Presto! From 21 Raw Milk Illnesses to 20,000-Plus, CDC Math Carries Dark Message for the RAWMI Safety Agenda

FDA agents Diana Guidry (left) and Audra Ashmore, at Morningland Dairy in Missouri, in September 2010. The public health profession has its marching orders from the dairy industry and its puppet U.S. Centers for Disease Control: We need higher numbers of illnesses attributed to raw milk. Use every means you can think of to stir up fear, even if it means making up illnesses. 


More significant, once you have established the precedent of concocting out of thin air statistics that have no basis in fact, you are then free to regularly report phantom illnesses from raw milk, even if the actual officially tabulated number sinks to near zero, which is the goal of the Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI).  We create money out of thin air, why not cases of food-borne illness? 


You think I am exaggerating when I accuse the CDC, via the Minnesota Department of Health, of making up illnesses? After all, it is quite a serious accusation, that serious scientists would fabricate their numbers. It is, in the academic world, a reason for invalidating the research, and dismissing tenured professors..


But what else can you conclude when the Minnesota Department of Health, concludes, after mind-bending statistical acrobatics, in a research paper (available at the bottom of the Minnesota Public Radio page I linked to) published (and bankrolled) by the CDC yesterday--it “estimated that up to 20,502 Minnesotans, or 17% of raw milk consumers, may have become ill with enteric pathogens during the study period after consuming raw milk. This finding suggests that outbreaks represent a small number of the illnesses associated with raw milk consumption and that the risk for illness associated with raw milk consumption is far greater than determined based on the occurrence of recognized outbreaks.”


Those 20,502 supposed illnesses grow out of a handful of recorded illnesses in Minnesota during the decade 2001-2010--five outbreaks that resulted in seven hospitalizations and one case of hemolytic uremic syndrome--a total of 21 illnesses over ten years. How was the Minnesota Department of Health able to turn 21 reported illnesses into 20,502?


Underlying its hocus-pocus math is the erroneous (and highly intentional) assumption that illnesses from raw milk are under-reported, when, in fact, illnesses from raw milk are obsessively chased down and recorded by state public health and agriculture officials. Once they make the connection to raw milk, it is a fairly simple step to locate the producer--certainly simpler than for most other foods,  since raw milk is so highly regulated that most sales are made directly from dairies to individuals, and even in places like California, which allow retail sales, there are only two or three dairies selling at retail. There’s little of the complication as  with illnesses from spinach or cantaloupes or lettuce or tacos of trying to figure out exactly which farm or food vendor the food came from. 


But once the MN Department of Health makes the assumption of raw milk illnesses being under-reported, it is then intellectually free to examine cases of campylobacter and E.coli O157:H7 that haven’t been pinned on a particular food, and pull out all those in which the sickened individuals drank raw milk, and blame raw milk for those illnesses. 


We got a taste of this tactic in the second trial of Alvin Schlangen earlier this year. when the prosecutor used an illness by someone who had consumed raw milk, together with various fast foods, to scare the jury about the dangers of Schlangen’s raw milk. This individual was no doubt included in this new study as someone who was re-classified as having been sickened by raw milk, even though the health department history showed he had also eaten chicken both at home and in a restaurant (upwards of two-thirds of all chicken in the U.S. has been shown in various studies to contain campylobacter or salmonella), as well as meatballs and spaghetti at a Spaghetti Factory and a sausage and egg muffin at McDonald’s. 


So.....the new rule put forth by this study is a radical departure from past public health data analysis--if you get sick from campylobacter or E.coli O157:H7 or salmonella and you have consumed raw milk, then any other culprits, like chicken or fast food, are automatically eliminated and you are assumed to have been sickened by raw milk. 

But wait, there’s more. The Minnesota study took the 530 newly classified cases of raw milk illnesses and applied “pathogen-specific underdiagnosis multipliers” to the numbers. These “multipliers,” of generally 30 to 100, are used to estimate illnesses from various pathogens based on the public health inference that many illnesses go unreported, usually because the victims recover quickly enough to not even consult with a physician so as to seek a medical diagnosis. 


And presto, faster than you can say “raw milk made me sick,” you’ve turned 21 illnesses into more than 20,000 illnesses that are blamed on raw milk in Minnesota from 2001 to 2010.  The study becomes positively laughable when the authors conclude that, based on those 20,000-plus illnesses, that more than 17 per cent of all Minnesota raw milk drinkers got sick during the decade 2001-2010. The reason it is laughable is that few of the hundreds of raw milk drinkers I have ever met, many of them in Minnesota, knows anyone who has ever become ill.  


Actually, there is a precedent for this hocus-pocus mathematics. It is that famous estimate put out by the CDC, and regularly reported as fact by American media, that 48 million people, one in six of all Americans, are sickened each year by foodborne illness. That number similarly emerges from “under-diagnosis multipliers” and  various other multipliers and mathematical gyrations to take fewer than 30,000 actual reported illnesses each year in CDC databases and turn them into 48 million illnesses. Ask a family practice physician if one in six of his or her patients get sick each year from foodborne illness, and they will laugh at you. There see a handful of illnesses each year, at most. 


Well, you might say, let them do their funny math, if that is what gives them their jollies. We’ll just go ahead and keep drinking our raw milk, And besides, this study will likely have the effect of studies before it, which is to  act as a marketing promotion, encouraging more raw milk consumption from the growing legions of Americans who discount most of what the FDA and CDC advise, and just do the opposite. 


The problem with these fraudulent studies is that they are used to enact policy, very serious policy. That estimate of 48 million Americans being sickened each year was the catalyst for passing the Food Safety Modernization Act, which goes into effect next year, and gives the FDA unprecedented powers over small farms. 


So the question that presents itself with this Minnesota study is this: what will be the policy ramifications affecting raw milk? After all, if you multiply the 20,000 Minnesota illnesses now attributed to raw milk by 50 states, you have one million people who can be trumpeted as having been sickened by raw milk. Don't think the CDC/FDA won't do it (I shouldn't be giving them ideas, I suppose, but they are already well along the fraud path.)The study’s authors conclude their study by saying they want to “educate....policymakers who might be asked by constituents to relax regulations regarding raw milk sales.” In other words, they want to restrict ever more raw milk availability. 


When I read this study, I had the feeling of someone who works in a company town--lives in company housing, shops in the company store, travels on company roads--and is getting close to paying down his debt. I tell the clerk at the company store that I have just a few payments before I’m finally free and clear. He laughs. “You haven’t been paying attention. You have all these additional taxes and fees that have been tacked onto your account, to build new roads, new stores, new schools. You owe more now than you owed five years ago.” 


RAWMI (the Raw Milk Institute) is kind of like the guy who works in the company town. RAWMI is committed to reducing the number of illnesses associated with raw milk, by setting standards and training raw dairy producers to improve their production practices. The goal is to gradually reduce the number of food-borne illnesses, and thereby win over the public health and agriculture communities to the notion that raw milk isn’t inherently unsafe, and can be reliably produced as a safe and healthy food. Any number of these regulators have said it’s a simple proposition: show us that people aren’t getting sick from raw milk, and we’ll leave you alone.


But the Minnesota study is like the guy working in the company store who starts laughing at such crazy talk about paying down the debt. “Don’t you realize, you’ll never reduce the number of illnesses. You may think you’ve reduced the number of officially reported illnesses, but we’ll go through the data of people who get sick from food, and all those who have consumed raw milk will be automatically counted as raw milk illnesses. Then, we'll apply the "under-diagnosis multipliers" so there will be even more illnesses from raw milk. So, you’ll never get that number down, because people will keep getting food-borne illnesses from all kinds of foods, and we'll keep doing lots of multiplication. Everyone who drinks raw milk and gets sick from any food borne illness will count for 40 or 50 or 100 additional raw milk illnesses.”


