAL MILK, every time a report of e.coli illness makes the newswires, admit they've erred?
"she was on a mission to shed light on the dangers of vaccines, we'd consider her a hero."
I can only assume that you are generalizing with your statement. I would not consider her a hero. I would hope that she would show all sides of the vaccine issues. Vaccines, like consuming raw milk, is a choice. I don't have a belief of the "miracle of raw milk", Yes, the truth is in the middle, she tends to lead very far to one side.
Meant 'lean' not lead.
Why would you expect to be shown all sides of the argument if this were an issue of vaccines, but you are comfortable with the extreme bias put forth by OPDC and WAPF?
Where do you get that I'm "comfortable with the extreme bias put forth by OPDC and WAPF"? I don't go to those web sites, and I have been very vocal with my disagreements with Mark of OP on this blog numerous times.
It does not matter if you visit those websites or not. Your unabashed loyalty to all-things raw milk (and all of the ideas promoted by WAPF) and your utter contempt for Mary trying to shed light on the reality of raw milk outbreaks shows that you tow the company line, whether you "visit these websites" or not.
Interestingly, you have justifiable outrage for the myths and lies perpetrated by the FDA/USDA, as you feel you've been injured by their lies, but do not allow Mary, who feels injured by the lies perpetrated by OPDC/WAPF, the same liberty. Cognitive dissidence, anyone?
(I'll give you all a hint: some of the info the FDA/USDA puts out are out-and-outright lies, some is truth. Same for the WAPF. Now, which are the lies and which is the truth? Black and white thinking, i.e. FDA/USDA=bad, WAPF=good, only pulls us further into their game.)
When I was in graduate school, I studied under a couple of famous Adlerian professors. They taught me how to run a family education center. It was an amazing few years. People’s behavior is motivated by getting attention, gaining power, getting revenge or feeling completely inadequate. Bullies like Gordon fit into all 4 categories. Being a bully gives him a feeling of power and gains him attention. But underneath that is a person that feels completely inadequate and he lashes out by seeking revenge for the hurt he has experienced in life. It is easier to have compassion for Gordon if you think of him as a hurt child needing love and acceptance. He really knows how to push buttons to gain the attention he so desires.
you gave you-self away, ma'am, echoing my verbiage
the reason you "have no idea what the man has been writing" is because your experience with the health benefits of REAL MILK amounts to zero. I was out on the street today, accomodating our members picking up their milk, asserting our right to use and enjoy our property, as part of reminding the civil servants who they work for.
From what I can gather, you got paid-off from a lawsuit in which it was dubious as to the actual cause of your son's illness. But the target settled rather than continue endlessly ... so now you're happily ensconced with a fat bank account, and nothing better to do than try to hinder the raw milk movement... not going to happen. You're just a chip on a tsunami of an idea whose time has come.
Several thousand more fully-informed customers prefer Mark McAffee's version of the Campaign for REAL MILK, over yours and all the govt. idiots, put together, and have voted with their dollar$. it sure must gall you that the raw milk business is flourishing and prospering, eh?
I think it has become abundantly clear that the FDA, the DATCP and CDC are untrustworthy. Time and again these regulatory agencies have manipulated and concealed information in an attempt to mislead and deceive the public. Conspiracy or not, the above agencies are corrupt to the core and certainly cannot be relied on to give accurate, unbiased epidemiological information.
http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/news/news-29jan2010-food_safety.html
http://voices.yahoo.com/usda-fda-much-we-trust-them-475382.html?cat=71
http://farmwars.info/?p=4913
The following quotes reflect well on what the public is increasingly becoming aware of with respect to the above regulatory agencies. It is becoming increasingly difficult to rationalize ones trust in such agencies that aren’t on the level and upfront with us.
“My husband has been persecuted by extremely powerful forces for asking questions that his research findings made it morally and ethically essential for him to ask,’.......... ‘I used to believe that this country was a bastion of academic integrity and intellectual freedom. So this whole sad process of attrition, isolation and vilification, on a very personal level, has sickened and disillusioned me. “
Carmel Wakefield
“Every day that government health officials lie to the people about vaccine risks is one more day that the public loses a little more trust in what they are told by government.” Barbara Loe Fisher
I don’t think Michael Schmidt’s comment from the previous post is not that far of the mark in stating, “health authorities are currently ‘creating statistic evidence’ to make their case”.
Ken Conrad
churchlanefarm, I agree completely.
Pasteurized milk with its off-farm centralized kill-step that standardizes the product regardless of the on farm conditions, is easy to enforce and compliance is done at the creamery with fewer personilities involved ( with fewer stops to enforce standards, clean bathrooms and coffee and donuts for the inspectors ).
