New Reminder That Positive Research Results Won't Change Views in Anti-Raw-Milk Camp; Look Who's Complaining about FDA "Gestapo" Tactics; RAWMI Common Standards
Once upon a time, I naively expected that if there were new credible scientific evidence that raw milk showed health benefits over pasteurized milk, the health and regulatory communities might relax their negative attitudes.
But a couple years ago, when I gave a talk at Rutgers University in New Jersey and expressed my hopes for a meeting of the minds between opponents and proponents of raw dairy, a psychiatrist warned me about holding such expectations. The psychiatrist, Richard Schwartzman, explained the regulatory opposition this way:
“One might expect that honorable people with good intentions, on both sides of the table, could somehow resolve the raw milk issue without battling in court…I contend no matter how much proof of safety is presented or what additional information is provided, the government authorities will never relent in their efforts to end sales of unpasteurized milk.”
Why such heavy resistance? "In their minds they must stop 'dangerous' activities and behaviors, never realizing their prohibitive actions are not really for the good of others but rather to make themselves feel better by putting an end to the behavior that makes them intensely anxious.”
I thought about his observations as I was reviewing an assessment from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration side about recent raw milk research. It came from the nearly invisible head of the FDA's dairy division, John Sheehan, who only rarely treats us to his pearls of wisdom. But as part of his support of the Maine Department of Agriculture's anti-food-sovereignty campaign launched last year, Sheehan submitted testimony to oppose state legislation that would have allowed small farms to sell raw milk from their farm sites without a license, and it showed up in the nearly 700 pages of info obtained by lawyers for Maine farmer Dan Brown.
Just as background, we've had at least three significant studies in recent years providing data suggesting raw milk likely confers significant immune benefits on children against allergies and asthma. First, there was a 2006 study of nearly 15,000 European school-age children, known as the PARSIFAL study, which concluded, “consumption of farm milk may offer protection against asthma and allergy.” While half the families said they boiled their farm milk before serving it, the researchers thought that number was likely “biased due to the social desirability of responses because raw milk consumption is not recommended for young children.”
The first thing I noticed in reading through Sheehan's testimony assessing this study was his dismissive attitude toward raw milk proponents, hinting at the intensity of the political struggle over raw milk: “Raw milk advocates have mischaracterized scientific literature in the past and indeed, where we have seen them do so, we have exposed their errors. Their characterization of the article on the PARSIFAL study (Waser et al) is therefore not at all surprising and, indeed, the journal article on the PARSIFAL study has been mischaracterized by raw milk advocates since it first appeared.”
Where were proponents wrong? “The study is about farm milk, not raw milk. The authors of the study took great pains to explain as much in their Clinical and Experimental Allergy article. The authors clearly state also in the article that ‘(t)he present study does not allow evaluating the effects of pasteurized vs. raw milk consumption because no objective confirmation of the raw milk status of the farm milk samples was available.”
But might not the article be suggestive of enough possible benefits to warrant pursuing the research further, as the authors themselves recommended? No, there’s not even a hint by Sheehan of being intrigued. His testimony concluded: “The study does not indicate, as some raw milk advocates claim, that raw milk prevents allergies and asthma in children.”
Sheehan didn’t comment on a followup study in 2011 of more than 8,000 European children, known as the GABRIELA study—perhaps because it was more emphatic than the PARSIFAL study in pointing up raw milk’s benefits: “The results of this large epidemiologic study add to the increasing body of evidence identifying consumption of farm milk (early in life) to be associated with a reduced risk of childhood asthma and allergies independently of concomitant farm exposures. The results indicate that the effect is due to the consumption of unheated farm milk. For the first time, associations between objectively measured milk constituents and asthma and atopy (inclination toward allergies) could be demonstrated.” Just to emphasize their point that only the unpasteurized milk produced the asthma and allergy protection, the authors stated, “Boiled farm milk did not show a protective effect.”