Why have we seen such blatant corruption of the public health profession? In my book, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Food Rights, I chronicle the militarization of the public health profession in the U.S. as it has become corrupted by a corporate agenda committed to stamping out raw milk and other nutrient-dense foods and promoting factory and GMO foods designed to weaken and sicken.  Where once the public health profession was dedicated to reducing illness from dangerous pathogens like tuberculosis, typhoid fever, and brucellosis, now many of its agents are part of the U.S. Department of Defense, via the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps., and committed to protecting the corporate agenda. 

In the photo above, you see two FDA agents dressed for battle--the “battle” was the FDA raid of Morningland Dairy in Missouri back in 2010. Their appearance in military fatigues at a small cheese producer that had only expressed a desire to cooperate (and had no one ever become sick from its cheese) says it all, as far as I am concerned. (The FDA and Missouri Milk Board succeeded in eventually shuttering Morningland.) This Minnesota/CDC study just puts an exclamation mark on that photo. 

The Minnesota/CDC's authors might have summarized their study more simply: We are going to beat your asses, if we have to use force, intellectual fraud, trumped up criminal charges, or any other technique. Don’t mess with Uncle. 

mark mcafee's picture

They wear battle dress because this is educational war they are losing badly!!

We as producers also have our marching orders as well. Those orders come from families that demand safe raw milk. Families that have dollar voted against the pasteurized milk....Most Allergenic food in America...Families that have dollar voted against non digestible highly processed CAFO dairy products. Families that have embraced their farmers and drink delicious raw milk every day and would never again drink pasteurized dead products made from milk ever again.

The FDA and industry not only embrace and worship their dear archaic 18th century solution to the very well known 18th century problem of filth....they also forget that we are now in the 21st century. In the 21st century people can no longer be bullshitted by media and fake made-up bought science. People in the 21st century have an "app-for-that" and the paid for yellow journalism of the good old bought-and-paid-for days are gone!!! Consumers do their own study...their own research. The results come after drinking delicious raw milk and they realize the heal wow of it all. No faking this. No faking recovery from Crohns and telling the surgeon no thanks for that FDA approved colostomy bag!!!!!

If pasteurized milk was so great then tell me why it is dying in the market place!!

If raw milk was so bad...then why are raw milk sales raging at 5 times the price of dead CAFO PMO white stuff.

The real threat is truth. RAWMI board member Dr. Cat Berg DVM PhD will publish the data that has been collected by the RAWMI Listed dairies in the last 2 a paper in the next 24 months. This data will be published as an international collaboration between cooperating PHDs from arround the world. Talk about the ultimate owe shit moment! That will be data from American raw milk dairies serving hungry Americans. This will be peer reviewed and internationally published information with peer review dissection and introspection. RAWMI will have proved its point. A point made by Dr. Linda Harris PHd during her SB201 hearing statement in 2008. This official UC Davis position on food safety said...."the best raw milk food safety system would include a HACCP type plan with testing". That would be the best way to make raw milk safe.

Well....RAWMI did just that and she was 100% right on. Now the FDA and industry squirms as the truth unfolds. RAWMI is the 21st century solution to 21st century problem of industrial worship of their 18th century solution. This scares industry as they lose markets and the Internet exposes their lies!!! And misinformation campaigns.

This is war for the FDA, because all they know is killing....they know little if anything about building immunity. For RAWMI this is a peace process...this is education and healthy kids. We are the new paradigm of prevention with producer and consumer responsibility. Something that the FDA and its industrial revolving door Food Inc partners does not embrace or understand....their paychecks are dependent on them never understanding this.

How do we win? We already have. These are the signs of surrender. These are the truest signs of squirming, lying, misinformation campaigns do not act this way.

Strategy going forward: deny them ammunition and build raw milk market forces one happy family at a time. One RAWMI Listed and well trained farmer at a time. This battle is intense and the game could not have more riding on its outcome. Every time some one gets sick from raw milk....we provide the FDA and industry with ammunition against us.

If you are serious about your raw milk production the invitation is wide open. Call today or apply online to become RAWMI Listed. This is how we battle the FDA and cause change. It takes time and it takes hard data. One thing for sure...conscious consumers love raw milk and do not trust the FDA or CDC one little bit. If we stand as individuals we are weak....RAWMI Listed we are a community and we are strong! Do not be bashful. Join...RAWMI if you truly want to win the peace and expose the battle dressed mindless robots. There is not one damn thing they can do to a raw milk producer that has safe & pathogen free products...not one darn thing !! Stop providing the enemy with the ammunition they love and beg for.

Ken Conrad's picture

It may be a radical departure from past public health data analysis. However, it merely reflects, reinforces and is rooted in their preexisting knee jerk protocol to blame raw milk.

The public’s almost incessant defiance of their warnings is nurturing the need to fabricate statistics in their favor. There arrogant backs are being pushed against the wall and it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if they were considering a way to prosecute raw milk consumers for reckless endangerment of the public.


Ken Conrad's picture

Correction... Their arrogant...

Proof reading my own work is no guarantee that I will spot an error.

D. Smith's picture

We've poked the bear . . . 8)

rawmilkmike's picture

We've always known that most cases of diarrhea are not reported so this is nothing new. What is not being mentioned is what these numbers actually prove. The article doesn't say. If someone finds it in the 13 page document please let us know the page number. This study actually proves what I've been saying for months. Raw milk prevents the very illnesses it is being accused of causing. These numbers are so low you don't even need a calculator to see that raw milk is not causing any illnesses it's preventing them.

What they don't get, like people who understand the qualities of raw milk, is that it is a great way to treat food poisoning. As soon as I get a digestive upset from eating suspicious food I run for my raw milk or kefir. There is, BTW, nothing new about the CDC - or any of the other alphabet agencies - making up science and figures. They have been doing that since their inception. That is always how they justify their tyranny, and make no mistake, they intend to have complete control of our food. It is up to us to decide if we will surrender such control.

rawmilkmike's picture

Most of the time they don't even have to lie. They just paste a bunch of half truths together in such a way that they seem to say the exact opposite of what they in fact do say. These most resent numbers being a perfect example.

BlackHillsFoodFreedom's picture

South Dakota Dept of Ag tried the same thing on a lesser April 2013 the Dept said nobody had gotten sick. Then in June the Dept testified that there were 24 cases of campylobacteriosis in 2012 and 2013 that were "associated" with raw milk...yet no milk was tested for a link to any illness, no farms were identified by the ill people. A questionnaire containing about 250 foods/beverages was allegedly given to the ill, and supposely the only risk factor was raw milk...yet that would mean those people consumed no chicken, no lunchmeat, no vegetables, no fruits, etc. for the past 10 days...I seriously doubt those 24 people consumed only raw milk for the previous 10 days. Once we pointed this out the Dept lowered the count to 11 people in July, then raised it back to 24 in the autumn...South Dakota math is in a category of its own! Who stated these numbers, zero to 24? Primarily the Dept's general counsel who was fired recently. See for the latest on raw milk in SD

David Gumpert's picture

You are pointing out  the exact danger I tried to highlight. The public health people are essentially changing the rules for classifying food-borne illnesses, but they are changing the rules for just one food. Now they talk about illnesses "associated with" raw milk, but after a number of "studies," they will drop the "associated with" and just talk about all these "raw milk illnesses"--whether "associated with" or actually proven--as if they are one and the same. If anyone tries to correct them, they will kind of nod and smile….just a technicality. Won't be long before no one tries to correct them….not if they want to keep their jobs and get their "research" grants to expose the scandal of all these raw milk illnesses that have been covered up for years and years. 

