Strange Timing of Pediatricians' New, New, Old, Old, Slam of Raw Milk; Same Old Cheap-Chicken Story

When I saw news Monday that the American Academy of Pediatrics had issued a major warning about raw milk, I thought it sounded familiar.  The warning was picked up widely, by the Los Angeles Times, Reuters, ABC News, and other mainstream media, as if it was hot off the presses.

 

But hadn’t the AAP in years previous joined the chorus of medical alphabet organizations in condemning raw milk? Sure enough, a Google search produced several references to AAP warnings against raw milk, including one from 2008

 

So.....what was the organization doing issuing another, making believe it was some new piece of policy from the organization representing some 60,000 pediatricians? 

 

Even more curious, why was the recommendation coming just five days after the U.S. Centers for Disease Control dropped its bombshell that, unbeknownst to raw milk drinkers, thousands were becoming ill from phantom illnesses?

 

I decided to inquire with the AAP about the strange timing of events, and was put in touch with one of the authors of the academy’s policy statement, Jatlinder Bhatia. He refused to speak with me, but agreed to answer a few questions by email. 

 

Yes, he said, the AAP had previously come out against raw milk. So, was there something new in the statement issued earlier this week? 

 

Not really. “AAP reaffirms or retires statements every five years; the (new) statement reiterates and updates,” he said. 

 

So.....was there something going on to prompt this new, new, old, old recommendation? Only one thing: the “increased perception that raw milk is ‘good’ for you.” In other words, the growing popularity of raw milk and the resulting buzz that people are seeing health benefits seems to be making the docs nervous. 

 

He defended the AAP’s position in going beyond even what the CDC and FDA have pushed for, by demanding a complete ban on raw milk sales nationally, along with a ban on sale of soft cheeses, even those aged more than 60 days and long allowed under FDA rules. The concern? 

 

“AAP always stands for prevention of diseases and protecting children’s health. Therefore, banning raw milk sales could potentially have the benefit of decreased or limited access and thereby reduce risk.” 


(Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy Co. provides some detailed assessment of the AAP policy statement in comments following my previous post.)

 

Dr. Bhatia was more circumspect in answering my questions about whether the AAP’s new, new, old, old policy statement might somehow have been timed to come out around the same time as the CDC Minnesota study, which has clearly been in process for many months minimum. 

 

When I asked about “how long the AAP statement was in development and planning,” Dr. Bhatia replied curtly, “Not relevant.” 

 

To my next question, “To what extent was the AAP statement on Monday issued to coordinate with the CDC study?”, he said, “No coordination.” 

 

No coordination, but a refusal to discuss timing of how the AAP statement came about. I suppose we are left to form our own conclusions. For example, the AAP re-statement and the CDC “study” being issued not only in quick succession, but just weeks before many state legislators go into session. And just like the CDC’s study concluded with the suggestion that states restrict raw milk access, the AAP’s final sentence is this: “Pediatricians are encouraged to advocate for more restrictive laws regarding the sale and distribution of raw milk and raw dairy products.” 

 

You have to give the docs credit for some excellent PR acumen. They took their rigid years-old anti-raw-milk approach, dusted it off, and made it look as if it was new, and obtained wide media coverage. Their only problem may be the same as that of the CDC--a question of credibility for being so rigidly opposed when so many people are experiencing direct health benefits from raw milk. 

**

Now we learn, yet again, that most chicken being sold at retail is tainted. Consumer Reports  takes the hysterical approach in claiming that “97% of the breasts we tested harbored bacteria that could make you sick.” In point of fact, “only” about 55% harbored serious pathogens like salmonella and campylobacter (though the magazine makes reference to “E.coli” without specifying if any of it was of the O157:H7 or other dangerous variety). 

 

Of greater concern, about half of the bacteria are resistant to at least one antibiotic. So people who get sick from pathogens in chicken may not be able to count on antibiotics to speed their recovery. 

 

CR blames the problem in significant measure on Big Ag’s determination to produce chicken as cheaply as possible, via excessive use of antibiotics, crowding of the animals, and other measures. 


And now comes word from the Marler Blog that illnesses from salmonella-tainted chicken produced by Foster Farms (you'll remember, the corporate outfit that the U.S. Department of Agriculture refused to force into a recall or a shutdown earlier this year) has passed the 400 mark. 