Contrary to what many raw milk advocates assumed at the time—that the “good” bacteria in raw milk are mainly responsible for its healing properties--the study’s authors said the real help came from certain whey proteins. “Milk processing, such as heating, does not affect heat stable caseins, whereas whey proteins, accounting for 18% of the total protein in cow’s milk, are more sensitive to heat treatment and might influence the bioavailability of the proteins.”
While Sheehan of the FDA didn’t comment on this study, he had made clear his view in the Maine testimony that the GABRIELA researchers couldn’t have been correct. “Pasteurization does not destroy milk proteins,” he claimed. “Caseins, the major family of milk proteins, are largely unaffected by pasteurization (Farrell and Douglas). Any changes which might occur with whey proteins are barely perceptible.” Yes, he says with such conviction that changes to whey proteins "are barely perceptible."
There was more to come, this time from the U.S. In spinoff research from the GABRIELA study, published in 2012. Researchers in the U.S. and Europe surveyed 157 American Amish families, along with about 3,000 Swiss farming families, and close to 11,000 Swiss families who did not live on a farm. They also did testing on the Amish children. They wanted to know about allergy and asthma rates in the children ages 6-12.
The Amish children had less than one-third the allergies of the non-farm Swiss children. The researchers found that just five percent of Amish kids had been diagnosed with asthma, compared to 6.8 percent of Swiss farm kids and 11.2 percent of the other Swiss children.
Why the differences? The authors said they didn’t know for sure, but speculated that raw milk likely played a role: “All the Amish children and the Swiss farm children had exposure to large animals and a significant percentage consumed milk directly from the farm. Recent studies have implicated a protective effect from farm milk.”
I'm not always enamored of psychiatrists' theories of political behavior, but Dr. Schwartzman seems to have been right on target. The "scientists" will never exhibit curiosity about something at odds with their political ideology and personal prejudices.
**
Readers of this blog have long been aware of the FDA's willingness to employ the most aggressive spying and surveillance tactics to go after those targeted as dangerous. In investigating food club members obtaining food from farmer Dan Allgyer, the FDA in 2010 and 2011 sent agents into people's homes to obtain raw milk. Now even Congress has gotten a taste of the agency's total disregard for privacy, via revelations that the FDA has been spying on its own scientists, and their communications with politicians, journalists, and others.
This interesting reaction from a U.S. Senator: "Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican whose former staff member’s e-mails were cataloged in the surveillance database, said that 'the F.D.A. is discouraging whistle-blowers.' He added that agency officials 'have absolutely no business reading the private e-mails of their employees. They think they can be the Gestapo and do anything they want.' "
Gee, the politicians give the FDA endless budgets and provide no oversight, and then they're surprised when the agency turns on its own benefactors. They should know better than anyone that hunger for power has no limits.
**
The Raw Milk Institute has just published its "Common Standards" to help guide raw dairy producers in improving safety. It has all kinds of guidelines for safety planning and goals. And despite the objections from the anti-raw-milk types, it does mention pathogens, even lists examples, in several places. RAWMI is making important progress in establishing models and standards for improving raw milk quality and safety.
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.
Thank you Mark. The "Common Standards" is a good place to start. Next I'd like to see a page that lists each pathogen and the illnesses they can cause. This allows for informed decision making when making the choice to give raw milk to your family.
Oy veh, Mary.
@ Mary McGonigle: Do you have such a page at your disposal? I am guessing you do, since you are pushing this issue to the max. If so, please submit it to Mark for his perusal.
And we also need one of those for pasteurized milk, too. Maybe you could supply that information, as well?
For that matter, we need one for pathogens that proliferate on commercially produced meats, especially chicken, as well as, commercially produced produce, especially those produce that have been sprayed with the toxic CAFOs obtained manure (yes, this is a big practice & people are not even aware of this!)!! It never ceases to amaze me that the anti-raw milk opponents will always go on and on about pathogens within raw milk, but totally ignore all the more serious pathogens within so many other foods and that are much more prolific to the general public. If they are so genuine in food safety, why do they not include all these other major pathogen problems that have caused more food borne illnesses and hospitalizations than raw milk??!!