The DIS-information about raw milk - pretended as a “study” by the Minnesota people - is getting the result they intended. The Investor Place website regurgitated it, folding-in as an assertion of fact that
< Minnesota Department of Health researchers found that 17% of raw milk consumers in Minnesota between 2001 and 2010 became ill with infections, according to Fox News. >
Do tell! A moment’s reflection will cause any intelligent person to question that absurdity.
Just a co-incidence that they fob-off responsibility to another propaganda outfall? No, this is how the information war is waged. It doesn’t take a degree in political science to see that the over-educated idiots in white labcoats, knew what they were doing ... publishing their despicable piece of bovine scat … poisoning the discourse, while maintaining deny-ability ||||| “oh, we never said that!”

“Bad communications corrupt good morals” but the lie shall be found out. Meanwhile, first and foremost : in the Campaign for REAL MILK we keep on serving the local community with the good stuff, day by day. Second : rather than “organize to educate”, We “educate to organize”. No better way to educate someone than handing them a glass fresh pure whole un-cooked milk to enjoy, and get the facts so they can think for themselves.

mark mcafee's picture

Dear Readers and Especially the FDA ( that reads this blog religiously as part of their daily raw milk intellegence briefing for sure ). There can be no greater threat to the status quo than a successful RAMP RAWMI approach to raw milk risk and its management. Now that that the science is on American soil being experienced by American dairymen and their grateful consumers....the threat is real and the fight is here.

Here is my response to the recent Minnesota Raw Milk attack....

Minnesota is in the raw milk dark ages....and can not bring itself to look west to see the bright light of the CA experience for retail raw milk!!

The highly biased article written about Minnesota raw milk consumption has at least two major problems:

1. One, it is not based on data from raw milk that is intended for human consumption and
2. Two, it does not define what illness from drinking raw milk is.

If that same Minnesota study was performed in a state that permits the legal sale of raw milk for human consumption where the raw milk producers are state tested and tight protocols are in place, the story would be completely different. Every case of raw milk illness is tracked down in California and in other states where raw milk is legally sold and the producers are notified of the illness. A great example of the highly erroneous Minnesota data can be easily demonstrated. At OPDC not one single complaint of any illness has been reported in more than 20 months. ( the last reports where from non-hospitalized campylobacter ie…travelers diarrhea. With Campy exposure once you have it, you are immune for life. Campy is the most common food borne illness in the USA with more than a 1.3 million cases reported each year from all foods but mostly chicken ). If one in six drinkers of raw milk consumers became ill as stated in the article, there would be about 15,000 reported illnesses each week in California alone. Instead there are zero!!

Raw milk drinkers also know that it is common for some new raw milk consumers to have some adjustment to raw milk. Raw milk is a super immune food. When the immune system adapts there can be some mild diarrhea or other adjustment to the Gut flora populations. The gift that this adjustment brings is profound. Allergies are reduced or gone, asthma reduced or gone, eczema gone, Crohns gets better, fewer colds and raw milk consumers rarely ever suffer the flue. Your immune system starts to work!! This is hardly a reportable illness and that is why the article says that these illnesses are unreported and not part of the illness data. It is because these are not illnesses!! These are consumers that are taking personal responsibility for the status of their immune systems!

The article makes a great case for a remedy for the continuing big problem of consumer access and confusion between the “two kinds of raw milk found in the USA”. One kind of raw milk is for the Pasteurizer and the other One is for the People. In places like Minnesota where raw milk is illegal, only underground and black market milk is available and access is difficult. Commonly, the consumer has no idea what they are getting and from what source. In areas that have made raw milk illegal it is very common for consumers to simply go to the dairy next door and beg for raw milk at any price. That raw milk is intended to be pasteurized not consumed raw by humans. Illness can certainly result. Why do consumers try to buy raw milk? They know that pasteurized milk is highly allergenic and non digestible. It is food for shelf life not gut life. They have experienced raw milk and found that it is delicious, non allergenic and very digestible. Consumers are smart not stupid as the article might imply.

Unfortunately, the FDA and big dairy industry encourages illegal raw milk and actively encourage difficult consumer access to high quality raw milk. Big dairy industry makes no money on raw milk because they do not get to process it. Hence…they hate raw milk and actually love to see bad news about raw milk in the news. If researched I am sure that the funding behind this biased article was funded by either the FDA or the dairy industry.

There is great news growing and coming! Efforts by the Raw Milk Institute to improve raw milk safety have been hugely successful. The dairies that have become LISTED by RAWMI have had no hint of problems and the bacteria counts are consistently very low with no reported illnesses….ever!! The RAWMI data is from dairies nationally with millions of servings of raw milk provided to hundreds of thousands of delighted consumers!!

Perhaps the better money spent on writing articles should focus on the great things that raw milk will do for the immune system. Perhaps the greater good would come from education and mentoring of farmers to produce low risk and very high quality raw milk instead of the continued industrial worship of the 18Th century solution to an 18Th century problem. We can do better that this and we have also demonstrated in huge state wide markets that raw milk is a very low risk food if it is produced under food safety systems, good testing protocols and inspected by responsible regulators that care.

Mark McAfee
Fresno CA

Ora Moose's picture

scary. Maybe I'll just quit before I become one of the harassed. Government sukks and has no soul.

mark mcafee's picture

The current Soul of Government is the Soul of Corporate need.

We must engage and make the soul of government once again a slave to the soul of the people that it is intended to serve. It is our distance from government that does not serve us....we must close this distance and make government serve "we the people". This can only happen if we demand that we have access to government and that govenment responds to our well considered demands. That means science and data to support our demands. That means engagement. Serious straigh-up-the-middle and also behind the back door engagement.

When RAMP programs and their data is consistent and solid this is the greatest threat of all. No illnesses....means no case against raw milk!! Even more importantly is the building of hugely successful markets with undeniable dollar voting. This dollar voting market reality is the most unsettling reality of all. It also means the continued market erosion and exodus of fluid pasteurized milk as a failed product!!

Remember John Boss, my award winning CAFO dairyman neighbor that committed suicide three weeks ago out among his cows? His death is a reminder to the FDA about how grotesque their policies of commodity market pricing systems are. When a farmer works as hard and as smart and as good as John Boss did and fails....that is not right and his death lays at the feet of the FDA and their PMO systems of commodity market milk pricing.

All the pressure is on the FDA and their state affiliated agencies. That is precisely why they lie and cheat to try and scare the public any way that they can. Winners do not need to lie, contort, misinform or cheat. They are under incredible pressure. More than we can figuer and more than they can understand themselves. For the life of them...they do not know why the public does not believe and trust them??!!

Winners win! Winners provide health to their consumers. All the FDA and their state affiliated agencies provide is horribly bad news. News like epidemics of Crohns disease and the solutions like Colostomy bags...

What do we do as raw milk producers....we provide Kefir and a cure for Crohns.

Ask a Crohns sufferer which they would prefer?...a scene out of the end of Braveheart with 20 feet of your intestines being ripped out and crapping into colostomy bag for the rest of your life.... or a cup of raw milk kefir? The answer is quite simple...I will take the cup of Kefir please!!!

My dear friends we are witnessing a huge win for emerging raw milk markets and defeat for the FDA and their minions. Now....we must humbly get our "shit together and out of our products" ...literally and not continue to give the FDA and CDC ammunition to attack us. This can be done and it has been demonstrated.


Ora Moose's picture

Mark, I really do admire your sticktoitveness, and I mostly agree with you and the methods you describe and implement. More important, you get to bring great milk to your customers. That doesn't help us understand Foxboro though. I'll be there with my family and friends but I don't have a good feeling about this.

