Shades of Gray: Why A Journalist’s Reporting on MN Raw Milk Won’t Get a Lot of Accolades from Either Side
There have been many newspaper articles about raw milk over the last few years, and they nearly all use the same presentation formula. They begin with an example of a farmer producing raw milk for many happy customers. Then the narrative switches to all the warnings about raw milk’s dangers from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control. They conclude with favorable quotes from raw milk drinkers and unfavorable quotes from public health officials.
With that in mind, the article in the Minneapolis StarTribune on Sunday is curious. It contrasts the case of a young child allegedly sickened by raw milk from dairy farmer Michael Hartmann two years ago with the claims by a customer that not only is raw milk highly nutritious, but she has the right to privately obtain milk from Hartmann's dairy
In the process, the article reports on a separate suit brought against Hartmann by the Caldwells, the parents of the child who became sick, and the issue of responsibility. The article reports that the judge in the trial agreed that the child’s parents “potentially bore some responsibility because they should have known of raw milk's risks.” A jury may be called on to make the final determination as to a division of responsibility between Hartmann and the parents, presumably if no settlement is reached beforehand.
The notion of the parents bearing at least some responsibility for serving their children raw milk is a new idea, at least in my experience reporting on raw milk and food rights. Unfortunately, we’ll likely hear little from the parties that most often discuss and debate raw milk.
We'll almost certainly not read anything about the intriguing legalities from lawyers who make the most noise about raw milk, like Bill Marler and Fred Pritzker (who are quoted in the Minneapolis paper’s article); there's not been a peep from them since the case launched the middle of last year. That’s because they are focused primarily on marketing their legal services. The family in the lawsuit is being represented by a diversified Minneapolis firm that doesn’t specialize in product liability the way Marler and Pritzker do, so there's no marketing opportunity, since the case has already been taken off the market. At least I think that’s the reason, unless there is some kind of professional courtesy among lawyers that prohibits them from commenting about another lawyer’s case in public.
In the same vein, I doubt we’ll be hearing much about this article from food rights advocates. I’ve sent it to a number I know, without a peep in response. My guess is that the article's depiction of a young child’s illness and the suggestion that Hartmann’s milk was likely responsible is too uncomfortable to deal with.
Hartmann, for his part, declined to be interviewed for the article, sticking to his vow of silence and privacy in the face of what he has long felt to be uninformed and unfair reporting about him.
I’ve criticized in the past the failure of the Food Rights movement to speak up about illnesses, or to speak appropriately and accurately. I expressed my concerns last summer about Hartmann supporters making a show of support at the trial involving the Caldwell family. On the matter of inaccurate and inconsistent statements, witness Mary Martin’s devastating list of quotations from Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy Co. concerning the outbreak of illnesses linked to OPDC back in 2006 (following my previous post). Yes, the Internet keeps very much alive the quotations of public figures like McAfee—and the inconsistencies are much more damaging over time, in my estimation, than a frank acknowledgment as to the real situation.
This article in the Minneapolis StarTribune thus helps us appreciate both the business considerations at work (for the lawyers and OPDC), as well as the ideological ones that divide.
So, in the face of the silence, I’ll just congratulate the Minneapolis Star reporter, Michael Hughlette, for making a valiant effort at fairness on a story where fairness is little appreciated. It’s nearly impossible to probe the many nuances of the arguments on both sides of the issue in the course of 1,200 to 1,500 words or so. What I liked was that he took seriously the food rights side of the argument as espoused by Melinda Olson and Alvin Schlangen, rather than immediately trashing it and accepting the usual efforts at ridicule by the opponents of raw milk. And by appropriately reporting on the Caldwell child's illness, and filling us in with some new developments on the legal side, he filled in the picture in an informative way.
All involved tend to see the raw milk issue as completely black-and-white , but until each side can accept the shades of gray inherent in the dispute, any sort of mutual acceptance will remain just a distant vision.
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.
Very good article, David. The original article on the Star Tribune's website echoes many of my concerns, with these being the most prominent:
"A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control, echoing the public health consensus, says credible scientific evidence for such health claims is lacking. That study also noted that illnesses associated with raw milk tend to make people sicker than those linked to pasteurized dairy products.
"The incidence of illness linked to any milk products is quite low, said Fred Pritzker, a Minneapolis attorney who has represented about 20 victims of raw milk-related food poisoning. But if disease strikes with raw milk, he likened the experience to driving without a seat belt. 'When you get hit, you're really going to get hurt.'"
"Hennepin County District Judge Susan Burke has ruled that Hartmann was negligent, but she also accepted his argument that Owen Caldwell's parents potentially bore some responsibility because they should have known of raw milk's risks.
"The Caldwells' attorney rejected Hartmann's assertion, and noted the "irony" of the farmer's new tack -- 'after spending much time championing the benefits of raw milk and its safety.'"
I couldn't get David's link to the original article to work. Here it is again:
http://www.startribune.com/printarticle/?id=152166215
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6b70ec3f-504a-4563-b1bb-b6...
Reminds me of the Mcdonalds obesity lawsuit. "caused by misleading advertisements which led them to believe that fast food could be consumed daily without any adverse health effects."
If these teens fall for such gullible adds, then our school system is in more need of revamping than imagined. And where were the parents? Didn't they teach their kids what nutritious food is? Apparently they 'allowed' their kids to consume this phood. Maybe their own parents didn't teach them, after all, our govt/media has been shoving unhealthy lifestyles down our throats for over 100 yrs (more so in the last 50 yrs). I applaud that all parties should take responsibility for actions taken.
"The parents should have known..." Is this like, parents should know ALL the side effects of medications/vaccinations? Sure, they are safe until you or your loved one has a bad reaction. Then what? Did you know Cipro/levaquin can cause spontaneous rupture of your Achilles tendon? Most aren't instructed on what to watch for while taking these drugs. Are people taught that those bags of 'prewashed' greens have a higher potential of being contaminated than loose fresh picked unwashed greens? (less processing)
Should people be responsible for knowing where their food comes from and how it is processed? For this to be achieved, I would guess that foods would need, for the most part, local and small. People are so far removed from their foods today.
Strictly Germ-proof
The Antiseptic Baby and the Prophylactic Pup
Were playing in the garden when the Bunny gamboled up;
They looked upon the Creature with a loathing undisguised;
It wasn’t Disinfected and it wasn’t Sterilized.
They said it was a Microbe and a Hotbed of Disease;
They steamed it in a vapor of a thousand-odd degrees;
They froze it in a freezer that was cold as Banished Hope
And washed it in permanganate with carbolated soap.
In sulphurated hydrogen they steeped it wiggly ears;
They trimmed its frisky whiskers with a pair of hard-boiled shears;
They donned their rubber mittens and they took it by the hand
And elected it a member of the Fumigated Band.
There’s not a Micrococcus in the garden where they play;
They bathe in pure iodoform a dozen times a day;
And each imbibes his rations from a Hygienic Cup-
The Bunny and the Baby and the Prophylactic Pub. –Arthur Guiterman. 1871
Some persons may argue that the above theme in the poem is the only answer to our "food safety" for the "masses." They argue that we live in such a polluted world that the principles of organic, perma-culture,
sustainable food production just can't be relied upon to produce "safe" food or to produce enough quantity for "the masses." Now that may be, in fact, an arguable issue. However, no one ever talks about collectively "cleaning this mess up!" Respecting Mother Nature can still be accomplished through food production if we actually wanted to follow Her principles. Again, though, it's the game of "follow the money. So, when individuals refuse to just accept the status quo and produce for themselves and their community organically based food they are treated just like the Bunny in Guiterman's
poem. I wonder if Arthur Guiterman knew just how much his poem would reflect reality over 100 years
after he wrote it. As for me and my house, we not only will follow the Lord, but respect the organic farmers that grow the food for our dinner plates. I'm beginning to think David is right...there won't be "any sort of mutual acceptance," because one either sees the glass as half full or half empty.