On the pathogens-in-chickens situation, there is a scandal brewing over millions of urinary tract infections in women that can't be cured because they were caused by antibiotic-resistant pathogens.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/is-contaminated-chicke...
Authorities have known for years that half or more of all chickens are contaminated, and did nothing about the problem. Now that it turns out the infections can't be treated...well...big problem. I supposed the excuse will be that the regulators were too busy ridding the country of raw milk.
Hopefully these stories will open more eyes to the contaminated foods subjected to the masses. They've known for years of the contamination yet have done nothing to correct it. Sure shows how much they truly care about safety......
"especially those produce that have been sprayed with the toxic CAFOs obtained manure (yes, this is a big practice & people are not even aware of this!)!! "
I did not know this.
" totally ignore all the more serious pathogens within so many other foods and that are much more prolific to the general public"
Perhaps they are in bed with big ag, et al?
"If they are so genuine in food safety, why do they not include all these other major pathogen problems that have caused more food borne illnesses and hospitalizations than raw milk??!!"
Because they are NOT genuine.
Sylvia - I'll try to find the links that report the usage of CAFO manure being used as fertilizer to big Ag farms across the U.S. & post them here. Evidently, the CAFOs had to come up with another method to get rid of the stock piles of toxic manure heaps. How they did this, how they slipped it past the unsuspecting public & why the government agencies have turned a blind eye is yet to be explained. As soon as this becomes more public, there will eventually be a huge blow up about it. The tragic result from these CAFO operations is that in the areas where there is more rainfall, many organic farmers are having their fields being contaminated from the rain run-off containing these CAFO toxins.
http://www.naturallifemagazine.com/9712/sludge.htm
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5394
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2000/3vol12.htm
Try these articles on for size. The practice of using human waste as a fertilizer has been going on for centuries. Now all we have to do is figure out a way of keeping the numerous chemicals, drugs, and heavy metals out of it.
“The practice of dumping human waste on Ontario's farmlands is largely unknown, controversial but legal. In Ontario, foods from strawberries to steak may be fertilized by human excrement.”
In Accra (Ghana), “200,000 people a day eat salad from land irrigated with urine and human manure”.
Ken
I knew countries used human excrement for fertilizer, my dad came back from Korea talking about the rice paddies and the farmers with families standing it it barefoot, along with the honey wagon. The use of manure and/or urine- human or animal isn't of concern.
It's the " numerous chemicals, drugs, and heavy metals" that is used on the foods meats & produce & dairy that is subjected to people unknowingly that is of concern.
I do share all links I find interesting.
Is anyone out there eating CAFO produced foods to boost their immune systems and heal their bodies?
Mary - that is the most ridiculous question, but, yes, there are lots of people who eat produce (fruits & vegetables) specifically "to boost their immune systems and heal their bodies"...unfortunately, most of them buy their produce from the standard grocery stores & have no clue how their produce has been grown & what all it has been subjected to, i.e. the manure for fertilization of those fields predominately come from the CAFO lots & contain high levels of toxins, pathogens, poisons, etc., the over use of pesticides & other chemicals & so on. It is very obvious by your attitude & comments that you are not a true advocate for food safety!! If you were, you would be advocating for major cleanup, accountability, explanations, & demands for cleanliness of ALL foods & not just raw milk!! And, by the way, not everyone drinks raw milk "to boost their immune systems and heal their bodies", they drink it for the taste & digestibility! True, there are many newbies to raw milk that do indeed drink raw milk "to boost their immune systems and heal their bodies", but us old-timers who have had raw milk all of our lives, drink it for many other reasons not related to boosting immune systems and/or healing bodies.
"Is anyone out there eating CAFO produced foods to boost their immune systems and heal their bodies"
Undoubtedly many are eating "CAFO produced foods to boost their immune systems", They probably are misinformed that the govt will protect them and look out for their best interest. The govt wouldn't allow anything to be unleashed onto the market that is harmful. Would they?