Oh and I meant to post condolences about your neighbor John Boss but I was just devastated, that is truly sad and heartbreaking. I'd like to have a face to face conversation with the bozos that brought it about, wonder how they sleep at night.

for those who have time, a good, short, read defining the size + shape of the adversary of the Campaign for REAL MILK, is seen at

Calamity Howler by A V Krebs ... who's been at this thing for quite a while, with his Corporate Agribusiness Report

rawmilkmike's picture

My nephew who is in insurance, showed me a line diagram of many powerful publicly traded corporations controlled by just a few privet companies.
Is it possible that just a few powerful families control all the churches and corporations that control all the governments that control all the people?
Wouldn't a corporation self destruct in just a few short years with out it's overseers, the same as any church or government?
Of course in the end all of these entities are made up of individual people, people with soles, a conscience, and a free will. So how do we reach these people? With prayers and compassion??

mark mcafee's picture

The answer to Foxborough, is a massive turn out of public support. It will also be very helpful for the public to very competitently argue that pasteurized milk makes them sick and raw milk is healing. Then give non stop.... All night long examples from long lines of people standing at the microphone!!!

Back this up with doctors that back up the stories given by the moms. Let the board hear the soul of Foxborough. Passionate, heart felt, true, intimate, local and undeniable.

Give them a dose of America!! You will prevail!!! If you do not prevail they are fascist nazis. I doubt this. The board is probably very sensative to the local citizens.

so, can't a law suit be initiated? If funds could be raised to sue the state over such false data creation, the case can then be used to in other raw milk trials.

Mark, I think this might be a decent time to step in and file a suit because the the false date has a direct impact on your livelihood and that of the emerging industry. It would also contribute to putting it into the news, and relevent to the public. As a leader in the development of standards or guidlines of production Rawmi is best suited to act. Please let us all know, I know I would be willing to contribute directly for such an action. Because it affects us all. Arguments get built on such false data (god knows what the insurance industry has been doing) and policy is made on such false data. An approach would be to challenge the data not only on points made, but to challenge on the entirety of data itself, as the numbers need to add up. There are numbers reported for various foods, all these numbers need to add up to something that reflects our reality. My sense is that they won't.

Jack Brody : resolution of the controversy to do with raw milk for human consumption, will NOT be found in a Courtroom. That's not where they keep it. More than a few years of wading-through the cesspools of Her Majesty's Courts in BC. on this and other political issues, taught me : forget about running to Court with a political grievance. If the Powers that Be drag you in there ... you have to show up and answer the charge. Otherwise : stay focused on the practicalities. In this thing = just keep on milking and putting the good stuff in the hands of those who are ready to think for demselves.
Years ago, me saying "we are ruled by people who hate us", was too strong meat for most people to accept. But a picture is worth 1000 words. Now, with the photo on this website = FDA goons/ little girls in camoflage uniforms / tasers + loaded guns on their hips = bothering people who are at work producing food - my assertion doesn't come off so far-fetched.
Those who are educated on an issue will organize themselves & rise to the occasion. Let's see lots more such True Patriots show up at Foxboro Monday night December 16, for a real old-fashioned New England town hall meeting, rather than the Church of Monday Night Football

Ora Moose's picture

Unfortunately, the attendance numbers at this upcoming in Foxboro on Monday evening could be undercut by the bad weather currently forecast.

It's not that bad for me because I'm fairly close, but people that need to travel may not make it. Snow, ice, extreme cold such as 8 degrees could have an impact, but if enough of us care it will still be a strong show of unity. I've been doing my part to make people aware of the implications even if they don't drink milk, we shall see.

David Gumpert's picture

Ora, don't be so negative. Storm will be over early Sunday, and roads will be clear, as will the weather on Monday evening. Hearty New Englanders who value food freedom aren't so easily put off. 

By the way, a new article on the Foxboro situation in Reason, by Baylen Linnekin (of Keep Food Legal), about the troubling career path of the chief Foxboro health inspector, Pauline Clifford.

Ora Moose's picture

David, thanks for writing and or/ relaying these great articles. Do you know if there will be a time limit on the question & answer period or will they just postpone it again? I'd love to see and hear Pauline squirm about her true motivation behind the harassment attacks.

Would it be out of bounds to ask them if the Kraft organization has any involvement in this, and should we trust any of their answers? You KNOW they are watching this too.... Hmm, small farm closing down sounds like a great buy for new parking lot area or mall expansion right in the back yard.

Ora Moose's picture

And to fix your link to the great Baylen Linnekin Reason article:

Maybe the question of the legality of a town to require business customer lists should come up too. Cross me off, I don't need or want any notifications.

D. Smith's picture

Thanks for the link to Baylen's article. I always like to see what he has to say about these things. He made some very, very good points and brought up a couple of things people should be questioning anytime there is a raw milk issue, not just Foxborough. We need more attorneys like Baylen who are willing to get straight to a given point and not meander aimlessly around it.

David's article, too, was inspiring - as usual. We've come to expect that from the articles here at TCP. Never disappointed. Good show!

David Gumpert's picture

Ora, I'd say any and all questions are appropriate. People should inquire about Pauline Clifford's qualifications to regularly inspect a dairy when she's never done it before, why the Foxborough Board of Health thinks it can do a better job of regulating a dairy than the MA Dept of Agricultural Resources, the health benefits they have gained from Lawton's raw milk, and what contacts the town may have had with the New England Patriots about acquiring the Lawton's land, among others.  The session will be videotaped,  so the answers will be recorded and on the record. 

Ora Moose's picture

Thanks again David. And if any of you out there have question suggestions, now's the time we're heading over in just a couple hours.

Shelly-D.'s picture

Suggestion: Rent a private bus to pick people up at their houses and take them there.

Ora Moose's picture

A little perspective for those of you from out of town about my Kraft conspiracy theory:

Lawton farm is adjacent directly south of the Stadium, where Mann pond is also listed. Monopoly in the modern corporate age. They can never get enough until they have it all and even then it's still not enough.


Ora Moose's picture

Oh and for the privileged few that road just to the right of the farm aka Putnam pkwy is a private, gated and closed to the public way to escape the stadium for media and VIPs without having to deal with Rt 1 traffic on the main public exits, wonder how Kraft got that land. They've got the farm surrounded and the town officials under control. STAND UP.

Ora Moose's picture

Sorry about the outbursts but I can't not get it out there. My conscience is clear and I'm broke does that sound honest enough? I need some milk in front of the fire, maybe a nice Christmas movie with the wife and some sleep, isn't that what winter storms are for?

mark mcafee's picture

This evening my daughter Kaleigh was out at dinner when she spotted a KMPH Fox News team eating dinner at a table right to her. She approached them and bought them drinks and then went on to corner them on their use of the OPDC labeled products when they had spewed their story about the dangers of Minnesota raw milk.

They where so embarrassed and begged her forgiveness. They claimed total ignorance of the facts on raw milk and swore to carry a retraction and a pro raw milk story.

I appreciate the support to litigate for defamation of brand etc....that I have heard here at TCP.

In years past I would have gone after the legal jugular. Not anymore.....

Christ taught people to turn the other cheek when attacked or hurt....the ultimate response is turning the other cheek and instead Educate!!! OPDC sales have never been higher. OPDC safety has never been tighter or better. OPDC consumers have never been more in love with their health and their raw milk!!

I will approach Fox News...not with a lawsuit, but an opportunity to get the story straight and show what a great food safety program we have and show the errors of the highly biased story authored in Minnesota.

David you are right....the CDC and affiliated agencies and industry have taken a straight up the middle media attack strategy against RAWMI and OPDC. The problem is that OPDC and other raw milk producers customers love and trust their farmers and do not trust the FDA or CDC or big Ag. This article falls on deaf ears and just fuels the consumers disdain of government and biased science. Watch sales rise even faster now...

Our consumers have done their tests and studies and they do not need some Minnesota data twister to tell them anything. If raw milk had safety issues any where close to the massive assumptions made by the Minnesota study....CDFA and DPH would have shut it down years ago!!

Can not wait to spread this newest raw milk information around like so much fertile manure!

Desperate agencies and industries do desperate things.