 

Consumer Reports urges the FDA and U.S. Department of Agriculture to take action reducing the use of antibiotics in chickens and forcing the factory-style chicken producers to reduce the presence of bacteria. 


I wonder if Consumer Reports, the AAP, the CDC, or anyone else will recommend restricting the availability of chicken.  And I wonder if there will be any major study to track, and then use “multipliers,” to estimate how many people become sick from chicken. And, oh yes, how many fail to recover because antibiotics won’t help them. Think we’ll see one of those studies? 

mark mcafee's picture

David,

I will take your post as evidence of market and consumer educational success!! As you know, out here in CA we have been very hard at work market building and educating. I am blushing with complimentary congratulations sent via the double hit job attempt via AAP, CDC and our good friends in Minnesota.

I anticipated with interest ( and a little trepidation ) as this weeks sales numbers came in.....yep...just as suspected...sales just broke an all time record. OPDC FB is filled with support and comments of disdain and distrust of AAP, CDC and the Minnesota un-reported raw milk illness report!

Once again my theory of the "inverse association between market love of raw milk verses the attempts at official oppression by anyone!!! " Rings true again!! Especially when that attack is by the government and national agencies with old agendas against raw milk.

I drafted a very carefully written letter today. It will be sent to the editor at the Journal of the AAP. I put my RAWMI bridge building, peace maker, diplomat, educational ex-paramedic out-reach hat on to write the letter. Dr. Maldanado so far has refused to answer my email to her. She was the lead author of the AAP statement.

I come to realize that government and national professional agencies lag raw milk pioneers by at least 10 years. What has been done with RAWMI food safety and CDFA food safety standards and the CA market place is out in front of the general raw milk political condition in North America by at least 10 years. As a result....we are pioneering misfits and our results conflict with conventional thought.

It will take thick skin on our part and time...plenty of it, before the lagging policies catch up. I predict at least 10 years more. The time will accelerate with the ever weakening pasteurized milk market decline.

I will e-publish my letter to the AAP journal by next week. Today we tried to make a video to capture the message that I wrote in my letter...but the message did not carry like I intended. Considering the fact that our markets could care less about anything other than a promise to make sure there raw milk is never missing from he shelf...I think I will just starve the lion. Anything I do to try and combat the AAP just feeds the beast. Time to feed our consumers and starve the AAP. They are back ground noise and not very loud at that. If anything their non progressive biased policies just feed us and fuel us.

Shawna Barr's picture

Its interesting that calling for an all-out ban on raw milk is the best that the AAP offers for improving safety of children who drink raw milk, especially considering the recent increase in raw milk consumption. History shows us what happens when certain products are banned in spite of society's demand. They become more unsafe. Producers go underground. Patrons are forced into back alleys to do their deals with producers who have nothing to lose.

Parents are not going to stop feeding their children raw milk. There is too much evidence that it is health-supporting, and parents see it with their own eyes. Since the AAP is "dedicated to the health of all children" , I would love to see them instead call for more education and research to ensure raw milk is low-risk.

A few years ago, when the CDFA tried to ban herdshares in California, raw milk small herd operators could hardly be convinced to email one another, they were so afraid of being harrassed by the milk police. Each one was doing their own thing in their own way, hoping that their production plan was good, but really with very few resouces to guide them. Fast forward a few years, the CDFA has offered a cease-fire on herdshares, and producers have started come out from hiding. They've started asking questions. They are actually talking to one another about how to produce safe raw milk. They are attending RAWMI training days and learning valuable information. And number of illnesses prevented by information and good practices will never be known (but according to my Scallan multipliers, the numbers are to the moon and back).

Transparent dialogue, question-asking, education and innovation cannot happen where there are "bans" and producers are forced underground.

David great reporting and an excellent recap of the MN, CDC and AAP foolishness.

Maybe just maybe, The AAP is talking about raw milk coming from overcrowded "Animal Factories". An animal factory does not feed their animals grass, natures best food for their multi-layered stomach(four to ferment one to digest). What the dairy cow is served at the animal factory, goes into that milk. Thus if you drink raw milk from an animal factory cow, you will drink what they eat....in the raw or not.

Typical feed at a factory farms is not natures best food. The Union Concerned Scientist, on their webpage in 2006, eloquently wrote what the feed, served to your dairy cow is: http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/indus...