They are eating the CAFO produce, meats, and dairy thinking it is healthful. tsk tsk All those chemicals,drugs, etc that bombards their bodies on a daily basis is probably a major contribution to their ill health. Some of the major factors in the cause of modern diseases is the environment, and what we put in our bodies.
I've been tracing my genealogy, and have gotten back to the 1200s and more than 95% lived into their 80s and 90s, as the time progressed into the late 1800s and 1900s the ages decreased to 60s- 90s. Why? Environment and nutrition.
Oh I so wish there was a 'Like' button, Sylvia...you are so spot on!! I do genealogy too, in fact, I'm one of the Family History Consultants for my church, and I have also noticed with my lineages the longevity that is very obvious within my early family tree limbs. But, I also have witnessed within my 30 yrs of being in medicine how the human body has been drastically compromised from the food that has drastically changed in it's production & nutrients. Yes, most definitely, a huge percentage of today's health problems are directly due to this. Unfortunately, people are not aware and/or don't care. When I used to see cardiac patients in clinic, trying to get them to get serious about their dietary habits was pretty much futile. They didn't want to change their habits & they were not interested in learning about where & how their food is made. I honestly don't think I will ever go back into the hospital or clinic anymore. I will stay within my current, corporate traveling job & just deal with training physicians & their lab staff on how to use the clinical equipment in the Cath, EP & IR labs!!
Deborah, I "retired" last year from many years of nursing. Loved what I did, got fed up with administration and the money game, etc. My last job was with the VA as an RN case manager in the homes. We had our own dietician who also did house calls. I found that many/most of the patients really didn't understand the calorie/carb/sodium/sugar etc numbers. She would try and teach them, and as you know, people don't like to change and it seemed many didn't feel they needed or wanted to learn a new way to eat. I had them read the ingredients label and go by that. Some made small changes, some tried and most just did it their way. I wouldn't step foot back in a clinic or hospital again. Never did like abuse!
I drink raw milk because I like the taste and when I do get it, I know what they've been fed and how they are raised. I believe it is healthier than the cafo processed milk sold in the stores.
I'm with you on that, Sylvia...yep, I drink raw milk because I love the taste of it and most definitely agree that it is by far healthier than the CAFO processed milk & I love the fact that I can digest it as opposed not being able to digest CAFO processed milk, plus...it was what I was raised on.
I have a dear friend that is a P.A. (I'm a former P.A. in Interventional Cardiology) at VA Palo Alto, she is getting ready to get out too & pretty much for the same reasons as you did. And just like you & I, she will never go back to a hospital/clinic setting ever again. Yes, it is a tough job trying to get people to learn about what makes a more healthier dietary practice. One of the major factors is that there is no advertisement, no public discussions, no information via the media, etc. on what makes a healthier dietary habit. Instead, people are inundated with all the mesmerizing, colorful, attention getting, falsifying commercials...but you never see any commercials promoting the more nutrient dense, natural, unprocessed, adulterated, truly healthy for you foods that they really should be eating. What a shame! I do have a few physician friends that are trying their hardest to inform their patients about all of this, some pay attention & some ignore it! So sad!
@ Deborah Peterson: If you ever again work with clinics or home-bound patients, be sure to make them aware of the current hype behind the cholesterol fear-mongering, the saturated fat fear-monerging, the *statin drugs are necessary to your health* fear-mongering - and that just barely scrapes the surface. These people sit glued to their TV's all day and hear over and over the phrase "ask you doctor about" . . . this drug or that drug, yada yada. They are literally programed to believe we are incapable of knowing and taking care of our own bodies.