David Gumpert's picture

Mark, I am going to be joining you in alerting news media people I know about the bogus research methodology and analysis from the CDC. Much as I would like to see some kind of court action against the CDC to create a public record, I am not sure that is a good use of our collective time and energy. 

As part of its mission statement, the CDC has a "Pledge to the American People" that includes this: "Base all public health decisions on the highest quality scientific data that is derived openly and objectively." This is among a number of high-sounding objectives.

The good news, as you suggest, is that lots of people will see through the corrupt data the CDC is spewing, and will do the opposite of what it is recommending. That means more people seeking out nutrient-dense food. It's just unfortunate public education has to take place in such an obtuse and cynical way. 


Shelly-D.'s picture

Court action will likely be the only action they'll pay any attention to.

D. Smith's picture

Court action is the only action they CAN pay attention to because they are not their own bosses. They are under the thumb of the Dept of Health and Human Services (an oxymoron if ever I saw one) and branches like that understand nothing but lawyerspeak; so until and unless "good, credible science" can come up with irrefutable and indisputable evidence to the contrary of the junk science on the CDC web site about raw milk in this instance, and actually get those numbers out to the general public in the form of a nod from the court system in favor of that evidence (so the printed stats have to change to reflect the truth and not a bunch of massaged numbers), about 95% of the public is going to believe in the current CDC stats. People are sheeple and tend to believe our wonderful gubment is helping to protect us. I can find more ways they are harming us than they are protecting us in short order, and so could everyone and anyone else if they really wanted to know the truth. Bogus flu statistics, bogus vaccination information alllllllll across the board, and the list goes on and on to infinity and beyond . . .

Ken Conrad's picture

The following article states, “The American health system is fatally flawed, and to quote Brunetti, the entire system is “about to implode because it’s just too costly, it’s too vast, it’s too bureaucratically encumbered, and it’s not dealing with the fundamental reasons of why we’re unhealthy.” I couldn’t have said it better myself. I also agree with him when he says that one of the fundamental reasons why Americans are so unhealthy is because we’re ignoring the fact that humans are agricultural beings. We’re supposed to be connected to the land that feeds and sustains us.”

The article goes on to quote Brunetti who states,“We need to have an identification with the fact that soil systems and ecosystems at large are the breadbasket, and we’re destroying them. Until there’s some kind of campaign globally that says we have to stop the madness of destroying our ecosystem, which supports not just the many, many thousands of species that we’re annihilating every year but also ourselves, I’m not very hopeful. But by the same token, we can turn it around. What I am hopeful about is that we still have time to fix it.”

The “bureaucratically encumbered” health care system is more then “not dealing with the fundamental reasons of why we’re unhealthy”; it nurtures and exacerbates the problem of poor health
via exaggeration, biased manipulation and outright skullduggery, as is the case with the Foxborough incident.


mark mcafee's picture

Thank you David....Monday morning we will be working on our media education strategy.

rawmilkmike's picture

Please someone tell me what I'm doing wrong. Why does no one comment on this post? Is the meaning not clear or does everyone think it's to foolish to even entertain. I know it's not because everyone agrees. Does it need a rewrite for clarity? What is it?

These numbers come directly from a resent CDC report on a cucumbers, salmonella outbreak. It is a typical example of what the CDC passes off as a so call out break of foodborne illness.

1.Illness; diarrhea and not cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, lactose intolerance etc. Aren't these what the public would naturally assume the state is referring to when they say illness?

2.Food; only agricultural commodities and not canned food, cakes, cookies, candy, soda, chocolate milk etc. They are totally ignoring the really toxic foods that make up the majority of our diet. They actually have us afraid of spinach and sprouts, two of the healthiest foods on the planet.

3.Outbreak; 73 cases in 3 months, while the nearly 300 million other cases of diarrhea in this country are not even acknowledged. The average American gets diarrhea 3 times a year. There was no evidence to show that these 73 cases were actually caused by salmonella.

4.Association; cucumbers, because 67% of the 45 ill interviewed ate cucumbers while only 44% of the well people surveyed ate cucumbers and not because of any actual Salmonella contamination found.

5.Blame; 2 Mexican producers because 6 of the 45 ill interviewed eat their cucumbers and not because of any actual Salmonella contamination found.

Rawmilkmike, 10/9/2013
“October 7, 2013, There’s an outbreak of illnesses from salmonella in chicken. A total of 278 people in 18 states have been sickened from March 1 to September 24, 2013. More alarming is the fact that 42% of those sickened have been hospitalized, and that the pathogen seems resistant to treatment with antibiotics. But no recall has been announced and the agency’s Food Safety and Inspection Service “is unable to link the illnesses to a specific product and a specific production period,””
278 cases of diarrhoea out of 546 million in the U.S. over a seven month period is not an outbreak. And the agency’s Food Safety and Inspection Service “is unable to link the illnesses to a specific product and a specific production period,”. Usually, Salmonella infections resolve spontaneously, and antibiotics are contraindicated...
Rawmilkmike, 10/9/2013
Is there any proof that there has ever been an outbreak of foodborne illness(diarrhea) caused by foodborne pathogenic bacteria? We know the average American gets diarrhea three times a year but what is the cause. The CDC would have us believe it is caused by a hand full of naturally occurring bacteria that they admit do not cause illness in most people. The most common cause of diarrhea is malnutrition. Considering the American diet isn't that a much more likely explanation? Of course this doesn't mean we should all stop cooking our chicken but it does make you wonder. How can we take the CDC seriously if they don't know the difference between milk and cheese or the difference between raw milk and improperly pasteurized milk? If they can invent HIV they can certainly invent a foodborne pathogen.
Recently the CDC blamed 2 Mexican producers of cucumbers for causing an outbreak of foodborne illness. When you go to their website you find out that they are really only talking about 73 cases of diarrhea over a 3 month period. There are nearly 300 million cases of diarrhea in this country over that length of time. You also find that 39 of the 73 people didn't even eat their cucumbers. Is their any truth at all in their story? They didn't even test the cucumbers. 15 of the ill didn't even eat cucumbers and 28 weren't interviewed at all.
rawmilkmike | Thu, 10/10/2013 |

Ora Moose's picture

RMMike, I'd say it's not at all foolish and many of your points are echoed here on a regular basis. It could actually be that everyone agrees and don't want to just post "me too."

Or, maybe it's too broad and most people would prefer to respond to a single point rather than the entire spectrum. Malnutrition is an entire different issue than food sanitation/ contamination and safety. Choose your spots. Eat well and be healthy.

mark mcafee's picture


I will comment on your post. I agree with you. None of us can fathom the type of culture or language spoken inside the military clothed CDC and FDA brick buildings in Maryland. To question their concepts dogmas, paradigms is to find themselves outside of their promotional tracts. Think military when you think CDC.....think military when you consider the FDA. When they show up for food safety presentations they wear naval officer garb and mostly refuse to even speak to anyone that has not paid for access....or anyone without a uniform. When I attempted to speak to one of these food actually ran away from me at the NCIMS conference in Orlando Florida years ago. Kind of funny... A military person scared of a raw milk producer?? Not joking!!

They are not free to think....they are not free to innovate, not ven free to talk or discuss. They do what they are down and all in lock step-synch.

We should expect much less from an organization that is based on 18th century challenges and committed to 18th century solutions. This even though they fund through the NIH the most advanced research in the world that fully contradicts their poured and set in concrete military mission of killing everything to make things safer.

We wil get real progress when we get a president with some real balls and the FDA and CDC is forced to evolve or die itself as a matter of public health and national security. Their present mission is fully corrupted and taking America over the edge by not using NIH research and instead they deny its existence as they support policy for Food Inc politics over public health.

This will bite them on the ass very soon.

Shelly-D.'s picture

At the same time, attending their conferences, responding to their numerous tweets* and submitting rebuttals to their journals, newsletters, and media releases is necessary. Eventually some of them will want to dialogue.