Excellent points, David. I, too, was a bit impressed with this article, definitely different from previous articles. The only problem that I had with the article was the statement "The debate surfaced in Minnesota two years ago when eight people got E. coli 0157:H7, a bug that causes fever, vomiting, diarrhea -- often bloody -- and other nastiness. At its worst, it can lead to kidney failure and death." This statement is a bit misleading as it implies that there have been deaths from raw milk, which has never happened. Yes, most definitely E.coli 0157:H7 has caused deaths before, but it was from products other than raw milk. I would have preferred to have seen the statement to have included that distinction.
Well it SHOULD get get a lot of accolades from both sides, much as we seemingly despise each other, and most would prefer to not acknowledge certain facts or give any ground. We are weak in our armour and that is our strength but we can't see it just yet.
IMHO, there is in fact no black and white in this subject or any other. No matter how black it seems or how white it appears, there's always a darker or brighter shade just waiting for your conciousness of it to appear.
All we can do on an individual basis is to live and learn, and share that with our family friends and neighbors. Mistakes and accidents will inevitably happen, but don't let that cloud your judgement.
One of our dogs was hit by a car a few years ago but that doesn't mean we will be putting on shock collars or chain link fences, we would rather take our chances. Again, YMMV.
EAT WELL, and harbor no anymosity. My fave (defunct, look up rubber rodeo) country/rock band always closed their show by pointing out that "if you had half as much fun as us, well we had twice as much fun as you did!"
I try to live by that...
Wow...Parents being responsible for their own children-that's a concept the State has been working extra hard to squelch...you know, like adults being personally responsible enough to make their own choices. You can't build and budget Tax-gobbling bloats of Bureaucracy on thinking like that!
I agree that there are many shades of grey. However, I tend to go towards the extreme of banning raw milk in my anger when producers like OPDC lie continually and blame everyone and everything else fir their problems while holding their raw milk up as the worlds greatest superfood. When there is so much misinformation going on in my own backyard (OPDC and Mark McAfee are like raw milk gods around here) it's hard not to gravitate to the other extreme.
Thought provoking post. I think parents who don't read this blog but just listen to other raw milk promoting blogs or groups need to realize that they are actively being marketed to by the likes of WAPF and raw milk producers and need not feel guilty when their children are sickened. They were doing the best with the information they had at the time.
I'd also like to return to the last OPDC ecoli outbreak when McAfee promised the mom whose children were sickened with HUS that he would do some consumer education? What exactly were those promises? Has he made good on those promises?
Kristen,
I just visited RAWMI web site and found nothing regarding education for the consumer nor the dairy person. Perhaps they require one to join to obtain information, if that is the case, it is a poor requirement. No one should join anything without full knowledge what they are joining. So far, Amanda's list of questions and what to look for has been the best I've seen towards educating the public.
Indeed, Sylvia.
Kristen, WHO and why do you think you are that you or anyone else should have the power to ban anything for OTHER people, like say... me? Should suicide be illegal? Are you a polititian or employed by regulatory entities? Tend to your own life and please extend the same benefit to others that don't think like you. Tobacco, cocaine, alcohol, pot and many other things non-synthetic are mother nature's gifts to you, FREE unless they're made illegal. Corporate engineered and generated crapola on the other hand... And that Pasteur guy, I wonder what he'd think if he was alive today.
And just to make it clear, I am in no way endorsing illegal drugs, just calling out the absurdities.
For the record I have never said raw milk should be banned, Ora. I said when I get angry my anger goes that direction. Big difference.
And I don't appreciate personal attacks from you or D.Smith. I'm not perfect. I buy mostly organic food and enjoy shopping at my local farmers markets. I make a big effort to buy humanely raised and grassfed meat. I feel this study is absolutely on the mark because not only did I used to get on my moral high horse but I encounter self righteous people all over the real food blogosphere and it really ticks me off: http://todayhealth.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/18/11737146-does-or...
Wow, I wonder if the results would be greatly different on a larger scale?
I wonder how they got their results since everyone views things so differently. Certain foods I will only eat organic, apples are one. If I saw oatmeal, I'd be thinking of cookies, I don't care for rice and as for volunteering, it would depend on what the job was. I've headed committees where people said they'd volunteer and not show up. As for moral transgressions; 2nd cousins is too close for me, as for the lawyers in the ED....someone on here called them 'bottom feeders'.
My beliefs have been challenged for wanting organic and the least amount of processing by those who consume mainstream foods. Guess it goes both ways.
Kristen: I would like to apologize to you personally. As some one who generally preaches tolerance and asks others to think before they click, I must admit that I too am occasionaly guilty of that very same lack of foresight.
I do hope you understand though, when you state anything like "I tend to go towards the extreme of banning," there will be some of us that find that offensive. Ban whatever you want for yourself but don't encroach on other's choice please. That's all we (speaking for myself only, but seems I have some company here) are asking - not claiming any food is better than another, or safer or healthier. My choice may be a bad one in many people's eyes, but I reserve the right to be the one making it and will never surrender that to anyone no matter how strong their argument or experience.
Regardless, thanks for participating in the discourse, seriously. We need all the varying viewpoints, it wouldn't be worth our time if we were just a bunch of head nodding parrots.
Apology accepted, Ora. Thank you.
@ Kristen P. : What I said was not necessarily a personal attack on you, I only pointed out that you go to other web sites and blogs which I have visited, and I see your attacks on WAPF and RealMilk.com often.
Now, I'm not saying I believe absolutely everything from/on either of those two sites. What I AM saying, however, is those sites have various and multiple contributors. Most of them, such as Mary Enig and Tom Cowan, are veteran (30+ years) doctors and researchers and nutritionists. That doesn't make them perfect, no. But I tend to believe, too, that since they all raised their families in this manner, you know - they practiced what they are preaching - it carries a significant amount of credibility, as far as I'm concerned. Maybe your standards of right and wrong are different than mine, and that's fine. But don't try to put everyone in a box because of your personal beliefs. If you don't wish to believe them, that's your opinion, but you should NOT bash them either. If you have real, crucial, proveable evidence against WAPF about some issue, take it to an attorney.
Thank heavens most people are discerning when they read up and research the benefits/non-benefits of raw milk in regard to their personal situation. Everyone has different ideas of what is healthy for them and their families but it is still a choice they must make based on intellectual *homework*. Seeing as how the gubment has done a fine job of bashing raw milk in the news lately, and making some false statements in the process, it's not easy to find anything ONLINE about the benefits. Consequently, this becomes one of those issues where they use what's at their disposal, and they rely heavily on anecdotal information - because it's sometimes all they have. Nothing wrong with hearing both sides - but fairly discussed, not bashed and trashed - which is your MO from what I've seen around the 'net.
Kristin,
I worked closely with the mom with the Two Sickest Ecoli children ( that had consumed Home Made Kefir made with OPDC raw milk and store bought cultures ) which occured late last summer. She and I traded emails for a month, had several long conversations and we finally came up with some FAQ that we both agreed would help moms make good informed decisions about raw milk.
Yes...we did make changes and yes we did publish these changes on our website. http://www.organicpastures.com/faq.html
Also...it is my solemn belief that there are those that will follow the FDA into dead food oblivion ( and suffer the predictable and fatal immune depression "Life in a BUBBLE of TROUBLE"consequencies ) and there are those that will make up their own minds and build an immune system in their families and avoid: Asthma, IBS, Crohns, Osteoporosis, weak teeth, excema, Autism, infertility, cancer etc....
Both are free to do what they wish. The one thing that we are not free to do in America is Bully the other side. It is a free country....free to be scared...free to be smart....free to be stupid.
Osteoporosis; just think, you can get plenty of calcium from leafy greens, dairy isn't necessary. I read that you only absorb about 35-40% of the calcium from that glass of milk and 60% of the calcium from a cup of leafy greens, I think kale has the highest content and if you eat the greens with fat you better absorb the nutrients. . There are numerous tribes that do not consume dairy products and have much lower incidence of Osteoporosis, than people in the US. All the nutrients interface with each other, otherwise the body compensates and if not corrected, it throws the whole system off. For bone health you need (not all inclusive) vitamin D,all the Bs as they work best together, C,K1 &K2,E, A, calcium, magnesium,manganese, Boron, there is more that I can't think of right now.