Raw Milk standardization ( safety plans to help reduce risk ) to assure some decent level of safety...what a hornets nest. Every farmer has a personality and some are resistant to standards, testing or even being helped. Raw milk farmers are steeped in their own ways and many resist learning or mentoring. Inspectors have a heck of a time getting all those raw milk farmers to follow anything.
The free market system and dollar voters will sort this out. Those that do a great job and have open learning minds and "get better" will thrive. Those that do not improve and embrace education and learning will fade away ( after becoming part of Marlers Lunch ).
Time and Darwin sorts this stuff out. Clean cream rises to the top. RAWMI is your friend. We know all about this stuff and learn more everyday. Ignorance is not bliss.
To get farmers to stand together and embrace standards was a major challenge for the AAMMC under the Certified Raw Milk Medical Commissions that lasted about 100 years and ceased in 2000 for all intents under Alta Dena in may of 1999. It will be a major challenge now. RMAC has done it but it took mandatory compliance by Colorado state Cow Share law to make it happen. Now the farmers love it.
Volentary standards and protocols are the way to go...wake up now or get awoken by a badge weilding State Health Department investigor accompanied by the local sherrif that has unwanted news for you.
There is a reason that pasteurization worked so well for 100 years....now we must rethink our safety, nutritional and health strategies. Now we must lead with new ideas and new ways of standing together as farmers and consumers. With America in immune system freefall...raw milk is one of the greatest answers, but is also a risk. That which can build us up can also sicken us. That is the nature of nature and how the immune system works.
Mark
Mark, I believe this is the first time I have ever seen you put in writing that there is a risk when making the choice to drink raw milk. Thank you. I hope when you are out "Sharing the Secret" you also mention the risk factor.
One of the myths we have to repeatedly listen to or read around here is, that we claim there is no risk in drinking raw milk. This is patently a false premise. The truth being that what we claim is, by having improved immune systems it gives us the kind of protection you can never get from eating sterile, supposedly safe dead junk, and that raw milk is one of the best foods towards achieving that immunity level.
We all admit there is risk in many different foods. Please stop the hysterics and read what we really are saying. We want to have a choice. Why are you anti-choice? Nobody is forcing raw milk or anything else on you, so why do you feel qualified to make choices for the rest of us
Now can you please tell us why you repeatedly keep zeroing in on raw milk dangers but not on any of the other foods that also make many thousands sick on a regular basis - including pasteurized milk. Come on Mary... have the courage, we need to know. Please share your motives, I will keep asking until you do.
Ora Moose, where did you get the idea I was not about choice? People in your movement can only seem to view things in black and white. If you would like to know my position and what motivates me, you can read what I wrote for Food Safety News. That will answer all of your questions. http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/04/is-the-foundation-of-good-health-f...
Now I have a few questions for you.
1.Can you name another organization the encourages infants, children pregnant women and people with compromised immune systems to consume a product that is high risk for pathogens claiming it to be a miracle food that heals everything? For example, these are all high risk foods (now that food is mass produced): hamburger, chicken, turkey and eggs (if not cooked to the proper temperature) tomatoes, packaged leafy greens, sprouts, cantaloupe, raw apple juice, and apple cider. Do any of these foods have an organization with chapters sprinkled throughout the U.S. encouraging the above group to consume them claiming it will heal all that ails them?
2.Where did you learn that raw milk was one of the best things to build your immunity? Can you name some other foods that also build immunity? There are many.
What organization (s) are you referring to?
The US govt 'encourages' infants with underdeveloped immune systems to get vaccinations. Is that different? The medical community pushes drugs on people that cause numerous debilitating side effects and even kills patients-slowly and/or quickly. Is that different? The US govt promotes the consumption of highly processed, chemically infused and adulterated foods. Is that different? Perhaps Ora Moose believes that 'raw milk was one of the best things to build immunity' , what of it? Are you saying Ora Moose is wrong?
You know that she's referring to the Weston A. Price Foundation.
Deflecting the argument at hand with this "well, but what about the FDA/CDC/pasteurized dairy/etc./etc.?" is a FALSE ARGUMENT. You are creating a strawman argument for the purpose of not engaging in the real argument (a typical tactic here on TCP). It does not matter what the FDA/CDC/pasteurized dairy/etc./etc. do, it only matters what WE DO. This is the REAL MILK movement, isn't it? Shouldn't we be held to higher standards and a higher measure of accountability than the FDA/CDC/pasteurized dairy/etc./etc.? Every time this argument is made, we are saying one of two things - either, "we don't want to talk about it!" or "well, if they can get away with it, why can't we?".