I have had problems with milk digestion since the early 1970's. This is most likely due to the number of mercury amalgam fillings the dentist placed in my teeth. All that mercury is not very good for the digestive tract. It is interesting note that the problem with animal factories dates back to the 1800's. Posted on the AAP website I found this piece. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/68/6/780.abstract
In a further search I found the article in a publication from the 1907 AMA, pediatrics division. It states unequivocally: "I am firmly convinced that good milk can not be produced from cows fed on distillery slop hulls screenings wet or dry brewer's grain or sour ensilage I have frequently seen milk produced from swill fed cows cause serious disturbances when fed to infants while milk from cows properly fed would agree perfectly. Milk from swill fed cows has an appalling bacterial content and is hyperacid Those of you who have never visited a dairy barn inhabited by cows fed on this slop can not realize the conditions presented It takes a barrel of swill a day to give a milk cow the equivalent of a properly balanced food This very quickly causes an almost continuous diarrhea the discharges being very acrid and foul The cows are kept tied in their stalls practically continuously and when turned out it is in a sea of liquid manure as a rule The barn reeks in liquid manure the cows flanks and udders are caked with liquid manure the walls are spattered and the mist arising on a cool day from cows floors and walls wet with the manure will make it impossible to see clearly at a distance of fifteen feet The odor is foul beyond description and in this atmosphere the cows are milked by dirty milkmen in dirty uncovered pails which are emptied in dirty uncovered cans standing in the corner of the barn This milk is not cooled in winter or summer and is either retailed from a wagon drawn in measures from the large cans or bottled from the can in front of the customer's residence These facts are not exaggerated and such milk was sold to Louisville infants and invalids until April 1 1907 The public is largely to blame for this condition of affairs As Coit says however ignorance and greed in those engaged in the production of milk prevails and its delicate nature is disregarded in the commercial expedients for its sale A clean and cold milk can not be produced as cheaply as a dirty and contaminated milk and the public Harrington says prefers milk plus cow dung at 8 cents a quart to clean milk not so flavored at 9 or 10 cents ". To read more: http://books.google.com/books?id=UzBYAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA221&img=1&zoom=3&hl=e...

This latest attempt to paint raw milk as dangerous has not nothing to do with your health and mine. It is all about business and the loss thereof if we bypass the animal factories products!

mark mcafee's picture

In my mind there is no question that the AAP refers to CAFO operations in their AAP policies. I do not fault them for that. Where I find weakness and missguided intention is the blatent blanket policy that does not consider raw milk that is " intended for human consumption" that does not come from a PMO regulated CAFO with GMO, Antibiotics, tons of distillers grains, never tested for TB, commingled with 75 other CAFO dairies dirty pathogen filled milk ...etc.

That is the failing of the over broad AAP anti raw milk policy position.

Not all raw milk is produced equally. We must reach out and teach our doctors....obviously their national academy has failed to do so. Next time you visit the pediatrician....do not tremble...& be proud when you report that your child thrives high quality low risk raw milk!! Invite that doctor to join the 21st century.

OPDC is going to be putting together a "parents raw milk teaching tool" that can be used to answer questions that doctors may have about raw milk safety and also studies on raw milk. Should be out next week.

Interesting....we are teaching doctors!!

mark mcafee's picture

http://www.icontact-archive.com/NGPZGNZ0MsM61WcVJ3rpFtQmadS6E0s-?w=2

My hat is off to Edwin Shank and his wonderful assessment of the Minnesota Unstudy of Un-Reported illnesses.

What a great assessment and well written summary. Common sense and logic is still very much alive...thank you Edwin!

Mark

Here is the corrected link to the AMA publication. http://books.google.com/books?id=UzBYAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA222#v=onepage&q&f=false Page 221 "Certified Milke and the General Milk Supply of Louisville", Authored by Henry Enos Tulley, M.D.

mark mcafee's picture

Ecovortx,

When Dr. Coit founded the AAMMC in 1893, he and other doctors were dedicated to clean and safe raw milk for pink cheeked thriving babies! There existed a truce and a fairly balanced "balance of power" between the AAMMC and the industrial powers that demanded cheap processed pasteurized milk for the masses from 1893 to about 1950 aprox . Then began the slide into this current loss of balance.