@ Sylvia: From what I've been reading lately, the uptake of calcium is poor without the help of D3 and vitamin K. In other words, without some fat, the calcium doesn't get to the right places and ends up in places it shouldn't be in our bodies (like arteries). A salad including kale, finished off with a glass of raw milk (in which the vitamins/enzymes/probiotics are intact) would assist that calcium greatly. Calcium is a mineral, as is magnesium (a very important mineral, too) and without fatty acid co-factors those minerals aren't utilized as well.
Does that sound right?
That is correct D Smith. Calcium does require D3 for absorption. K2 guides it into the bones, otherwise calcium goes anywhere, soft tissue/joints. K2 is like a traffic cop. The other vitamins/minerals are also required for optimal bone strength and other important body regulation. Low D3 causes the PTH to pull calcium out of bones to regulate calcium levels in the blood, thus contributing to weak bones. Fluoride replaces iodine in the thyroid and confuses the body and also affects the calcium absorption.
Mark, I will not pretend I respect you so sorry if my tone is harsh:
IF this is the true and complete story, which I find doubtful due to your proven lack of credibility as it relates to the *retelling of conversations with mothers of ill children* as is currently being discussed on this thread...
Then great. I am glad you are making strides in consumer education. I'm not glad it took a mother of two very very ill children to force your hand and change your website. If I were that mother, I would not have let you get off so easy. I would have demanded that you include these types of sobering realities in your "share the secret" talk, a.k.a. your marketing talk for WAPF chapters and anyone else that will host you. I would demand a video of each one sent to me. Do you discuss the realities that people with compromised immunity, specifically pregnant mothers and young children, should probably not consume raw milk as they are more likely to become ill in your talks?
I would have also demanded that you acknowledge that your pathogen testing is fallible. Is this currently in your FAQ? This is what Mary Martin believed in when she went to your website in 2006...that you test your milk therefore it must be safe.
Thanks.
Kristen P - you keep bringing up what had been the situation back in 2006, yet it is now 2012 and there has been many changes made since that time. Also it is very obvious that you have not been to any current presentations that Mark has given, if so then you would clearly see that yes, he does indeed talk about pathogens, as well as, those that should not consume raw milk and/or raw milk products. He had been upfront of all the changes that have been put into place because he very much wants to produce the most safe and health benefitting product. I have always been so perplexed by your apparent intense anger about raw milk, as in all of your previous posts you have stated that while you and your children did not become ill or compromised from raw milk consumption, you still felt that the potential was there and that is what makes you angry. Yet, you have a very recent post here where you alluded to a miscarriage, I am now confused...are you now stating that your consumption of raw milk caused you to have a miscarriage? Your rants against raw milk is very much extreme, it is very evident in your blog. It is one thing to share your feelings and thoughts about your misgivings about raw milk consumption, but to use such strong, almost hate-like language about it, is another thing. Have you truly read all the books, manuscripts, studies, and other documentation with regards to raw milk? There are way too many to list here, but they are a wealth of information. I know of many physicians, some that are pediatric physicians that support raw milk consumption, they do indeed counsel their patients and pedi-patient's parents about ALL the facts of raw milk consumption and they will be the first to indicate when someone should not consume it when they are in a compromised immune situation. Just like other things that we do for the benefits of our health...some things work for some people and some things do not work for other people. If I was to make a decision about whether to consume raw milk or conventional chicken from the conventional grocery store....raw milk would win hands down. The chicken available in the standard grocery stores are so highly contaminated and many now carry pathogens that cannot be destroyed by heat thanks to the over use of antibiotics. You also need to remember that there are many, many, many people that have benefited greatly from the use of raw milk and raw milk products. Many have seen the incredible changes in their autistic child and there's many others that had suffered from medical problems that were reversed by raw milk and raw milk products. I know that you have unresolved issues with raw milk, as well as, WAPF, but it not fair to pass these on to others without giving them the chance to explore it themselves. Instead, why not ask yourself 'why is it that only a small number of consumers had the problems that they did', or 'what is different with these consumers compared to the other consumers that did not have problems'. To me those are the most important questions, there is definitely something more going with those that became ill. If indeed there was a problem with the raw milk itself....well, then there would be a huge number of ill consumers...it just doesn't make sense.
@ Mark McAfee: Mark, may I ask a serious question of you? What I mean is that I'm trying neither to fluff up OR discredit your work or your product, I'm only trying to figure out something. Do you and your family members drink your milk and make things from your milk (like cottage cheese or whatever) which are consumed in your home? If so, do you drink the same product you sell, or do you take a separate milking from different cows?
I have not seen a direct statement with this information (but I can't say I've read everything you've ever written either, because I don't belong to FB and I know you post stuff there because you've mentioned it).
It just seems odd to me that all of these other people are claiming that your OPDC milk contains this or that "pathogen" which made them ill (by findings/testings from a local medical laboratory, I assume) and yet we never hear anything about your family becoming ill from the same milk. Can this be possible???
D. Smith-
I'm not Mark. But I can say with a fair amount of confidence that Mark and his family could drink raw milk with a pathogen in it and probably not get sick. They are exposed to those pathogens in the dairy farm environment on a fairly regular basis, so they have a natural immunity.
Personally, I have consumed cheese which was known to be contaminated with listeria and did not come down with illness, but I would never even think about selling this cheese to the general public.
That's the critical distinction here between a public and private raw milk, that the leadership of this movement can't seem to get their heads around. Signing a contract to become a cow-share member or private club member does not in my mind constitute a "private sale." Anyone off the street (aka any member of the general public) can come and sign the contract and pay the membership fee and start drinking raw milk, without knowing the first thing about the dairy industry. A private sale is to someone who is actively involved in the dairy industry, not just a petit bourgeois suburbanite wanting to feel "green."
A public sale, on the other hand, is raw milk produced intentionally for public consumption, with all the hygiene and animal health standards that go along with that.
D. Smith, most definitely Mark and his family consume all of the products that they produce. They also make additional products for their own consumption. If you do decide to get on Facebook, you will be able to follow all the things that they do with their products, they even have recipes and videos of a variety things that they make. I was raised on raw milk, got away from drinking it in my teen years when I began consuming pasteurized products and boy did the problems begin big time. Stopped drinking pasteurized milk and then went back to raw milk and raw milk products. Some of the great results that I get from drinking raw milk is the disappearance of arthritic pain in my knees, disappearance of phlegm at the back of the throat and elevation of sinus problems. If I go without raw milk, all of these come back to plague me. My usual diet is local farm organic produce (veggies & fruits), grass only fed beef (again local), eggs from pastured hens along with raw milk, raw milk butter and raw milk cheeses. I no longer eat in any restaurants that do not offer these kinds of items, one of my favorite restaurants is Alice Waters restaurants up in Berkley, CA, they use only the types of items that I listed above. A good friend of mine who is a very prominent chef in Miami, FL does the same thing at his restaurant "Tuyo" (by the way, had the most phenomenal dinner there last week!). In my travels, I am coming across more restaurants that have adopted the "farm to table" concept which is helping in promoting and supporting the small farms and meat producers. Hopefully, they will be the catalyst in encouraging more restaurant owners to do the same thing. As far as, the fast phood places are concerned....well, I avoid them like the plague!!
I take exception to your comment from Mary Martin..."Mary Martin’s devastating list of quotations from Mark McAfee of OPDC". None of what Mary stated causes me any second thought or concern.
The only thing that is devastating is FDA corruption and the ignorance of consumers to recognize the true origin of immune failure.
I find it fascinating to observe perfectly normal human beings that believe that immune correction is more dangerous than death. In other words....a GUT correction to build immunity ( a case of diarrhea which is the outward sign of Immune development and a reset of immunity ) verses a funeral.
Pasteurized milk has caused so many funerals...yet it is still sacred. Until Mary and her minion can aknowledge that funerals are worse than immune correcting GUT events...there is not much I can say.
The Earthis a Sphere....round like a ball. The earth is totally filled with bacteria...so are we! To make enemies of bacteria is suicidal.
"I find it fascinating to observe perfectly normal human beings that believe that immune correction is more dangerous than death."
No one doubts that immune health is paramount, but isn't it misleading to assert that raw milk is the ONLY way to do this?