And if we do and say nothing, then they win the propaganda war and the "general public" will believe them, because that is the only side the public will hear.

*The CDC and anti-raw-milk "experts" flood Twitter from the comfort of their offices with anti-raw-milk propaganda, a constant flow of repeating and retweeting anti-raw-milk tweets - check out on any weekday).

rawmilkmike's picture

Shelly, I would like to say; yes if only to “wear out the saints” but I found out that term actually means “oppress the holy people”.
wear out the saints - Daniel 7:25

New Living Translation
He will defy the Most High and oppress the holy people of the Most High. He will try to change their sacred festivals and laws, and they will be placed under his control for a time, times, and half a time.
New American Standard Bible
'He will speak out against the Most High and wear down the saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make alterations in times and in law; and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time.
King James Bible
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
He will speak words against the Most High and oppress the holy ones of the Most High. He will intend to change religious festivals and laws, and the holy ones will be handed over to him for a time, times, and half a time.

And what about “change their sacred festivals and laws” ?
In the Western world, the birthday of Jesus Christ has been celebrated on December 25th since AD 354, replacing an earlier date of January 6th. The Christians had by then appropriated many pagan festivals and traditions of the season, that were practiced in many parts of the Middle East and Europe, as a means of stamping them out.

By holding Christmas at the same time as traditional winter solstice festivals, church leaders increased the chances that Christmas would be popularly embraced, but gave up the ability to dictate how it was celebrated. By the Middle Ages, Christianity had, for the most part, replaced pagan religion. On Christmas, believers attended church, then celebrated raucously in a drunken, carnival-like atmosphere similar to today's Mardi Gras. Each year, a beggar or student would be crowned the "lord of misrule" and eager celebrants played the part of his subjects. The poor would go to the houses of the rich and demand their best food and drink. If owners failed to comply, their visitors would most likely terrorize them with mischief. Christmas became the time of year when the upper classes could repay their real or imagined "debt" to society by entertaining less fortunate citizens.

rawmilkmike's picture

Yes, that's why they call him the surgeon general but what does that have to do with flawed epidemiological evidence?

mark mcafee's picture


The battle then becomes one of truth. The CDC and FDA will definitely have the mainstream media and the unconscious snoozing American masses. But....the CDC and FDA will successfully piss off the raw milk nation.

In the past the Anerican consuming population may have been fairly narrow and nichie it is very broad and deeper by the day. There is nothing that the CDC and FDA can say or do that will persuade the consumers of raw milk that know the truth and have experienced in first hand in their lives. All of this CDC and FDA blather will push our movement forward even faster and make the successes of RAWMI stand even more!!

It is sad that scientists at the FDA and CDC are obligated to leave their science at the door when they come to work. Instead they work as robotic lemmings doing what they are told. Ignoring the great work done by their very own NIH and human biome projects. Ignoring and suppressing the great work of the UC Davis international milk genomics consortium group.

The bigger the lie the easier it is adopted as policy. That is the current FDA &CDC strategy. One truth that can not be denied....the market death of fluid pasteurized milk. Their is nothing that the CDC and or FDA can do to resuscitate that dying fluid market. Consumers simply refuse to buy it!!!

I know our consumers well...they will buy OPDC just because the FDA and CDC says not too...

They will also tell everyone they know to buy raw milk because of what it has done for their families.

Sounds like the CDC and FDA are just plain screwed. I have heard from very reliable inside the CDC and
FDA sources that the old guard is retiring and dyng off and going with them is their dogma. The young feel differently and many consume raw milk in the closet.

Time and education combined with huge market building and lack of a food safety target for them to shoot at will be the roots of true change.

Shawna Barr's picture

I assume that the reason funds were appropriated to the writing of this paper was to increase public safety by discouraging consumers from drinking raw milk.

I don't think that strategy is working to acheive those desired results.

I would suggest that the funds, time, and research ability that went into the publication of this paper would be much better spent on research and education for better practices in safe raw milk production. This is how illness will be decreased, and safety improved. Raw milk consumption is not going away. But, we can equip producers to follow good practices, and improve consumer savvy and choice.

David Gumpert's picture

I have been involved in conceiving and planning a number of major research projects during my days as a business editor (at Harvard Business Review and Inc. Magazine) and in the process of writing business books. I mostly researched trends in venture capital and the dynamics of launching and running a a business. I also passed on dozens of research projects I wasn't directly involved in. I can tell you that a lot of effort, and money, goes into planning and developing a research project like the one the CDC and MN Dept of Health did on raw milk drinkers in MN. They went through more than 20,000 case histories. They appear to have interviewed nearly 400 raw milk drinkers who had had food-borne illness.  It required a huge amount of researcher time to carry out. 

So before you do any of that you do a lot of upfront spade work-- you decide what you want to learn, the methodology you will employ, what benefits there might be in the data you gather, and what kind of public interest there might be in the results. You have to articulate those big-picture ideas to convince the people who control the purse strings that the research is worth doing, compared with other projects seeking funding.  A key component of the CDC-MN research was making the connection between "unsolved" food-borne illnesses and raw milk. But rather than going into the project to try to truly learn something about whether and how raw milk might have played a role in the illnesses, and its influence on the individuals' overall health (for example, make correlations between how long the individuals had been drinking raw milk, along with the sources of their milk, and their experiences with chronic conditions like asthma and allergies), the researchers made the huge leap, before doing any investigation, that these individuals contracted their illnesses from raw milk. They then gathered "demographic" info about these individuals--their race, age, etc. Now, granted, doing that more complicated investigation would have been challenging, more time consuming, and there was no guarantee clear correlations would have come out of it. Such research might have provided evidence that the bulk of those who became ill had been drinking raw milk a short time, and obtained it from dairies that primarily serve the conventional milk marketplace. But that is part of the challenge of serious research--determining how much risk you are willing to take to possibly obtain significant results geared toward improving safety, while knowing you could come up against dead ends. 

In the CDC/MN research, clearly the decision was made early on that the research could be slanted via its methodology to guarantee results that would slam raw milk. It was also decided that the main criteria in going forward was the amount of publicity that could be obtained. Everyone involved knew that the fear-mongering associated with slamming raw milk (or any food) as especially dangerous was a guarantee of wide press coverage, given the willingness of the media to accept at face value whatever the CDC puts out. 

Now, as Mark McAfee points out, the down side in all this for the researchers is that the public has become increasingly skeptical about food-related info put out by public health. Some unknown, but growing number of people sees this info and discounts it as just another example of those involved in public health misleading, even lying, about food dangers. It's unfortunate on a number of counts--lost credibility by the CDC is a huge loss, very difficult to win back--but primarily because, as you say, it doesn't help the cause of producing and consuming the safest possible raw milk, which is what most of us are concerned about. 

Shawna Barr's picture

"Some unknown, but growing number of people sees this info and discounts it as just another example of those involved in public health misleading, even lying, about food dangers. It's unfortunate on a number of counts--lost credibility by the CDC is a huge loss, very difficult to win back--but primarily because, as you say, it doesn't help the cause of producing and consuming the safest possible raw milk, which is what most of us are concerned about."

David, I see this frequently. We post an FDA warning about raw milk at our point of pick-up, as per our written RAMP. The warning is accurate and worth considering: if there are pathogens present in raw milk, they can make you sick and certain populations are more at risk than others...particularly children.

Do you think our share members pay any attention to that warning?

Largely they do not, because it bears the title FDA, and that acronym is generally not trusted by this population. It could be that there is a perceived agenda. It could be that the FDA also tells them that high fructose corn syrup and GMOs and aspartame are safe. I'm sure the reasons are multi-factorial.

So rather ironically, it is my husband and I who assume the responsibility of educating our share members about what goes into high-quality, low-risk raw milk. I believe every parent, every wife whose husband is recovering from chemo, every pregnant mom, needs to understand risks and their managment in order to make an informed choice about what they eat.