In the vacume and with the loss of the AAMMC and the doctors that supported clean raw milk....that balance of power shifted and was lost.

Anytime that an army surrenders or vacates the field....the field is occupied by the one that shows up and stays!! All that was needed was to pitch a tent....There was no one else arround!!!

Hence....the reality of today. Raw milk powers left the field and policies and industrial powers began to occupy the markets and minds of those in power. That is exactly why raw milk laws changed, doctors training changed...policies changed ...etc.

We now must retake the "occipied no raw milk lands". It would have been so much easier if the AAMMC stayed the course. A great example of this occuring is in CA. Stueves & Alta Dena stayed the course until May of 1999. OPDC then picked up the ball in 2000 and ran with it ever protecting it as best as our early knowledge would allow us....to protect the laws and rights of raw milk for all of CA. Not easy...we were niave and had to graduate from a school of hard knocks.

In areas that did not have AAMMC and thriving producers to protect the market, the vacume of the loss of the AAMMC allowed laws to change without resistance and clean raw milk was gone.

A great example is Atlanta Georgia. When Jack Mathis and his AAMMC certified raw milk dairy left the raw milk market in 1990...the AAMMC also left...not long after raw milk became illegal and no market left.

We must stand as guardians at the raw milk gate and never let a vacume of influence or power ever be created again. It is one hell of a lot harder to reclaim lost ground than to hold it & keep it.

We all know now the precious gift that clean raw milkcan provide. It is the only gift given by the vacume of the loss of the AAMMC. Only in absence can we fully appreciate what we do not have.

We see the loss in our childrens health in the loss of raw milk access vividly all across the USA. We also see the true treasure of childrens health in those areas where clean raw milk can be accessed!!

Raw Milk is a another food that has been devitalized. Reason Control. Albert Schweitzer knew and wrote books about it. Can we connect via email. 1and1is1

Ora Moose's picture

“AAP always stands for prevention of diseases and protecting children’s health. Therefore, banning raw milk sales could potentially have the benefit of decreased or limited access and thereby reduce risk.”

Wait, isn't it their job to investigate and know what this "potential" is rather than enforce quack science controlled by big money interests? It's pretty easy to see through their ulterior motives and it's not children's health. Maybe sickness and inferior immune systems are more profitable, you think?

As I think I've posted here before - never as a barber if you need a haircut

I went to a doctor for the first time in over 8 years after a fall months ago, and they suggested I must be seeing some other doctor. I told them no, I don't usually need doctors and isn't that actually a good thing? Not for them I guess.

Ora Moose's picture

Quick correction on your article's link to Mark's ODPC website: http://www.organicpastures.com/

D. Smith's picture

Bill Marler's web site uses the title (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Parents DON'T GIVE YOUR KIDS RAW MILK" - - - but he doesn't give the same advice to parents regarding the TWO chicken recalls from Foster Farms. Parent's don't give raw milk to infants only (in a homemade formula or whatever), they also give it to toddlers, as they would also likely do with a home-prepared chicken meal possibly using Foster Farms chickens. Why not the same warning in big letters?? Or, for that matter, why not a big letter warning on any of the "dangerous foods" he reports on his site?

ingvar's picture

Kids and milk.
Whatever you do, DON’T throw them in the wayback machine and go around drinking 1902 big city swill dairy “milk.”

Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard

D. Smith's picture

It's almost as if the illnesses from raw milk piss off the officials worse than the deaths from pasteurized milk.

mark mcafee's picture

How does Bill Marler and or the AAP or the CDC or the FDA or anyone reconcile this question:

Why is it that raw milk becomes ever more popular with any sort of attempt at suppression? Again...my theory of the inverse association between attempted suppression and raw milk demand increase in popularity!!?

After a while you would think that the authorities would figuer this out and stop repeating their obvious mistakes and misscalculations. An attack on raw milk becomes a strangely wrapped gift of sorts! I do not need to do any marketing....the attackers do it all for me! The more raw milk is attacked...the more sales grow!!

Dr. Michele Jay Russel ( one of the investigators involved in the 2008 Conneticut Ecoli incident )shared with me that when she worked hard in Conneticut to change laws to limit or decrease access to raw milk after the raw milk ecoli outbreak there in 2008...it just made things worse as raw milk producers and consumers defended themselves and their choices and no laws changed and raw milk became even more popular.