"None of what Mary stated causes me any second thought or concern. "
Wow, she quoted you and your words don't make you look honest. And you have no concern for it? That sounds just like all the other cafos. They don't care either. if all those "HIPPA laws were broken and the doctors let you look at the medical records" then there is some big money lawsuits to be pursued.
If there is no credibility, then there is nothing.
Mark,
I think the problem is that you have misstated the facts and contradicted yourself on a number of occasions in denying any Organic Pastures involvement with the 2006 illnesses associated with raw milk. As some others have said here, that creates a credibility problem, which makes fending off attacks from the knee-jerk opponents of raw milk that much more difficult.
As I've said here before, it also creates ongoing, and unnecessary, conflict with the victims of those illnesses, who find it difficult to gain closure on the trauma of the illnesses, as Mary McGonigle Martin has made clear over the years. I agree with you in substantial measure about the FDA's corruption and about the problem of immune suppression, but those are issues apart from the credibility problems. And they are arguments that are more difficult to make if there are other credibility problems.
You're soft peddling it David, it is far worse than that. He also has a history of repeatedly lying about the true nature of his product with regards to outsourcing and his production practices. Its worse than a 'credibility problem'. He has no credibility. He appears to be nothing more than a self aggrandizing liar. No one should take him serious any more.
When I helped you get your AB1735 campaign on the front page of the Chronicle, Mark, and learned that you were outsourcing large amounts of product from a confinement dairy and selling it to us at a premium, that was actually devastating.
That you would make up a story about the doctors letting you see Chris Martin's chart is simply helping others experience that same sort of devastation.
It is certainly your right to define devastation for yourself any way you choose. Personally I don't find government corruption to be "devastating" largely because I have low expectations for the government.
I own what I own...that includes: diarrhea from any cases of truly connected Campylobacter ( out of the many unconnected cases ) cases that occured since January 2012....the Novermber 2011 event. As far as 2006 is concerned...my feelings and opinions evolved as more and less evidence emerged.
When quoting a man at one point in time....rememeber that at that point in time....he spoke truth as given his level of information at that time, but at least he spoke and did not hide. It is so easy to shoot at a person that stands and gets counted for what he believes. It is difficult to shoot at the hiders and the silent.
I also own the tremendous number of blessed consumers that credit raw milk for their absence of asthma, IBS, Crohns, excema, HP Ulcers, and other immune recovery in their lives. For this I am blessed and forever empowered to produce the most delicious, nutritious and safest raw milk on earth.
When being critical of raw milk....spend the proportionate amount of time praising its wonderful GUT and immune healing qualities.
David,
How about "finding closure" with death...how about the numbers of people that have died from allergies to pasteurized milk and just straight up death from pasateurized milk. Those that did not die...but were sickened by any food should think about two things:
1.How blessed they are
2. Their immune strength.
Where is the responsibility for lifestyle choices that people make that create the conditions that allow food borne illness to take hold. What about the responsibility that doctors should take for giving out broad spectrum antibiotics like candy only to see their patients die!!!! What about that. C-Diff kills 14,000 per year!!!! Now that is death, but the best treatment is a fecal transplant!!! ( 92% effective )
I am so sick and tired of being riticuled for producing raw milk when I am being courted by the leading doctors and researchers in the world....as they tell me that raw milk and its bacteria hold the secret to life and immune integrity and even Killer T-Cell differentiation that is directly responsible for raw milk anticancer effects. When they ask me to come speak to their medical students...that is the truth that is suppressed at all costs. That is the tragedy of the Smoke Screen of the FDA, Mary Martin and Bill Marler.
Go ahead...your world is flat and it is sterile and bacteria do not matter. Enjoy your days in the germ free medical paradigm and remember these words when the doctor suggests surgery, antibiotics, radiation and or chemo. Condemnation of biodiversity is Bacteriosapien suicide. Go back and watch Bassler again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVfmUfr8VPA
A friend of the family, a 55 year old man I have known for years was just diagnosed with stage 3 or possibly 4 prostate cancer. One look back into his life says it all, he is a doctor obeying pill popper and just came off several rounds of broad spectrum antibiotics in the last three years...all for a missdiagnosed cancer.
We all choose up....be careful. Killing off your bacteria has dire consequences. Feeding the bad actors in your GUT also has dire consequences. Eat well be well...eat bad or eat sterile and pay big time.
To quote Dr. Jewett, the Director of Cancer research at UCLA , "pharmacudical drugs are the most inflammatory agents that can be consumed, inflammation is the start of all disease".... she drinks raw milk!!
"being riticuled for producing raw milk"
You sound no different that the politicians, big ag, corporations who think they are better than others, yet are nothing but liers and cheaters. No Mark, not for producing raw milk. It's your twisting the truth, not admitting to the truth,belittling of others, blaming anyone but yourself;ie, not taking responsibility. You're always right and as long as everyone agrees with you, life is good, yet heaven forbid should anyone question you or disagree. Then they become the 'aggressor' and are out to get you and all you stand for. When you can't argue your point or facts, you resort to name calling and character assignation. You aren't even focusing on what has been said.
"We all choose up....be careful. Killing off your bacteria has dire consequences. Feeding the bad actors in your GUT also has dire consequences. Eat well be well...eat bad or eat sterile and pay big time."
It is disingenuous to assert that the choice is EITHER sterile foods OR raw milk. Health is conveyed by a variety of foods, and raw milk may be one factor in creating health, but it is definitely not the only one, and it may be a potentially dangerous one, especially in light of safer alternatives. The constant focus and fall back on this black-and-white thinking (if you don't support raw milk then you must support sterile phoods!) is a huge turn off, and the reason people like me are seeing this whole movement and it's de-facto head as nothing more than a bunch of (organic, grass-fed, pasture raised) baloney.
Again, I find myself increasingly in agreement with you, Lola. I drink raw milk, but I am often put off by the tenor of this movement. Although, I'm not sure who you are referring to by the "de-facto head" of the movement. There are numerous leaders of the movement, as far as I can tell.
As a cheese maker, I know that raw milk makes the best cheese without a doubt. The most famous and award-winning cheeses are often made with raw milk. But the cheese making process has a strong selective effect against pathogenic microbes. Cheese is also a far more efficient (and, in my opinion, flavorful) way to deliver the nutrients in milk from the countryside to the city, than to lug gallons of mostly water with a high pH and short shelf-life around the countryside.
Just make cheese!
I used to be a subsciber to the Minneapolis Tribune for many, many years. When we got the internet we gave it up. We still get the Sunday paper and the daily still comes to my in-laws home so I still read it quite a bit. Many years ago in their sunday magazine they had an article with the title about tracing a deadly illness to a South Dakota farm. It was about how a number of people in the Twin City metro area had e-coli, and they were dreadfully sick, I think a man from SD actually died. The CDC from Atlanta became involved because the people who were ill had nothing in common, they did not live in the same area, eat at the same restaurant, shop at the same grocery. The conclusion was that the cattle on the farm were fed prophylactic antibiotics in their feed, about that time a group of geese were in an adjacent field, the cattle picked up an illness from the geese and the antibiotic was just enough for it to flourish in their gut, but they were sold before they exhibited symptoms. The cattle were made into hamburger that was distributed in various groceries in the metro area. From there it was ascertained that those who became violently ill were taking an antibiotic. No other family members or fellow eaters became ill. Only one person was actually using a med prescribed for them, the rest just raided their medicine cabinets and once again ingested just enough to make the bad bacteria flourish in their gut. I wish I could find the article again, it was well written and read like a detective story. The moral was to beware of antibitoics that were not prescribed properly. I wonder how many who now become ill have something similar going on, or have a low level of good bacteria in their bodies because of using a lot of antibiotic meds.
@ Lola: What "safer alternatives" are you referring to in this comment?
Here is a new thought:
"Here's a handy rule for avoiding resentment: If you hate doing something, you absolutely must not do it."
I hate reading mean, callous, and hateful comments here. I must not do it anymore, my good health depends upon it. I will not read the comments here, or post my own resentful comments here anymore. My eyes and voice are no longer useful here.