Are you implying the Weston Price foundation is the be all say all of raw milk? I've been to their web site a total of 2 times. It would be easy to guess that the majority don't go to their web site nor follow whatever they are about. A lot of people never heard of them. If she has a beef with that web site, and she wants it to change, then she should take her beef to them.
Creating a strawman argument? She asked for other organizations that "encourages infants, children pregnant women and people with compromised immune systems to consume a product that is high risk for pathogens" claiming it is healthy/good for you. I responded: the various entities of the US govt and those they are in bed with do so. There is no false argument.
Pointing out the vast differences in how raw milk consumption is singled out from other foods is not avoiding the issues, nor is it saying "well, if they can get away with it, why can't we?" So far, I haven't seen any answers on why raw milk is treated so differently than other foods? Can you or anyone answer that?
Davids blog is the "REAL MILK movement" ? I thought it was just a blog. If so, he needs to get the word out somehow. (no offense David)
Yes, Sylvia, that's exactly what I'm implying. Tell me what other national organization besides the Weston Price Foundation promotes the consumption of raw milk (FTCLDF, RAWMI are offshoots)? Answer: there is none. So, yes, they've positioned themselves to be the end-all and be-all of raw milk, whether you visit their website or not.
Tell me, where did you get the idea that raw milk is healthy, that there is little to no risk of pathogens in raw milk, that grass-feeding=good, that soy is bad for your health, etc., etc., if not from the Weston Price Foundation? From "blogs"? Perhaps you did not get this info directly from WAPF, but then I'd wager you got it indirectly, from people who promote their ideas, whether you were aware of this connection or not.
And, yes, you did create a strawman argument. Go back and read Mary's question. She asked what other organization promotes RAW MILK for high-risk populations (true, she never said raw milk, but that was most definitely the implication - "Can you name another organization the encourages infants, children pregnant women and people with compromised immune systems to consume a product that is high risk for pathogens claiming it to be a miracle food that heals everything?"), and you answered "the US government" and then discuss vaccines and chemically-adulterated food. Your answer did not answer the question, did it?
"Davids blog is the "REAL MILK movement" ? I thought it was just a blog." David has written almost exclusively about raw milk for a couple of years, and the heavy hitters in the movement routinely comment here. Outbreaks, sanitation, RAWMI, legal issues relating to raw milk, etc., have been discussed. For years. Do you really believe that this blog isn't a window into the raw milk movement itself?
"So far, I haven't seen any answers on why raw milk is treated so differently than other foods? Can you or anyone answer that?" I know the answer to this, and it is several-fold. Are you or anyone else prepared to hear the real answer? I don't think you'd believe it if it hit you over the head.
From Mary's post: "1.Can you name another organization the encourages infants, children pregnant women and people with compromised immune systems to consume a product that is high risk for pathogens claiming it to be a miracle food that heals everything? "
She was specific in asking 'a PRODUCT' no where in that question does she state milk, raw or otherwise. By stating she 'implied' is an assumption on your part. If that is what she meant, then she should have stated that.
It is awfully narrow minded to believe any entity is a be all end all.
Tell me, where did you get the idea that raw milk is healthy, that there is little to no risk of pathogens in raw milk, that grass-feeding=good, that soy is bad for your health, etc., etc., if not from the Weston Price Foundation? From "blogs"? Perhaps you did not get this info directly from WAPF, but then I'd wager you got it indirectly, from people who promote their ideas, whether you were aware of this connection or not.
I have researched many medical and science articles regarding the chemically induced foods in our system and the responses they have on our bodies. When I read anything whether on a blog or even in 'professional' journals, I research further for more information as I find most contradict each other. How do you come to your conclusions? I have NEVER said there was no risks of pathogens. Where did you get that idea?
"Do you really believe that this blog isn't a window into the raw milk movement itself?"
Yes I do. it is one of numerous blogs on raw milk.
"Are you or anyone else prepared to hear the real answer? I don't think you'd believe it if it hit you over the head."
If I didn't want to hear an answer, I would not have asked a question. You negativity is showing.
Do you really not understand that Mary was implying raw milk? If not raw milk, what was she referring to as a "miracle food" (e.g. Sally Fallon: "Raw milk is a magic food...)?
"I have researched many medical and science articles regarding the chemically induced foods in our system and the responses they have on our bodies."
Then you are familiar with the research implicating casein in cancer growth and type 1 diabetes, right?
"If I didn't want to hear an answer, I would not have asked a question. You negativity is showing."
Go read what I wrote to Ora, and let me know if you'd like the rest of the story.
Also, could you please refer me to the medical and scientific journals that promote the consumption of raw milk? Thanks.
I never said "medical and scientific journals that promote the consumption of raw milk".
Pages