As a result of this un-rewarding experience, Michele and I have become connected via very routine email and even a nice farm tour at OPDC. She has said to me that raw milk is not going away...we just need to make it safer. I totally agree with Michele on this point although we do not agree on all points. Michele even attended the RAWMI training day in Chico and has opened herself to dialogue about progress!

I will classify Dr. Russel as one of the progressive bright ones. Seriously... She is sharp and understands that at some point, there needs to be rational discussions and a redress of standards. We all know that raw milk can be safe or unsafe depending on standards, conditions and testing and its intended end use. Denial only works so long and then it is just plain denial.

We all know the definition of insane. Well...why do the opponents of raw milk keep on doing the same stupid things over and over again expecting different results?

Perhaps a different approach. How about some meetings and how about looking at the RAWMI data and EU studies..... Just for starters? Sure would make lots of people very happy and possibly ( it is a stretch but possible ) increase a little trust in government and its agencies!

I do not think however that the my theory would reverse itself, and a "reverse trend of decreased sales of raw milk would result if peace and tranquility broke out between the FDA, CDC, RAWMI and raw milk".

Sorry about that...I think it is called "surrender and intellectual acceptance of sound science, proven food safety systems and consumer demand".

Ora Moose's picture

Mark, it is absolutely true that prohibition makes almost anything more attractive. Growing up in Portugal where there was NO drinking age restrictions in the 1950s, I poured drafts and wine and waited on tables at my grandfather's cafe when I was 8 to 13 years old. Then when we came to America, all the other kids my age here wanted to get booze mostly because they couldn't get it. It's a psychological desire that backfires but loses it's mystery and appeal when you can have it anytime you want so be careful what you wish for. Not that I'm saying raw milk sales would decline overall in the long term, but your point about restrictions fueling growth resonates with me.

Shawna Barr's picture

Prohibited, black-market anything is typically less safe as well. (Shall we talk about the war of drugs?)

And in all fairness, denial goes both ways. Both the raw-milk freedom folks and the FDA/Public Health/CDC folks have been guilty of denying that the processes by which raw milk is produced matter. One says the processes don't matter because raw milk is inherently safe and cannot harbor pathogens and the other says processes don't matter because raw milk is inherently dangerous regardless of the processes.

I for one am excited to be a part of a new dialogue.

An answer to the question < ‘why is it that raw milk becomes even more popular with any sort of attempt at suppression?’ > is found in the article last week, by Ken Dryden in the National Post, in which he commented on the scandal to do with Toronto’s mayor. After a fabulous career as the goalie for Les Habs de Montreal, Mr Dryden then was elected as a Member of Parliament. A class act himself, he does know a thing or 2 about politics.
He reasoned that Rob Ford's supporters root all the more for their hero, as his antics get crazier-beyond-words, because the body politic is divided into the 'know-nothings' versus the 'know-it-all's.

The arrogance of the over-educated idiots in the white lab coats, refusing to acknowledge how their theories bring about disastrous results in the real world - so profoundly insults guys like me, that we revel in mocking them. A certain demographic of Toronto-nians feel Rob Ford can do no wrong, because he’s the champion of the tax-serfs against profligate Big Govt.

The parallel with raw milk, being : if Americans know one thing fer sure, it’s that the experts who run the so-called “healthcare system” are not on our side. Being the best articulator of how industrial agriculture is the main cause of dis-ease in Ham-merica, the Campaign for REAL MILK brings unfocused rage against Big Govt to a fine point on particular situations. Perfectly demonstrated by what happened in Foxborough last Monday.

Americans are so deeply suspicious of the legal racket, that when the Establishment drags raw milk proponents into Court, the man in the street sympathizes with us ... "if the gubment's down on them, they must be doing something right!".

For instance : the Fraser Health Authority hauled me into court, charged with being a “threat to the public health” because I was part of the directing mind of a cowshare. Under cross-examination, their expert had to admit that, from his 33 years as a health inspector in British Columbia, he had no evidence of anyone ever getting sick from drinking raw milk.