Good day! :)
Kristen, I obviously do not always agree with you, but please reconsider.
It's when everybody ignores you that voicing is no longer useful, and I see no signs of that (for you, and when Mary ignores me I don't mind it's probably fully deserved.) Ever noticed that the title of this blog is "Complete Patient?"
Please stay, Kristen. It is important to have voices like yours, as a sobering reality-check for the overzealous anti-public-health ideological tenor here. There are legitimate reasons that raw milk sales are restricted in many states, and its not just because of evil public health workers trying to stick it to the small farmer.
p.s. Again, for the record, I am in favor of raw milk legalization in a state such as Wisconsin where it is currently illegal. It just need to be done in an intelligent way that addresses public health concern.
In re. to Bill's comment [ Shades of; when: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - 10:33 ] to D.Smith re. Mark's consumption of OPDC products: Bill's last 2 paragraphs cover a lot of settled ground. I am beginning to think it is not settled.
(Short of time to compose,) Here are some of the topics that went through my mind as I read those two paragraphs.
Slave or free?
Liberty or shackles?
Trust you - trust me.
I must trust you with freedom and liberty.
You must trust me with freedom and liberty.
Is the little bird to "prove" it can fly before it is allowed out of the nest without a helmet?
Cultural/demographic drift away from the food production environment.
Natural immunity.
Germ theory.
Antibiotic theory.
Pissed-off mamas (both directions).
Programmed obeisance to stethoscope-collared professionals' anecdotal world (ask for proof).
Then prove the proof (see Uffe Ravnskov re. cholesterol or L. Pauling re. Vitamin C).
Accept uncertainty as part of life.
Members of the bars' wild world of anecdotes.
Licensed physicians' wild world of anecdotes.
Good lawyers.
Good doctors
Good businessmen.
Good scientists.
Destroyed foundations.
Who made government figures to be good? Are they?
Evil so outrageous we can't even guess at it.
Trained in freedom?
Trained in liberty?
Trained to be morally blind.
Trained to be naive.
Trained to be foolish.
Forcing the strong to the regimen of the weak eliminates the strong. Then what?
Protect the weak. Strengthen the weak. But not by warring against the strong.
Demonstrate courtesy to others. Demonstrate native respect to others.
Live less by assumptions, ask more questions, listen to the responses.
Think.
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
Illinois Dept. Of Ag up to the same tactics, but with bees. http://www.pacc-news.com/5-2-12/heart_ingram5_2_12.html
"He feels he had accumulated the necessary data to document the fact that Round-Up was not only the cause of his bees dying, but also possibly the cause of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). "
This may be the reason they invaded his property. Heaven forbid any proof against monsanto be aired...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/22/french-ban-gm-maize-re...
Can't the farmers just refuse to buy the GM seeds?
http://www.rense.com/general95/fdaokays1.html
Soon we'll have to grow all our own food to know what it is and even then, it'll be questionable.
Silvia
“Can't the farmers just refuse to buy the GM seeds?”
I wish it were that simple; unfortunately certain farmers are enamored by technological advancement and are easily manipulated by industry and agricultural officials who have for all intent and purpose thrown caution to the wind.
In order for tangible change to occur consumers need to educate themselves, demand appropriate labeling and have the freedom make their own choices. Right or wrong, people aught to have the right to choose those foods they deem appropriate for themselves and their children.
To paraphrase Dr. Benjamin Rush, "Unless we put (nutritional) freedom into the Constitution the time will come when (the food industry) will organize itself into an undercover dictatorship.”
Ken
Non GM seeds are in short supply, especially sugar beets and soybeans.
Regarding David's posting and the judge's comments on parental responsibility. I prosecuted child abuse and neglect cases representing the interests of children for the State. These cases were very complicated (aside from the attendant criminal, physical and emotional issues) given the huge Constitional issues if they involved termination of parental rights. Cases were prosecuted with dedication. Parents do have huge responsibilities for the welfare of their children. I have talked with several medical doctors who feel that a parent giving raw milk to a child should trigger a legal action for "abuse." The Judge's comments should give considerable pause since they take the arguments to a new level. If a child does become sick from drinking unpasteurized dairy-and given the amount of information available as well as well publicized opinions from various reputable mainstream medical organizations-it is not hard to imagine parents being held accountable by a Prosecuting Attorney. A judge citing parental responsibilities and accountability, in my opinion, is very significant.
"given the amount of information available as well as well publicized opinions from various reputable mainstream medical "
Couldn't this be true then of medicine and processed foods? There are numerous studies/opinions by 'educated' medical people, scientists, etc, about the dangers/side effects of medicines,vaccines, processed foods.
This would also be interfering with ones belief system, no different than preventing someone from practicing their religion. Will they then prosecute parents when the kids have diabetes? Obesity? broken bones? It's a wobbly fence to sit on.
It is not a wobbly fence. I'm just trying to bring a sense reality into these postings. For prosecution of such a hypothetical case--none of what you have noted makes any difference-the only things that could have a bearing from your list are things like "broken bones". The only belief systems that would have any relevance would be from a recognized Religion. Comparisons to diabetes, obesity have zero relevance. Arguments that "justify" a parent assuming unreasonable risk citing conventional medicine and processed foods, or vaccines, side effects-comparisons to such have zero relevance. None of these counter arguments would survive in court, none have any relevance in law. None.
When I taught law I always insisted that my students-when in litigation-had to understand the opposing side's arguments far better than their opponent. And not be blinded by their own biases. You cannot win without being able to agrue the opposite side better than your opponent-you don't have to believe the opposite side--you just have to be able to argue their perspective. My only point here is that if you look at raw milk illness cases from the perspective of the law-I do not see how parents cannot be held accountable. Reread the judge's comments-what is she seeing that raw milk advocates do not see? And how does this community address what she sees with other than academic agruments and posturing?
And from my own experience-defending children-the amount of pain and suffering of a parent being prosecuted for abuse was also not relevant. The focus is on a child's well being. In my opinion, these are serious and from this specific posting by David--may be far more immediate than hypothetical.
Ron,
I used the words 'wobbly fence' because it appears to be (other than obvious abuse) some incidents are not abuse to some as they are to others. Punishing your kids today is a big issue. If you spank them CPS may come down on you. Everyone defines spanking differently. If you don't discipline them, CPS may come down on you. If you don't allow your kid to enjoy the 'great' things other kids enjoy, you are a bad parent, extremest, abusive, strict, etc.
It is my understanding in some states, if you aren't part of a 'recognized Religion' and have proof that you belong, you cannot opt out of vaccinations. It doesn't matter that your beliefs are against the vaccinations, you HAVE to belong to a 'recognized Religion'. Where is the justice in that?
"recognized Religion" I do realize that my view of how things should be is not the same as others, including the law. I am part Native American, am I a card carrying Indian? No. I am comfortable in my own skin and have no need of a card signifying who I am or what I belong to. I have stood in line with my Grandma to collect the commodities the govt so 'generously' gave the Natives... I also don't participate in most of their religious/tribal activities. Religion to many Native Americans is a very private thing. Does that make me have less Indian blood? No. So I am not considered, by law part of any "recognized" religion or tribe.
Sometimes I do understand the opposing side's opinion, I just don't agree with it,and many times feel they only see black and white. How would a common, just, ground be found? I don't see it happening, there are too many individual beliefs.
Ron, try moving to France or Germany, or most anywhere else in the world where the government and judiciary is not controlled by corporate interests, and see how far this would fly. The kids in those countries aren't getting sick or obese, on the contrary it's the USA where healthcare costs are rampant through the roof.
Personally, I consider taking your kids to McDonalds to be a lot more dangerous if you want to discuss parental responsibility, but I would never criminalize it. It's their choice to go or eat whatever they want, why would a judge want to enforce any laws against stupidity? Oh I get it, we don't have enough people in jail already, and we need to grow THAT industry.
Agreed, Ora. France and Germany are also considerably more socialistic than the United States. I am reminded of Jose Bove's attempts to bulldoze a McDonalds when they tried to build one in Paris.
The issue of parental responsibility does complicate this issue, though. It only reinforces to me why we cannot simply say "laissez-faire." The raw milk movement needs an active and official dedication to the production of safe and quality raw milk for public consumption.