If those people are computer users, give them the web address to read about Uffe Ravnskov on cholesterol myths, give them the web address to the WAPF info on saturated fat myths, and give them the web site for Dr. Duane Graveline (former astronaut) if they want to know about ALL of the damage caused by statins. He has some very personal experience in that regard. Those would be excellent places for people to start getting just a small taste of what the world is like in regard to how facts are twisted and how easy it is to convince people that something bad is really something good - our entire medical industrial complex is stellar in that regard - which is why people think they need a *medical professional* for everything these days. That includes improperly trained/schooled registered dieticians who give out the worst advice I've ever heard.
And if you haven't read the pdf called Death By Medicine, you should. It's already 10 years old but you'll get the message - loud and clear. The death numbers have changed (obviously), but the facts in the article haven't. I could give you a list of books and web sites and youtube vid's to watch that would completely boggle your mind. I've been studying this stuff for about 10 years (the corruption) and I've also been a foodie (a REAL food foodie) all my life because that's how I was raised. You would be shocked to learn how long most of these practices have been in use and how a small majority (in context) of people are just NOW beginning to sit up and take notice.
Strap yourself to that wagon seat because it's going to become a very bumpy ride. We the people who want our food rights are up against the world's biggest criminal enterprises ever devised.
Actually, D. Smith, I am very familiar with all of this & yes, I am very much against the use of statins. A number of my cardiac physician friends are also very much aware of all of this & they, too, do not use statins with their patients. I probably have just about all of the web-sites, videos, books, etc that you are familiar with (I even have the 'Death by Medicine', too!). I started studying the cholesterol myth about 20 years ago & had studied many studies, scientific submissions, papers & manuscripts. Yes, it is a shame how the public have been duped about all of this for so long. At first, it started out from ignorance about how cholesterol truly worked & what truly affected it. Now a days, there should be no excuse to continue to promote those incorrect ideas & misinformation. There is a wonderful report out of the Canadian Journal of Cardiology titled "Effects of Stearic Acid on Plasma Lipid and Lipoproteins in Humans"...wonderful paper & just one in many others. Another study done by Sundram et al. "Dietary Palmitic Acid Results in Lower Serum Cholesterol" & so on. There are theories that have been going on for many years that the pharmaceutical companies don't want the truth about cholesterol to get out to the public as this will affect their profits in cholesterol medicines & to tell you the truth, I believe these theories.
"The Raw Milk Institute has just published its "Common Standards"
It appears that OP cannot be listed as it states they must sell from the farm only. How much will all that testing cost?
David, I think you are dead wrong about this.
I was talking to several high-level dairy scientists at the UW Center for Dairy research this weekend, during an experimental camembert batch to compare the qualities of grassfed milk versus conventional milk. They recognize that there are major problems with the industrial food system, and have even had to deal with many of those problems in their research and dairy industry consulting. They recognized that the CAFO faming practices lead to many quality problems in cheese plants around the US, and some even would support legalizing raw milk in Wisconsin if there were reasonable safety and quality standards.
I think you are making broad stereotypes which divide people who serve the public against those who only want their private interests looked after.
"...and some even would support legalizing raw milk in Wisconsin if there were reasonable safety and quality standards."
The guy I quoted in my post is the top dairy safety guy in the country, and I guarantee he would never support legalizing raw milk under any circumstances. I've heard some of the people you refer to, but somehow, whatever safety and quality standards are proposed are never quite right. When Bill Marler, the food safety lawyer, commented here last week and posted a link to a Food Safety News article that listed his safety and quality standards for "allowing" raw milk, I asked him if any legislative proposals anywhere in the country possibly satisfied his standards. His responding silence was deafening. When he did have the chance to endorse the raw milk bill passed by your legislature n 2010, he did the opposite--he worked for its veto.
Here's an assignment for you, Bill. Ask one of these public servants to publicly stand behind specific standards. It's about actions, not words.
David,
Haven't you seen the DATCP raw milk working group report? That was put together by a number of important dairy science people in Wisconsin.
David,
The problem with Bill Marler's "standards" is that they have nothing to do with safety and quality, and everything to do with legally restricting where and how raw milk products can be legally sold. I told him as such, in that thread here.