Contrasted with the prestige of Inspector George Rice + all the heavyweights of the BC Centre for Disease Control, who the heck am I? Oh … just a guy who plays a farmer on tv. … an indigent who couldn’t even afford a haircut for my Court appearance! Yet this “know-nothing” bested them in their own ballpark. Oh, yeah, I did come away with a 3 month gaol sentence ( suspended on condition of good behaviour) … but that’s just water off my back / the price to be paid as a political activist. What really matters is = out of that prosecution, the govt. side came off as fools & the Campaign for REAL MILK got publicity money can’t buy.

The public understands that the ‘know-it-all's got us into this health care crisis ; we = mere ‘know-nothings’ = have part of the practical remedy

comes now ( below ) this report from New Zealand ( the largest dairy farm in the world ) where, reportedly, they have the highest rate of asthma.

So what’s the conclusion of this high-priest in the Cult of the White Robe? Now that the findings of the Gabriella study have been replicated, he still cannot admit that raw milk protects + heals. Oh no, that would be too simple. … Right on cue, he parrots the central party line - < do not drink the stuff! > You can lead someone to the truth, but you can’t make ‘im think

They’re after the majic ingredient so it can be bottled / merchandised according with the regulatory tentacles of the Babylonian system. Coming soon to the shelves of “health food stores” = De-vitalized white powder in a box – an image of the REAL THING on the label. Slap on the DINS # and pay the bribes all the way to the top of the bureaucracy, then “Bob’s yr uncle”. I see this in the stores around here : ‘hydrolyzed whey protein’ for $20 per pound. What the hell is it? Nothing but glorified powdered skim milk!

===================================
Scientists in Wellington are testing claims that raw milk helps prevent asthma, allergies and eczema.
A long time ago the milk we drank actually came straight from cows. But for more than a century most milk has been pasteurised, whereby it is heated then cooled down to lower the risk of bacterial infection. Yet some claim raw milk helps relieve the symptoms of asthma, allergies and eczema in children and adults.
Scientists say there still is not solid evidence it is good for your health.
"We were involved in a number of studies in Europe where we found farmers' children had a much lower prevalence of allergies and asthma," said Professor Jeroen Douwes of the Centre for Public Health research. "And so we repeated the study in New Zealand and also found that farmers' children had about 40% the risk of children in the general population."
Now researchers are trying to prove conclusively whether raw milk is protecting the immune system and boosting the lungs. "It's quite hard to isolate what it is within the farming environment that may be the beneficial factor. So we are focusing our study on non-farming families specifically," said Amanda Eng of the Centre for Public Health Research. Researchers are recruiting urban families nationwide - 300 who already drink raw milk and 150 who opt for supermarket milk.
They will do lung function tests, blood tests and surveys. "If we do find that people who drink raw milk have a different gut micro biome - so in other words the bacteria in the gut are quite different - then we may be able to learn from that which bacteria are beneficial," Professor Douwes said.
New Zealand has one of the highest asthma rates in the world. The rate has nearly doubled in the past 30 years. If researchers are able to prove raw milk does help it, they hope to use whatever is in it to develop a vaccine or even a pill.
Professor Douwes warns consumers shouldn't rush out and buy raw milk. "Drinking raw milk still is associated with an increased risk of very serious infections," he said.
'My asthma cleared up a lot'
Simon Kennedy is a Manawatu dairy farm worker who drinks a litre of fresh milk a day, straight from the cow. "I think my asthma cleared up a lot when I started drinking whole milk," he said. "Like, I got a bit older and sort of looked into it and I reckon drinking whole milk had a lot to do with that."
Mr Kennedy said "watered down" milk doesn't seem right. "I reckon [in] that full cream milk, you've got all the protein, you've got all the readily available fats. For a growing kid, I reckon it's the best."
Researchers say it is possible farmers' children have lower allergy and asthma rates because of multiple factors like greater exposure to animals and the great outdoors.

churchlanefarm's picture

Trust has to be earned Mark!
You don’t merely trust a fox because he claims to have the best interest of your chickens at heart!!!

These alphabet agencies have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated their corporate bias, as well as their contempt for public health and individual freewill.

They’ve got a “long row to hoe” as far as I am concerned. My faith in Jesus may compel me to forgive; it doesn’t say anything about trust.

“Trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”
John Adams

Ken

Mark,
A quick clarification, I was involved with the molecular epidemiological investigation of two Campylobacter dairy-related outbreaks in CA back in 2006-2007: http://jcm.asm.org/content/51/1/195.long

Regarding the 2008 E. coli O157 CT outbreak, I wrote an editorial/commentary for the Clinical Infectious Diseases Journal:
"Raw (Unpasteurized) Milk: Are Health-Conscious Consumers Making an Unhealthy Choice?"
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/51/12/1418.long

Here's a link to the the original manuscript describing that investigation by Guh et al in CT.
"Outbreak of Escherichia coli O157 Associated with Raw Milk, Connecticut, 2008"
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/51/12/1411.long

Also, referenced lists of reported outbreaks/illnesses in the US from both raw dairy and milk products sold as pasteurized are available at www.realrawmilkfacts.com.

Hope that information is helpful. ~Michele

rawmilkmike's picture

Mark, it is foolish for any raw milk farmer or consumer to support any of your milk regulations as they only make it more difficult for farmers to sell raw milk and for consumer to buy it. These regulation are not intended to improve the quality of raw milk in any way. Do you have any proof that even the worst raw swill milk was or is as bad as the best of today's pasteurized milk?
….........................
Mark, was that a Freudian slip? Did you just say that the FDA, CDC, and RAWMI are enemies of raw milk?
…...........................
At times it's hard to see your positive raw milk message amongst the negative.

mark mcafee's picture

http://rawmilkinstitute.net/resources/rawmi-resources/rawmi-position-sta...

The formal position statement made by the RAWMI Board of Directors regarding the CDC backed Minnesota Un-Study of Un-Reported Raw Milk Illnesses.

rawmilkmike's picture

First of all there is no reason to listen to what the AAP has to say about it's competitors product. You don't ask a barber if you need a haircut. There are only 2 reasons for pasteurizing milk. The main reason is that at one time doctors were prescribing raw milk to cure many illnesses and the pharmaceutical industry had to put a stop to that. The other reason is homogenization(see next paragraph). Pasteurization has nothing to do killing pathogens. If it did all milk would be ultra-pasteurized, at the very least. Pasteurization is about destroying enzymes.
…............................
Once upon a time "milk was delivered to the door in glass bottles. One judged the milk by the cream line at the top of the bottle–clearly visible for all to see. But, the dairy industry wanted that cream to make other products. Ice cream, yes, but also cheese." Hence the introduction of homogenization. Once milk is homogenized, it will go rancid within a matter of hours if it is not pasteurized. “Once the dairy industry took the homogenizing step to follow the dollars, it had to pasteurize.”
….................................
"A rosy, plump, lusty child was never seen where pasteurized milk had been its only food.” said Dr. Joseph E. Winters. in “GET THIN ON PASTEURIZED MILK” from "The Wenatchee daily world. (Wenatchee, Wash.), May 04, 1909, Page 6, Image 6” “The New York Herald's exposure of the fallacies of the pasteurized milk fad.”
http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn86072041/1909-05-04/ed-1/seq-6.pdf

Raw.milk.Mike : at first glance, I dismissed your assertion that < Once milk is homogenized it will go rancid in a matter of hours if it is not pasteurized. “Once the dairy industry took the homogenizing step to follow the dollars, it had to pasteurize” > but the more I think about it, it does make sense. How about a time-line evidencing commercial dairies starting to Pasteurize milk co-incident with homogenization? Put along side it statistics demonstrating the parallel rise in the incidence of diabetes and arteriosclerosis, and you have the groundwork for a master’s thesis.

One of my guiding lights was < Understanding Media > by Marshall McLuhan. He pointed students to the book “the Image” wherein Daniel Boorstein explained how the ad industry was using television to bamboozle America to accept the image of a thing, over reality. 40 years earlier the Federal Reserve System had gotten away with insinuating its imaginary ‘legal tender’ in place of real money, ie. gold and silver. So purloining the very “fatness of the land” then merchandising skim milk in a paperboard box branded with a cartoon cow, mis-labelled as “whole milk”, was only more of that same Treasonous mentality.

The farther I go ‘down-the-rabbit-hole’ to do with this milk thing, the less it looks like perversion of the food supply was just unintended consequences of decisions made in good faith. Passing-off the image of milk, after having stolen its nutrients + cooked the life out of the residue, falls in to the category of a crime against humanity.

rawmilkmike's picture

I agree Gordon, but the Roman empire and the British empire had very successful fiat currencies. The federal reserve is a private company printing instruments of credit which is not the same thing. Gold and silver are only good for the people that have them and their values also fluctuate with demand, especially when used as currency.