Ora-again I can only say "So what?" If an abuse case were prosecuted suggesting that a Prosecutor move to Germany or the moon is not relevant. The case would be brought because a child became seriously ill, not in Germany or France--but here in the USA. Health care costs-not relevant.
Judges enforce laws that many people from many factions of our society consider stupid. In my hypothetical the focus is on the well being of a child-living in the reality of our culture and society.
You are probably quite right Ron. But what these people are saying is that approach defies common sense and all of human history until modern times. What you are saying is just one in a long list of evidences that the there is no justice in the court system when it comes to the state taking away parent's children. Its not about justice, its about whatever excuse can be found to justify taking away a kid. You'll probably disagree with that, but I've seen it happen far too many times.
re. “Regarding David's posting and the judge's comments…”
who: Ron Klein | when: Wed, 05/23/2012 - 05:28
Thanks Ron, for your comment. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the parents-children relationship is of general importance to society and therefore the basic issues found there are basic issues of society.
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
Yes, parent-child and society-child, and thus the legal structure dealing with cases of abuse and neglect where the State will represent for The People a victim-child. In such cases the child is appointed an attorney advocate to work through procedural and other matters, each parent has representation, and the State prosecutes on behalf of the victim/child. Just making a point regarding an aspect of raw milk issues that I have not seen raised on this forum before.
Thak you Ron for sharing a perspective many of us might never be exposed to otherwise. I was in no way implying that you or the judge are bad people, only pointing out that what we sometimes perceive as a universal truth may not be anything near that, a lot us our beliefs and laws included. Just as in your profession you may be required to represent individuals that you may believe in your heart are quilty, your job is to defend them even if it means suppresing evidence, and not be the judge.
What I still don't understand is that regardless of parental-child or social-child rights issues anywhere in particular... We in this so-called "movement" do not seek to establish laws that everyone else to be forced to drink raw milk, yet the "other side" constantly fights and tries to curtail our rights to not be forced to jump through legal hoops to be able to drink it, unless we own the cow, and even then...
D. Smith,
You have a great question....the answer is this: my family eats all of the foods we produce at OPDC and we get it from the same creamery source that everyone else eats from. No separte sources. The OPDC products at the stores are the same products consumed by all of our four generations of family members and that includes from 75 years old down to 29 months old. All employees at OPDC eat from these same sources. Everyone eats the same food that our consumers eat. We have no separate cows or chickens or etc.
When paratroopers select their parachutes they take them from a common stack.....that means the private and the general all take the same risk when they jump. Same at OPDC. None of my family has ever had any illness from consumption of any of our products....for that matter none of the us has had much of a cold or flu for the last 12 years....our health is fantastic.
As to whether a parent is abusing their child by selecting raw milk for their food, here is my opinion.
It is very relevant to consider what the FDA says about pasteurized milk.
IT IS LISTED AS THE MOST ALLERGENIC FOOD IN AMERICA!!! Seven kids have died after consuming pasteurized milk and reacting allergically. If this is true and the FDA is not lying about this as well....( I assume that this is correct ), then it would be abuse to feed pasteurized milk to a child with allergies or asthma.
What attorney would not consider this a relevant argument. It is critically on point. Showing the court the multiple peer reviewed published articles and studies showing raw milk to be MAST cell stabilizing and healing of allergies and asthma is also relevant and totally on point. How about the death certificate from the seven kids that died from pasteurized milk. That is public record and the medical examiner did not lie about the cause of death. That is relevant.
Courts become educated when evidence is presented, Courts can not make good judgements if they do not have good evidence.
This is all highly relevant and on point.
Raw milk is not perfect and that is a point to be made as well. But....neither is pasteurized milk. Any one who claims that feeding pasteurized milk is a guarantee of anything is missleading at best. There are zero deaths from raw milk and at least 77 deaths from pasteurized milk since 1973 if you include the Jalisco cheese incident in 1985. There have been 422,000 illnesses caused by pasteurized milk since 1973 and about 1100 caused by raw milk. Those are facts available at the CDC.
Evidence must be presented and if all the evidence is brought in and weighed...the judge or jury can make a good decision. In my experience....juries will side with the moms that have done their homework and have tried their best to do well for their kids. Juries will not side with corporations or the FDA that trip on their FOOD INC corruption.
These are political decisions and not decisions of child abuse.
A fat, diabetic, asthmatic, ADHD, Autistic, Crohns kid is an abused kid. Perhaps not abused by a parent...but by a medical industry and a society that feeds off of the money made by the immune torment of that suffering child. If that is not relevant....America is in serious trouble.....very serious trouble.
@ Mark: Then any judge hearing a case should also hear the side about your family and their consumption habits, no? THAT would make for a good balance, would it not? Having been in the legal field for a while myself though, I can't see that happening. They don't wanna hear it. Seems only the gory stuff provides fodder.
In doing some research last night, I came across this vid (only 12 minutes) and came away wondering "who is this guy"? The vid isn't dated (one of my big complaints about YouTube - they give upload dates but not the date the vid was actually made) so I have no idea how relevant his statistics are today. Also, is the narrator just a narrator or is he the maker of the vid and also a credentialed scientist or a former milk producer himself - or what? Perusing the reader comments was interesting, and I only read the first page. If I was a newbie to raw milk and saw this vid it would probably not influence me right off, but it would certainly influence the totally uneducated newbies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VbwYqV4Eog At any rate, it's likely to be a favorite of the anti-raw milk groups. His information, IMPHO, is whacked out.
I grew up drinking raw milk (so did my DH), raised all three of my kids on breastmilk, raw cow milk and raw goat milk. My kids were never vaccinated either. They are now 37, 35 and 25 and healthy all their lives. My first baby was born breech and sunny side up so we were "indoctrinated" by how the medical industry worked (even back in 1975) and let me just say it's where we discovered just how little they knew and how little we needed them for our health.
AND, for the record, I should also state that I do NOT believe that raw milk is a "miracle food". It tastes lovely (especially spring milk) and it makes the best chocolate milk and other goodies we sometimes have as treats, as well as the fact that IMO there's nothing better with a bowl of hot homemade beef veggie soup than a huge glass of raw milk. But I'm not blind to the fact that it's not miraculous because I have immune problems (Sjogren's Syndrome) and I have two sisters who had RA. I also have twin brothers who are terrifically healthy and they are the oldest children in my family. So I know that other factors are involved in health (Lola seems to think that anyone who is pro raw milk believes it to be a haloed food - not true, at least not for me). My DH's family also grew up on raw milk and he has lost two brothers to natural causes. So, we do not delude ourselves into thinking that raw milk is sacred or anything. We love it because we love it. It has good fats and lots of other benefits; our bodies need good nourishment and our families, immediate and extended, felt it was better for us than store bought milk. At the time I was growing up, my parents probably gave it to us because it was immediately available and store bought milk meant a trip to town. I don't know their reasoning but I DO know they had no qualms about giving it to us.
"(Lola seems to think that anyone who is pro raw milk believes it to be a haloed food - not true, at least not for me)"
Riddle me this, D. Smith: until the last generation, when Western influence encroached on China (McDonalds, etc.), the Chinese have not traditionally consumed dairy products, but yet were free from the diseases of affluence - asthma, allergies, heart disease, diabetes, etc. How could this be?
It is proven that dairy (raw or pasteurized) is not NECESSARY for health, yet many in this movement don't seem to recognize that, and instead defend raw milk with such fervor (not necessarily you) it comes off as almost religious in nature.
Mark says, "Raw milk is not perfect and that is a point to be made as well. But....neither is pasteurized milk." The argument he is making is that it's EITHER raw milk OR pasteurized milk, and that is a false argument, because an option is NO milk, and there are plenty of healthy people who consume NO dairy. If one wants to consume raw milk, fine, but make sure you have no allusions about it (that it'll cure anything from allergies to male pattern baldness, for example) and fully understand the risks, especially if you plan to feed it to children. Without trying to put words in their mouths, I believe it is the point Amanda, Kristen and Mary have been trying to make.