RawMI's new standards, on the other hand, look pretty comprehensive when it comes to safety and quality. I'm sure Marler will find some issues with them, because they use soft language such as "assurance" of TB and Brucellosis free, rather than some more rigid and binding legalese. But all in all, RawMI's standards are far more comprehensive and will do far more to promote raw milk safety than anything Bill Marler put together.
In Wisconsin, its looking unlikely that RawMI will ever get much traction, because of the "libertarian" resistance to any kind of professional public oversight. I would love to be proven wrong on this, but I'm not holding my breath. Wisconsin may have been the home of Bob LaFollette and the Milwaukee Socialists, but we are also the home of Joe McCarthy and Charles Lindberg. The reactionary side of Wisconsin is winning right now, I hate to say.
And on a more positive note...
I'm very glad to see that RawMI's common standards have finally been published!! I wish I could have been more involved in the process of developping the standards, but currently I'm super-busy with cheese making!
The Common Standards only allow the sale of raw milk that comes from the farmers own herd. Perhaps this statement needs to be reworded. It is intended to assure that all raw milk is from a known single source. This standard is not intended to prohibit sales from stores or other locations
We will edit to make this more clear. Good catch....
The Fermentation Festival in Santa Barbara was attended by more than 500 people today. Awesome food! KPFA radio will cover RawMilk as a big story this Thursday!!
I would like to know where the other university scientists are that publicly support informed consumer choice with respect to raw milk. I have spoken out on this on many occasions and I would welcome collaboration from other scientists.
Grass to the Glass: Raw Milk and Informed Consumer Choice.
Joseph R. Heckman, Plant Biology & Pathology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2011asa/webprogram/Paper69539.html
Anonymous Commodity Farmer or Artisan Farmer with a Face, Who Is Your Farmer and Why?
Joseph Heckman, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
http://a-c-s.confex.com/crops/2010am/webprogram/Paper61341.html
Debate Over Raw Milk Stirs Up Controversy in New Jersey and at Rutgers. December 19, 2011.
http://news.rutgers.edu/focus/issue.2011-11-29.5885625106/article.2011-1...
Just FYI to everyone here: don't expect organic dairy products to be a substitute for raw milk products. NOT EVER.
http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=158820
And as far as I'm concerned, Dean Foods has little wiggle room and should be staying out of the spotlight unless their want ALL of their dirty laundry to be aired.
D. Smith.
To me, this just confirms the utter bankrupcy of the ideology of private property. What is "intellectual property" anyways, except an enforced corporate monopoly on knowledge? Just as private property is an enforced corporate monopoly on the control of capital.
D. Smith, I try to point out the vast differences between "organic dairy" and raw dairy whenever the opportunity arises. Thanks for the link
I like to point out that traditional organic, as in statements from several of the pioneers in the organic farming movement, pasteurization and organic were not compatible.
“It is not organic to produce milk organically, and then to pasteurize it.” (Rodale, 1958)
Joseph Heckman
A bit off topic, but have to share today's incident with a 'Federal Employee' while traveling from San Diego to Farmington, NM! While changing flights in Denver, I was in line for boarding my 'puddle hopper' when a women tries to push her way in front of me. I couldn't believe her rudeness & gave her a questioning look. She then asks if I was in line for the Farmington flight & I stated that yes, I was & had been for some time now. She then informs me that she has to be in front of me & I stated to her that I was in the first group of Premier Platinums. She then informs me that she is a Federal Employee & that she is to go first. I looked at her & asked how that made a difference. She got nasty & stated that she didn't have to tell me why & to go ask the attendants at the ticket counter. I replied back that she didn't have to be so nasty & then also commented...'typical government attitude'!! So I guess Federal Employees think that they rate much higher than citizens!! Oh, & this was not an Air Marshall, she actually was a lower level Federal Employee that was attending a training meeting in Farmington! Yep, that's our government & their attitude for ya!!