It's amazing and ominous how many of today's farmers parrot anti-farmer Wall Street propaganda about money, and how utterly ignorant they are of US agricultural history like that of the Populist and greenbacker movement. This is a common pathology of the food freedom movement.

mark mcafee's picture

Ram Basu, one of the directors of RAWMI discovered that a state senator from Minnesota tweeted and re-tweeted the official RAWMI board position statement about the recent Minnesota un- reported raw milk illness study giving the RAWMI position much exposure. Sounds like even be politicians did not agree with the CDC and the authors of the study because of its obvious bias, sweeping assumptions, and agenda and profoundly weak foundations.

Today the flight to deliver raw milk to Mammoth Mountain went very well. The press greeted me and one of the moms to get the whole story. Windsor shared her story of her multiple pregnancies and how she progressively had healthier and healthier kids as she drank more raw milk with each pregnancy. Her story rings especially true. Windsor is a very fit, super sharp mom with three gorgeous healthy happy kids. The kind of mommy model we could only dream of for American families. The idea that raw milk should not be consumed by pregnant moms is so far in the opposite direction of Windsor's truth, and that is what Windsor basically told the media! So much for the AAP mandate that raw milk should never touch a pregnant moms lips!! We also talked to the press about how our raw milk cured a child's severe excema in just a few weeks of raw milk consumption.

Our little Santa delivering raw milk dairy direct via airplane was welcomed news in Mammoth. Nice to have a little good news and joy set against the negative backdrop of the AAP immuno-destructive blah blah 18th century old news policy.

Shawna Barr's picture

Your miniature sleigh pulled by 8 tiny Holsteins...I can see it.

You might need to get a bigger plane you know. I hear Mammoth is a gorgeous area, but somewhat of a real-food desert. Few farms and few real-food options. My friend there tells me she has to import pastured eggs from Pennsylvania!

What a fun Christmas expedition!

mark mcafee's picture

http://www.familybizbuzz.com/marketing-in-the-raw/

OPDC is being featured by a Fresno State Univerity study of successful family businesses. There has been literally no good studies of family business and the secret sauce of their successes. OPDD and the McAfee family is one of many family businesses that is being studied by a department at Fresno State University. Last summer they covered our relationship with a Moms Club in Mammoth Lakes CA. The Link tells part of the story.

Yesterday, I delivered 500 pounds of OPDC dairy products in support of that Moms Club. I much prefer a 35 min flight ( one hour round trip with $85 bucks in av gas ) verses a 16 hour $600 round trip in one of our trucks ( becuase of closed Tioga pass roads ) plus brakes, tires, over time and fuel. OPDC adopted as a medical project a young child that had been suffering head to toe Excema last summer. Season Johnson is the masters trained and certified nutritional therapist that works at a Pediatricians office in Mammoth and cured the Excema in a few weeks with OPDC raw milk!!

Take that AAP!! Yes....She works with a real MD Pediatrician that cured Excema with raw milk!!

It was a true joy to be a "Raw Milk Santa Sleigh Pilot" for the short flight to the Mammoth Moms for a great cause! Let the good healing news of clean and safe raw milk drown-out the bad empty old 100 year old news of dogma spread by the APP, CDC, and FDA among other professional industry and goverment manure spreaders.

Moms rule!! Farmers nourish!!

mark mcafee's picture

Shawna,

In pilot speak, more like a " 250 horse Lycoming powered sleigh" that gets extremely good treatment. Unlike Santas sleigh, there is little magic at 12500 feet over the Sierras and nothing but snow, ice, tall trees, sheer granite monuments, and the only relatively safe ( at least you live ) flat places to land
( ditch and call the CHP for a helo ride and then your insurance company for a sad but happy story...) are very wet, deep and cold lakes.

It is also a real joy to fly in perfect weather with total regard for Mother Nature and the well maintained spirit of Textron Lycoming humming along.

Kind of like raw milk....it is freedom that is accompanied with total focussed responsibility. Just like the the freedom and responsibility to produce raw milk.

If the FAA regulated raw milk...how different the science and investment in safety would be. They tend to care a bit about the truth.