Our share members will hear this information from me...a mom with a liberal arts degree. But they won't hear the same information if it comes in a bulletin with a CDC or FDA heading. Go figure.

rawmilkmike's picture

Shawna, you sound a lot like the CDC. "research and education for better practices in safe raw milk production." Haven't we spent enough time and money on that as well? Is raw milk really inherently dangerous? Is bacteria count raw milks only quality?

rawmilkmike's picture

"research and education for better practices in safe raw milk production." Is there really a difference? Is raw milk inherently dangerous? Is bacteria count raw milk's only quality?

Well, this is misleading--

In a new policy statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics has advised children, infants and pregnant women not to consume any raw milk or raw milk products from cows, goats or sheep.

Although the sale of unpasteurized milk products is legal in 30 states, the academy says that the evidence of the benefits of pasteurization to food safety is overwhelming, and that the benefits of any elements in raw milk that are inactivated by pasteurization have not been scientifically demonstrated.

The report, published Monday in Pediatrics, notes that many species of harmful bacteria have been found in unpasteurized milk products, including Listeria, Salmonella, Escherichia coli and Cryptosporidium, among others.

In a study published last week in Emerging Infectious Diseases, researchers estimated that over the past 10 years in Minnesota, where raw milk is legally sold, more than 17 percent of those who consumed it became ill.

“There are no proven nutritional advantages of raw milk,” said a lead author, Dr. Jatinder Bhatia, the chief of neonatology at Georgia Regent University in Augusta. “Further, raw milk and milk products account for a significant proportion of food borne illnesses in Americans. There is no reason to risk consuming raw milk.”

Are cheeses made from raw milk less likely to be contaminated? “No,” Dr. Bhatia said. “They have the same potential.”

David Gumpert's picture

Yes, it is quickly becoming a matter of "fact": "….over the past 10 years in Minnesota, where raw milk is legally sold, more than 17 percent of those who consumed it became ill."

rawmilkmike's picture

"Tonight's forecast: dark. Turning turning to widely scattered light in the morning." 100% of the people who drank raw milk in 1902 are now dead.

Ora Moose's picture

If any out of twon people wish to follow the procedings at the Foxboro meeting tonight, here is their website link. Not sure if they will actually show it live or just on tape delay.

mark mcafee's picture

As the Chairman of RAWMI, I am proud to report that our board just agreed to post a position statement with regards to the Minnesota Raw Milk Study on Unreported-Illnesses.

It will be formally posted in a couple of days.

Lets just say this: All raw milk is not produced equally.

To make the case that all raw milk is "dangerously the same" is the strategy being employed here by the CDC and the authors of this agenda riddled, highly biased junk science article.

Quietly...I am rejoicing. This is a sign of deep success at RAWMI and in our market building and educating efforts!!

I am troubled by the deep denial being suffered by the National Association of Pediatrics. They have failed their kids and sent them off to more allergies and 9 deaths a day from Asthma. We all know that raw milk heals and prevents Asthma ( PARSIFAL, GABRIELA, PASTURE, AMISH name just a few ).

When 8 kids have died after drinking pasteurized fluid milk or pasteurized dairy products since 1998 ( anaphylactic reactions ) what kind of sick uninformed doctor would not do their homework and recognize that breast milk is raw milk. Breast milk has 700 kinds of bacteria in it and kids thrive on breast milk.

I will be producing a special educational video this week to address this Pediatrian ignorance problem.

I would have preferred for pediatrics association to have made a policy statement that said:
While raw milk clearly has some medical benefits as shown by numerous studies performed in the EU, not all raw milk is produced the same. You must be careful if you are in a place that does not have legal, tested, inspected raw milk. You must know your farmer and his practices or you may not know what you are drinking.

Even Doctor OZ has come out in support of raw milk and its benefits but with the Caveat that you need to know the practices of the farmer to assure that it is safe.

This is the war we find ourselves fighting. It is a battle of education.

To is simple...our customers know the truth. All we must do is continue to educate adn safely feed our markets and these desperate media misstruths will back fire and just increase our market strength again....when will they ever learn.

The public trusts their farmers more than the government and now even more than their doctors. How sad.

Why would a mom provide her child the MOST ALLERGENIC food in America??
Yes....the FDA has pasteurized milk listed as the MOST ALLERGENIC food in America.

It is crazy speak. These are the battle strategies of a dying fluid milk market and its protective agencies.

The LA Times just called me to ask questions about the Pediatricians Press release statement. I educated the LA TIMES and they get it. Not all raw milk is produced equally!! The Minnesota Article would like for everyone to think that it is all the same and it is all extremely dangerous.

We have definitely poked the bear!!

We will see how this goes.

Shawna Barr's picture

Where's the "Like" button?

Ken Conrad's picture

“Even a blind pig finds a truffle now and then.”


D. Smith's picture

@ Ken: What do they mean "could" pose health risks? We've known since at least 2000 that triclosan is dangerous ( ) and there are a few others which fall into the same category. A lot of the "let's kill all the bacteria" products from much earlier in time have been questioned over the years, too, but not much was done so as not to rock the proverbial $$ boat. It's one of the big reasons I started looking into things like clay, charcoal and essential oils a LONG time ago.

D. Smith's picture

I don't know why my comments keep posting twice lately.

I make up my own blend of 4 Thieves oil. This is the behind it and their recipe

I do not care for the scent of tea tree or eucalyptus oils, so I substitute lavender or juniper or fir. Even though there are usually five oils used, there's a reason it's called 4 Thieves but you hafta read the story to find out. :-D)

Ken Conrad's picture

D, It’s a crapshoot trying to understand FDA’s ludicrous behavior. What appears to be an irrational response or action on their part is in reality, cunningly rational.


D. Smith's picture

@ Ken: You sure are right about that. Wolves in sheeps clothing, as the old saying goes. The whole system is daft, IMPHO.

David Gumpert's picture

Big win tonight in Foxboro, MA, as the three members of the Board of Health looked out over the 300 raw milk supporters who jammed the school auditorium and voted against taking over regulation of Lawton's Family Farm. "We have heard your voice," the chairman, Paul Mullins, told the audience, to loud cheers and applause. It only happened because so many supporters of raw milk and their local farmer were willing to brave the icy conditions and make their views known. More to come…. 

Ora Moose's picture

Geat news, I wish I could have been there as this was like the Woodstock of raw milk. My wife did make it along with friends and neighbors, but due to personal health reasons I couldn't. Democracy at work, sometimes it does win over corruption and money interests.

Don't give up the great white way as Gordon might say.

rawmilkmike's picture

I just found out that there's no such thing as a cancer survivor if they get chemo or radiation because both destroy the heart muscle and valves. My cousin, a breast cancer survivor just dropped dead at 54 and my sister, a Hodgkin's survivor has valve damage and is now losing weight at 48.

Dr William Donald Kelly proved that a diagnosis of ‘cancer’ is not a death sentence. He helped 30,000 people cure themselves of the various forms of it | see his book “One Answer to Cancer”.
Dr Johanna Budwig gave us the best general theory of cancer combined with a practical remedy. But the Budwig protocol is too simple and too cheap, to be accepted by the Establishment. Her premise being = the human body is ( among other systems ) an electrical phenomenon, which need an intake of electrons, she prescribed a specific diet, especially, cold-pressed flax seed oil taken with quark / cottage cheese. These 2 essentials carry electrons = bonded with sulfur compounds = right down to the cellular level.
Get the facts : think for yourself

Ken Conrad's picture

It wouldn’t surprise me if Fluoroquinolone antibiotics, a derivative of Quinolones, the original synthetic chemotherapeutic agents developed in the late seventies and early eighties, could have the same potential damaging effect on the heart. Fluoroquinolones are synthetic agents that include the addition of the fluorine atom. These Quinolone/Floroquinolone drugs are known to cause tendon inflamtion and spontaneous tendon ruptures.


rawmilkmike's picture

I'll try and look into that. Thanks Ken.

mark mcafee's picture

We the people have spoken!!!! En masse!!! I am standing in ovation out in Fresno CA. A deep congratulations for the success of this truly grass roots support that changed history today in Foxborough MA.