@ Lola: You're right. We raw milk drinkers are religious about it, to a degree. And you're right, too, about the fact that people can choose not to drink milk or consume dairy in any form (or whole countries, as you pointed out with China, although a source of your info would be good to see). I have an uncle who lived in Mongolia for quite some time (he is a professor of oriental languages) and he relates to me that he and his wife and child drank milk often. It was usually oxen or yak milk (very high in fat).
Free choice involves consequences whether it's milk or any other liberty you can think of - doesn't have to involve food.
But no one that I know of buys raw milk or signs up for a cow-share accidentally. It's a choice and presumably they know the risks.
China is not Mongolia. Mongolia developed herding/dairy culture, China did not.
I do not have a source for you to reference and will not spend my time finding one for you. Do some research on traditional diets in China and you will find the answer.
It's true that no one signs up for a cow-share accidentally, but it's naive to believe that everyone knows the risks. When Pete Kennedy and FTCLDF guided me on the writing of my farmshare contract they had me write into it that the farmshare 'owners' who were signing the contract agreed not to sue me or my farm if they got sick or died while drinking my milk. Did they really understand what they were agreeing to, or did they just agree to take on full responsibility (though I doubt this would hold up in court) because of naivety?
@ Lola: I would have preferred to see the evidence on which you based your claim about China, but never mind. It's not important or relative to my way of thinking. You told me what I wanted to know.
You make a great case in another way. Maybe it's better if parents DON'T know or understand what they're agreeing to by signing a contract to purchase/drink raw milk. They can plead ignorance either way - of the dangers and/or benefits. If they can muster a stupid enough look on their face a judge might buy naivety. I've learned never to try to second-guess what a judge might do. It's folly because he might do something today and may have treated the same case totally differently the next day.
"@ Lola: I would have preferred to see the evidence on which you based your claim about China, but never mind. It's not important or relative to my way of thinking. You told me what I wanted to know."
Are you seriously incapable of doing a simple Google search to research this yourself?
In less than 5 minutes:
"The traditional Chinese diet features vegetables that have been lightly steamed or stir fried, accompanied by starches like rice, noodles or dumplings. Meat and fish are part of the traditional diet, but are served in much smaller amounts than is typical in the Western diet."
http://www.livestrong.com/article/195292-traditional-chinese-diet/
"Dairy products are one noteworthy aspect of the Western diet worth particular attention as they are relatively absent from the Chinese diet. Indeed the Chinese commonly associate Westerners with the smell of sour milk which they often exude from their bodies."
"In China children are generally breast fed until at least two years of age. Although organic, unpasteurised, whole milk is occasionally used to treat conditions such as constipation, its regular consumption is very rare in China."
http://tcmdiscovery.com/2007/10-20/20071020101029.html
@ Lola: Of course I'm not incapable and stop being snide. I just wondered if there was a particular recent article you'd read which stated as fact the idea that the Chinese don't drink milk. As a matter of fact, I just did a search about the Chinese drinking milk as a part of their diet and found several pages of articles. So you see, it's easy to find whatever you need on the internet to back up whatever it is you believe.
"...and stop being snide."
THAT'S the pot calling the kettle black considering your behavior the last few days!
The information I gave you is not from "internet articles", it's from researchers, anthropologists and medical doctors. Did you by any chance note in your search WHEN the Chinese started drinking milk? Was it recently, or historically?
By the way...animals have only been domesticated for approximately 10,000 years, starting with sheep and goats, then with cows being domesticated around 8,000 years ago. How on earth did Homo Sapiens crawl out of the mud without sucking on the teat of another species???
Pot calling the kettle black! Why? Because I apologized to you and a couple of others for ever doubting a word you say?
Heh. (Oops - now THAT was snide, wasn't it?) Sorry.
China, historically, was a huge country and Mongolia, Inner Mongolia, Canton and several other provinces were all included when they said "China" because those were, at one time, considered a part of China. I have no idea when they started using milk in the part of China to which you refer but parts of China have been using it since recorded history. They may not drink it by the cup like Americans do, but to some extent they used/drank milk for a long time.
When you come up with your theory on how Homo Sapiens crawled out of the mud without animal milk, post the link here.
"When you come up with your theory on how Homo Sapiens crawled out of the mud without animal milk, post the link here."
Huh???
Homo Sapiens = Where Lived: Evolved in Africa, now worldwide
When Lived: About 200,000 years ago to present
Domestication of animals = 10,000 years ago to present
Obviously, there was a time when humans lived without animal milk.
@ Lola: Well der. . .
Homo sapiens had to learn about animals before they could do ANYTHING with them.
And as to your timelines above, I will not get started arguing the fine points of origin. Not the origins of man or beast. The argument about raw milk is enough.
I find this discussion about parental responsibility to be very interesting. I am a mom of young children and currently my 1 year old drinks only raw milk. I find it offensive that anyone would think it to be acceptable to prosecute me for feeding my child raw milk. It is not an illegal substance or only sold to those of legal age. When my husband and I conceived my child, the govt was not part of it. During my difficult 9 months of pregnancy, the govt, was not part of it. My 36 hours of labor, the 4 days in the hospital, and 10 months of a very colicky baby, the govt was not there. It was my husband and I (and family) that stayed up those long nights when the baby was screaming; it was only me that dealt with the constant need to nurse and be bounced and rocked. But now that my child can eat and drink milk from a cup, all of a sudden the govt thinks they know what is better for my child. My child is my own flesh and blood. If my child gets sick who will suffer more pain; our family or the govt? How is putting a mother of father in jail for feeding the kid going to help anything? Is my child better off in a foster home with complete strangers only because I gave them raw milk? Are we then going to start prosecuting parents who choose to smoke around their kids? Prosecute parents who take their kids out for sushi? Prosecute parents who choose not to vaccinate? Prosecute parents who choose to home birth? None of these things are illegal but all are frowned upon by the govt and all carry risks. Prosecutors and judges have gotten completely out of hand as what is acceptable to go to court. My child, my decisions. You might not like that I feed my child raw milk, but this is my child and I am the legal guardian to make their decisions until they are old enough. No parent is going to accidentally buy raw milk. And you can’t google the words “raw milk” and not realize that there are plenty of warnings out there. Again, if my child gets sick, who is going to suffer? The govt and general public? Our my child and our family?
On the same note; then talk about parental responsibility as this is what the judge is talking about in this case. I do not believe the judge is not suggesting that the parents be prosecuted for giving the child raw milk. She is referring to responsibility of the parents versus responsibility of the farmer. Remember that in Minnesota, you can not buy milk at the local store or farmers market. It is not advertised nor do most of the farms have websites or facebook pages. The ONLY way to find about this farm is to specifically do your research and ask around. Once you find a farm you then have to contact the farm and specifically ask to purchase raw milk. So you have to go completely out of your way to get this raw milk; it does not just fall into your lap. Therefore what the judge is saying is that the parents share some of the burden in the child getting sick. The farmer did not advertise his milk to them, not did he encourage or suggest they give it to their children. The parent were aware of potential side effects, they chose to take the risk and gave it to the 2 year old child.
Think about it from a farmer’s prospective. I have people from the suburbs that contact me for my raw milk. People that know there are risks but have decided (on their own free will) that despite the warnings, raw milk is what is best for their family. You have every option to come to my farm, meet the cows, and to see my operation. You CHOOSE to feed it to your child. But then after just a few weeks, your child falls ill, blame my milk and you sue me for a couple thousand dollars. Why would anyone what to be a farmer that sells raw milk? Sure you can say that if the farmer has a clean operation and is “dedicated to the production of safe and quality raw milk” that he will never have an incidence. But as we have seen with OPDC, there is no guarantee no matter how high your standards. There is no other farmer that can do $200,000 worth of upgrades while they are shut down for a month. No farmer can afford to put a testing lab on site or put up netting to keep the birds away. And despite all of this, OPDC still can not guarantee that nobody from know on will get sick because there are NO guarantees in life. If you are a parent that seeks out raw milk, goes out of your way to put it on your table, and are aware of the risks, then isn’t the responsibility yours if your child gets sick?
"If you are a parent that seeks out raw milk, goes out of your way to put it on your table, and are aware of the risks, then isn’t the responsibility yours if your child gets sick?"