Deborah, I'm sorry you were subjected to such rudeness. I think I would have loudly called the person at the ticket counter over, again, stating loudly that this woman was cutting in line and I'd also state loudly she was being obnoxious and rude. Bringing attention to the behavior would force the ticket person to do something, and the bystanders attention would be focused on the person's behavior. It could draw attention to the govt worker and the ticket person for resolution.
I didn't tolerate that behavior from my kids, and won't tolerate it from anyone else.
Interesting opinion article from former NH polititian John Sununu in today's Boston Globe:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/07/15/certified-organic-farming-...
I am a subscriber, and I'm not sure that link will work for everyone else. The way I understand it, some Globe content is exclusive for a few days before being available to the general public so check back if it doesn't work for you now.
Anyhow some very interesting comments about regulations and repurcussions, including this nugget that seems similar to what some have been saying here about RAWMI and Mark's peddling:
"Many of them mistook federal rules as a way to keep standards high and the corporate world out. In reality, the federal stamp of approval helped big companies control the entire space. Local farmers might win the battle over sludge, but they would lose the war once power was firmly in the hands of a national regulator."
"...history tells us that, far from restraining the power of big companies, an overbearing regulatory bureaucracy benefits them just about every time."
And also this,
"Pushing back against the regulatory tide isn’t about favoring big business; it’s about containing the power of the state. Just because something is a good idea (organic farming), doesn’t mean it should be a law; and just because something should be a law doesn’t mean it should be a federal law."
David, I hope posting these snippets here is not infrigement, if it is please delete.
David,
The authors of the GABRIELA study said:
"The long-term solution to the asthma epidemic is thought to be prevention and not treatment of established disease,30 and nutritional interventions might represent an interesting avenue. However, on the basis of current knowledge, raw milk consumption cannot be recommended because it might contain pathogens. Once the mechanisms underlying the protective farm milk effect are better understood, ways of processing and preserving a safe and preventive milk can be developed."
These conclusions do not support a change in policy related to raw milk "benefits." If you disagree, or have more information, could you post a photo and quotes from the authors of the GABRIELA study on your blog?
The papers you cite do not support raw milk sales. European and American scientists recognized raw milk as a high risk food, inappropriate for children. You haven't presented anything that suggests a change in this policy.
MW
Milky Way, I used the words "intrigued" and "curiosity" for the kinds of reactions serious policy makers might have had. I was saying that such promising research might, at the very least, open up a dialog on ways to extend the research. Your argument that I "haven't presented anything that suggests a change in this (anti-raw-milk) policy" represents the same kind of denial as Sheehan and the others have shown. But I understand, American "scientists" can't show curiosity or be intrigued about raw milk because the ideologues like Sheehan will cut off their government and university funding. So they make a mockery of "science."
And by the way, those European scientists wouldn't have gotten their paper published if they hadn't said "raw milk consumption cannot be recommended..." They weren't policymakers, they were scientists presenting research. Who cares what they "recommend"?
@ Milky Way: When "science" is performed from a true health perspective, not a political perspective, we may gain some traction. Otherwise, of late, it has become very obvious that the only support raw milk is going to receive is from its users/producers.
quote from your first paragraph: " . . . raw milk consumption cannot be recommended because it might contain pathogens". Really? This goes to show the complete lack of credibility of almost any "study".
This needs to be said.
RAWMI is not pushing itself arround anyplace. RAWMI is going to Oregon to help 40 Small Dairies in Oregon because they reached out to RAWMI as a resource. They will lead themselves from within their own ranks. RAWMI will just assist as a resource and facilitator and bring organization to their need. Charlotte Smith ( the Newburg OR Mom that started her own raw milk dairy to help her own kids recover fully from excema ) has become a force of good all by herself and RAWMI will add structure and content to her strength.
RAWMI's Mission has been reformed. We saw the light last year. We evolved and now we are driving forward to address a serious need. People want raw milk and dairymen need the training and co-mentoring organization to coordinate their numbers into a force that can produce and protect exceptional quality raw milk and also themselves.