The LA Times anti-raw milk article did quote me today. At least I got a word in edgewise. I know so many pediatricians in CA that prescribe raw milk for their patients. I also know many OB docs that strongly encourage raw milk for pregnant moms....the gift of IgA immunoglobulins in the cord blood of the new born ( when moms drink raw milk when preg ) is a gift of allergy resistance for life!! Not one listeria case can be found in the CDC database related to raw milk!!!! The CDC misinformation campaign has just breached the outrageous and is well into the numbing sublime. Are we in 2013? Or are we in in some other alternative reality?? Desperate agencies do desperate things...lies from uniformed paramilitary robots that operate in lock step with their masters in the corporate FOOD Inc world that is totally removed from consumers voices and EU published science....this is crazy. I am a cheated tax payer.

mark mcafee's picture

I wrote an extensive email to Dr. Yvonne Maldonado MD at Stanford University. She was the lead pediatrician to write the policy position for the National Academies of Pediatrics. She denies that there is any evidence of benefit from raw milk. My email included links to seven peer reviewed internationally published raw milk articles or studies that also show up on her PubMed searches that explain in gruesome detail the benefits of raw milk consumption .... and are posted at the NIH. As a doctor she should know better than cheat science and lie. Shame on her. Children deserve better doctors. 9 asthma deaths per day seems to be just fine for doctor Maldonado. The culture of excused death by doctor is alive and well. I can not wait to produce our you tube to expose all of this to our consumers.

When will the CDC and FDA ever learn? There is an inverse relationship between the FDA and CDC harassment of raw milk and its increased consumption and consumer market interest. Every thing thrown at us becomes fuel for our movement. A strange blessing in a very twisted package.

Ora Moose's picture

Mark, we are the salmon swimming upstream you know that. And you also know that distortions and out right lies are a potent weapon to mislead the sheep that are the 90 %.

But we can't give up, especially in the light of Foxboro decision am very proud of the few of us that bothered to make a difference.

D. Smith's picture

Is your chicken dinner making you sick?

This is revealing:

For its report "The High Cost of Cheap Chicken," Consumer Reports tested over 300 raw chicken breasts, including some labeled as organic and antibiotic free, at national retailers. The study found that nearly all (97 percent) had potentially harmful bacteria, and roughly half (49.7 percent) the chicken sampled contained at least one multidrug-­resistant bacterium.
[end quote]

The report found enterococcus in 79.8 percent of the samples; e. coli in 65.2 percent; campylobacter in 43 percent; klebsiella pneumoniae in 13.6 percent; salmonella in 10.8 percent; and staphylococcus aureus in 9.2 percent.

Of those with e coli, 17.5 percent of the bugs were “ExPEC” bacteria, a type the report says is "more likely than other types to make you sick with a urinary-tract infection."
[end quote]

"Making chicken safer to eat will require a revamping of the way that it’s raised and processed," the report states.
[end quote]

All quotes taken from this link - - ->

I thought it was interesting that the box shown in the photo of the article said "no hormones or steroids ADDED". It doesn't say the chickens were raised without the use of either it simply says they weren't added. See the power of whirrrds? The general public will most likely interpret that to mean that no hormones or steroids were ever used in or on the meat at any time. That may not be entirely true.

D. Smith's picture

The only "safety agenda" the corporate controlled agencies (read: CDC, USDA, etc) are worried about is their own ability to meddle in the healthy food industry and protect their own assets. Check this out:

“The reason companies don’t publicize it is that they don’t want to bring attention to these ingredients. They want to slowly start to remove them until they’re all gone,” said Vani Hari, who runs the site and has pressured companies to remove artificial dyes and other ingredients.
[end quote]

Do you suppose he actually believes what he just wrote?? He's trying to say that companies are hiding the truth to "protect us" until they can eliminate certain ingredients. (??) Uh, no. They are protecting themselves until they can figure out ways to continue hiding questionable ingredients.

That quote came from the article at this link - - ->

ingvar's picture

I think Sriracha has been mentioned here already, but for those that missed it:

Last week California health regulators ordered the makers of Sriracha hot sauce to suspend operations for 30 days. The 30-day hold comes despite the fact the product has been on the market for more than three decades and that “no recall has been ordered and no pathogenic bacteria have been found[.]”
So what’s the issue?
The problem, reports the Pasadena Star News, is that Sriracha is a raw food.
“Because Sriracha is not cooked, only mashed and blended, Huy Fong needs to make sure its bottles won’t harbor dangerous bacteria,” writes the Star News.
Aren’t three decades of sales sufficient proof of that fact?
“The regulations outlining this process have been in existence for years,” writes California health department official Anita Gore, in a statement she sent to L.A. Weekly, “but the modified production requirements were established for the firm this year.”
In other words, the state changed the rules of the game.

The above is from

At the
This development has been noted: "California Regulators Go After Sriracha Hot Sauce. . . "

". . . David Tran, founder of Huy Fong Foods, fled communist Viet Nam to come to our shores for freedom and a chance at self-reliance and economic self-determination . Unfortunately, the successors of commies, the leftists of the Democrat Party, may drive Tran out of California into a friendlier environment. . . ."

Perhaps David Tran needs to plug in to what is discussed here everyday for years.

Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard

D. Smith's picture

Yeah, don't let three decades of safe sales influence anything. But gee whiz, the regulators need something to do, man.

Also, here's a little more on the Earthbound Farms takeover, too. Not QUITE what people thought in the beginning - and maybe a whole lot worse. BTW, Dean Foods technically doesn't own whitewave. Or so says this article:

Apparently no one from that august association, or anyone now or ever affiliated with it, has any scruples at all. Fibbing seems to be second nature to them.

rawmilkmike's picture

Mark, this is nothing new they have had this table of multipliers for years. This is just the first time someone's used them in this way. Don't forget the initial 21 associations are based on an assumption made by doctors that all diarrhea in raw milk consumers is caused by the raw milk they consume. It's been smoke and mirrors from the beginning.

“The public health profession has its marching orders from the” owners of the pharmaceutical industry.

“More significant, once you have established the precedent of concocting out of thin air statistics that have no basis in fact, you are then free to regularly report phantom illnesses from raw milk, even if the actual officially tabulated number” is zero.

You know the dollar is printed with the blood and sweat of the working man and the value of any currency is determined by supply and demand not it's intrinsic value.

“You think I am exaggerating when I accuse the CDC of making up illnesses?” First they coin a new phrase ”foodborne illness” and give it an arbitrary meaning “diarrhea”.
The initial associations are based on an assumption made by doctors that all diarrhea in raw milk consumers is caused by the raw milk they consume not on any actual investigation.

“After all, it is quite a serious accusation(not to mention the cost in dollars, pain, and human life) that serious scientists would fabricate their numbers.” These are not real scientists. They are epidemiologists and they aren't the ones publishing the data in a misleading fashion hoping we will jump to ridiculous conclusions.

“It is, in the academic world, a reason for invalidating the research, and dismissing tenured professors.” Of course the CDC doesn’t do real research on raw milk.

“during the study period after consuming raw milk.” the study period “21 illnesses over ten years.”

It is true the decision to record a case of diarrhea as foodborne illness is most likely arbitrary but remember most parents don't take their kids to the doctor for diarrhea.

Let them try and find the “one in six” cow share members “sickened each year by foodborne illness” Put up or shut up.

A farmer can jump through all the hoops in the world but what if his milk was never the cause in the first place?