But why would any parent want to accept those risks, if fully informed of those risks? While statistically you have a low chance of becoming sick from raw milk, if you do become sick, and you're a child, you will probably become very, very sick. As the parent, are you then willing to bear all of the hospital costs out of pocket, especially if your child has lifelong health consequences, like kidney dialysis or possibly a transplant? Would you be willing to not utilize your health insurance provider, who would most likely want to sue the farm responsible for reimbursement?
your query is encapsulates perfectly one of the main reasons why Ham-merica is in such dire straits : shirking of personal responsibility. Responsibility not taken is freedom lost
On Dr Henry Makow's website today, the top item is a good explanation of how communism defames the natural family, as a pretext for them being taken captive by the state. It comes down to = who knows better how to govern one-self? = You think the over-educated idiots in high places know more about running my life, than I do? You think they really care about our children more than we do? .... not bloody likely
You could replace 'raw milk' in your statement with pasteurized milk, 'car', fast food, ground beef, bagged lettuce, chicken, pork, etc. etc. and it would be still true in every sense.
The point is life is not risk free, nor is any food. One can not guarantee safety. And in a free society it is up to each individual or the parent to make the judgment call as to what constitutes an acceptable risk.
I heard the statement here once that you're more at risk of dieing in a car accident on the way to pick up your raw milk than you are of dieing or getting sick from drinking it. Last time I checked the relevant statistics that statement was true. All this talk about getting sick from drinking raw milk is fear mongering and nothing more.
Yes, the state may use it as an excuse to take your kid, but they'll use anything or make stuff up if necessary to take your kid once they have you in their sights. But thats a problem with the government, not with raw milk.
Yes, this thread is replicating the common delusion here (that the corporate state actually cares about food safety), now extending it to state enforcement of child safety - that the system actually cares about the safety of children, as opposed to using that as an instrument of control.
To anyone who thinks that, let me know when child services agencies start objecting to bank foreclosures because children get thrown onto the street. (But they'll certainly use that as a pretext to take the kids from the parents, as part of the general criminalization of poverty.)
45 signs that China owns America;
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/45-signs-that-china-is-coloniz...
This is just isolationist and nationalist propoganda, Barney. Yes we live in a world of globalized finance capital. What's new?
Last time I checked, the United States still has a far more powerful military than China. If anything, China's economic investment in America makes them beholden to us, not the other way around, since we are the ones with the guns.
Sure, Bill, whatever you say!!!
Military spending by nation:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/apr/17/military-spending-co...
Take note:
The US remains by far the biggest military spender, with a defence budget of $711bn last year. It's followed by China, which spent an estimated $143bn on its armed forces in 2011.
@ BillAnderson: Just because the USA spent more money than China on it's "military" doesn't mean we're better. More isn't always better, sometimes it's just more. The Chinese people are very well educated in certain regards. They are trained to do a lot with a little, if you know what I mean. I'm more than a little afraid of them when it comes to our future. They've probably done more with their $143bn than the USA has done in spending $711bn. Why do most American's seem to almost brag that we've spent SO much money on a military budget??
There is risk in skateboarding, horse back riding, bike riding, swimming, eating peanut butter, hotdogs (I've seen parents give hotdogs straight out of the package),,, where is the line drawn?
The child can become sick from any food, or swimming, or petting an animal,banging their leg and getting cellulitis, etc. If you are paying for health insurance, then why would expect to bear all health costs? If the kid falls and beaks a bone or gets an infection, you wouldn't expect to pay all costs out of pocket if you have insurance, why would it be different if they get sick from food? If i am paying for insurance, why would I not use it? If the insurance company decides to seek reimbursement from the farmer, that is between each insurance company. You cannot control the insurance companies.
I'm a little confused by the replies I've gotten to my comment...ALL I did was to comment on one sentence that user2558 made, specifically, the idea that the PARENT bear the responsibility of any illnesses incurred with raw milk.
I assume his/her statement meant the parent, and only the parent, assume the responsibility (financial and otherwise), and I ask if we truly understand what that means. Suing the farmer places responsibility on the farmer, and asking the insurance company to pay places responsibility on the insurance company (even if they pass responsibility off on the farmer by suing him/her). If a child gets sick, are we willing to take responsibility, even if that means losing our homes or bankruptcy, or are we lulled into some sort of safety net by the ability to sue?
"If a child gets sick, are we willing to take responsibility, even if that means losing our homes or bankruptcy, "
This is what happens when they are injured in sports or just playing innocently at home, at the park, river and so on. This also happens when there is a reaction to a vaccination and drugs. Many parents are caring for their handicapped children even into adulthood.
"or are we lulled into some sort of safety net by the ability to sue?"
It has been my experience, that some believe ' it won't happen to them' ;false sense of security?
If neglect, or deliberate wrong doings, or incompetence on the farmers part (or any other entity) is proved, then yes, they should also be held accountable. If you buy food in the store and they don't maintain proper refrigeration and sell spoiled food, they should be held accountable. I don't understand why a store would be accountable if they sold, for example;bagged spinach that was unknowingly contaminated from the producers/processors.
You buy health insurance for 'just in case' something happens. My dad has had home owners insurance since the late 50s and never had a claim in on it. He feels it was money wasted, I feel it was a security blanket for potential disasters. If you get in a car accident, the ER may bill your health insurance for services rendered. The health insurance will go after the other guys insurance (if it is not your fault) to recoop their money. If you sue the other guy and get money, you'll have to reimburse your health insurance for monies they spent on your care for that accident.
"If you are a parent that seeks out raw milk, goes out of your way to put it on your table, and are aware of the risks, then isn’t the responsibility yours if your child gets sick?"
I was just making a point -but in answer to your question and just raising the issue. Yes, the responsibility is yours-but lurking in the background-if a child is harmed- is the possibility that the State could prosecute. In fact-looking at a situation from the State's perspective-a parent knowing the risk and still exposing an innocent child who is harmed makes bringing a case forward more likely. Children do not make the choices, therefore (so the argument would go) the parents assume the risks and thus the potential consequences.
Also-I just want folks to understand: "If my child gets sick who will suffer more pain; our family or the govt? " The pain a parent may suffer is not relevant to the State's interest in protecting children from abuse-period; it may temper moving forward depending on the office-but if a decision was made based on facts-it would not matter-
Again, as your post notes these are weighty matters. I'm only giving you a perspective from my personal experiences representing the State in dealing with parents that placed their children in harm's way-our cases were extreme-but we must not forget a child on life support is pretty darned extreme and lots of medical professionals are anything but raw milk advocates-these folks are the ones who bring most cases to the attention of a Prosecutor.
Perhaps the appropriate question is what level of responsibility does a parent carry if their child gets sick, or dies, and when, if ever, will the State step in. I just amazed that such cases have not been brought forward-and amazed even more that the raw milk discussion seldom ever deals with parents assuming risk and potential legal consequences.
Ron,
I have rarely read a more depressing analysis than yours in this thread, thus because it is true.
We are a grossly overconfident people, currently making a mistake in our understanding of human health so broad and fundamental that dissent from it is deemed irrelevant, or even reason for criminal prosecution. Tyranny with a smile.
Your analogy to prosecuting child abuse is interesting, given that the “science” of pediatric forensics is undergoing a revolution as we speak. What was considered good scientific evidence of child abuse just a few years ago (evidence that well-intentioned prosecutors, judges, and juries utilized to send people to jail) is now considered false and misleading (watch this video for a report on that: http://video.pbs.org/video/2030394458). No matter. A few poor schlubs ridiculed, vilified, jailed… oopsy! No worries for us, because now we have REAL science.
@ Dave Milano: I agree with you.
But ALL science is questionable these days. Here's a great, entertaining, funny, witty vid on that very subject - by a doctor. This is a wonderful Ted Talk video about "bad science". It's entertaining and educational at the same time - and the guy talks faster than anyone I've ever heard, but he's making excellent points. Check it out: http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science.html
Thank you Dave, your comments are on target as always-and I speak from experience. Farming fulltime now-just wanting to live happy.
Best wishes,
Ron
Pages