I would love for Bill Marler to attend a RAWMI training day some time...I would love for state and even FDA officials to attend training one day.
They would be amazed at how much: NIH, Human Genome, EU science, CDC, UC Davis data and even FDA PMO information is used and shared. RAWMI cuts to the bare basics of reality and teaches the truth. That is what will build a better nation, healthier people and safer raw milk.
Peer Review. Often regarded as the gate keeper for what is good science.
Interesting conference about this taking place: http://www.peer-reviewing.org/pr12/
"Background, Motivation, and Purpose
In a survey of members of the Scientific Research Society, “only 8% agreed that ‘peer review work
well as it is’.”
1
"A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review system substantiate
complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific research. Far from filtering out junk science,
peer review may be blocking the flow of innovation and corrupting public support of science."
2
“If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed onto the market,” affirmed Drummond Rennie
3
,
deputy editor of the Journal Of the American Medical Association and who intellectually provided
support for the international congresses of peer review that have been held, since 1989, every four
years. If peer review was a drug, he added, it “would not get onto the market because we have no
convincing evidence of its benefits but a lot of evidence of its flaws.”
4
Richard Smith also affirmed that regarding peer review there is “more evidence of harm than
benefit…[and] Studies so far have shown that it is slow, expensive, ineffective, something of a lottery,
prone to bias and abuse, and hopeless at spotting errors and fraud.”
Funny that we, building product mfr, are dealing with a competitors peer reviewed study of daylighting. They created a product, another story in itself, determined the outcome they wanted and got it through one study and then went to a second source who got the same result.
In order to be listed as an equal to this product we have to provide a peer study of our own.
Always look at who is paying for the study and the peer review.
Published in 1950 and written by a scientist, it is just as relevant today:
Science is a Sacred Cow
by Anthony Standen
@ user2389: Inspiring link and information. Thank you for posting.
Check out this vid. It's long but for raw milk drinkers, if you haven't already read about this or seen another vid, it's well worth viewing, although there are transmission problems so it's not the best quality, but stay with it! This is one smart guy.
http://www.omsj.org/corruption/interview-with-constitutional-attorney-jo...
(The man's name is Jonathan Emord, even though it is misspelled in the link).
Shazam.
Ah, Mark, you forget, "truth" is what they fear most.
Wow, David, that's huge! As someone who's worked on the vitamin aisle at two different natural foods stores for the last five years, do you have any idea how many women I meet who tell me they have recurring UTI's?! And just recently there's been an upsurge. You can suspect all you want, but it's so helpful to see verification of one's experience. Thank you for that post!
You are welcome. I believe this will begin to clear up mysteries for many.
One of the things that's been bugging me about this article was this sentence (parsed): " . . . a psychiatrist warned me about holding such expectations. The psychiatrist, Richard Schwartzman . . . "
I would not listen to anything a psychiatrist had to say about any subject at all. I must ask this question, David - have you seen the video called Marketing of Madness? Have you seen the video The Medicated Child? If not, you must take the time. If when you are finished viewing those vid's you can say without any doubt at all that psychiatry isn't a criminal enterprise, I'll be amazed beyond words.
In the vid The Medicated Child, the child named Jacob (and his older brother) are both under a psychiatrist's care. Both are taking multiple medications, several times daily. But the thing that struck me as I watched at about the 10 minute and 40 second mark was the food he's consuming. Really? A corn dog, some Goldfish and a Gatorade?? That was his lunch. Mom looks as though she's eaten quite a few boxes of Goldfish herself, so maybe she grew up thinking that boxed food and sugared, synthetically fortified drinks are natural and good. I didn't see one piece of fresh fruit or a fresh veggies or a hamburger patti or a glass of raw milk or water in sight. Does it NOT occur to people that during pregnancy and after the child is born, the food situation involved in that process of growth and development is important? Apparently not.
Don't these young people ever have a "well, gawwwwwwllly" moment?