Happy New Year from FDA: Testing Program Takes Novel Tack to Discredit Raw Milk Cheese

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just informed raw cheese producers to expect fun and games in 2014: It will begin a “pilot program” lasting all of next year, during which it will test at least 1,700 samples of raw milk cheese. All this testing is in addition to rather than in place of existing sampling of raw cheese. 

According to a report from the Gourmet Retailer, a trade association, the FDA “will test a new microbiological sampling surveillance model” that “will be analyzed for contamination from salmonella, L. monocytogenes and E. coli O157:H7.”(The Gourmet Retailer article says the FDA notified the American Cheese Society of the planned testing during a conference call; however, the ACS on its home page indicates information about the program is available only to ACS members; the Gourmet Retailer appears to have obtained its information from the ACS.)


For the last four years, the FDA has had its sights trained on raw milk cheese. It used much tougher enforcement action than it normally uses to shut down two raw-milk cheese producers in 2010 based on finding listeria in their cheese or on their premises, but absent any illnesses (Morningland Dairy and Estrella Family Creamery). 


Also in 2010, as I reported in my book, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Food Rights,  the FDA conducted inspections of three-fourths of 130 members of the American Cheese Society, compared with 10% in previous years, the organization reported. Aside from Morningland and Estrella, no others had problems with pathogens in their cheeses or facilities. 


Then, early this year, it came out with a study concluding that there is “a 50- to 160-fold increase in the risk of listeriosis from a serving of soft-ripened raw-milk cheese, compared with cheese made from pasteurized milk.” A close examination I did of that study showed that conclusion to be based on theoretical mathematical extrapolations made in the face of real-life evidence showing not a single illness over the previous 23 years from listeriosis involving soft raw milk cheese. 


Talk about a solution in search of a problem. Even Bill Marler, the food safety lawyer and definitely not a raw milk enthusiast, concluded in a September analysis (one of several he has done in recent years) of the 60-day aging rule in place since the late 1940s for all raw milk cheeses, that there isn't a lot to worry about with raw milk cheese safety. Based on an analysis going back more than 60 years to the implementation of the raw milk aging rule, he concluded that “outbreaks and illnesses linked to 60-day aged cheese are relatively rare despite microbiological evidence of pathogen survival in these cheeses...” What he was saying is that very few people have become sick during that long time period, though there is evidence that certain pathogens can survive more than the 60 days of required aging. He suggested that the reason few people get sick is likely the result either of “low contamination level in milk used in cheesemaking or alterations in virulence of pathogens” in the aged cheese.


Interestingly, the new FDA testing program appears to be focused on finding evidence of pathogens in raw milk cheese, not on finding evidence of illnesses. As an example of the contradiction here....listeria in very low volumes have been found not to cause illness, and as a result, the European Union allows the presence of listeria in foods at low levels, in contrast to the FDA's zero-tolerance rule. What the FDA appears to be doing is going on a treasure hunt in search of pathogens so it can play the “gotcha” game--if a single pathogen like listeria shows up on one of the samples being tested next year, it will be another notch on its belt, and in the underlying purpose here: to develop an excuse for either banning raw milk cheeses entirely, or else lengthening the 60-day rule enough that most soft cheeses, and perhaps other cheeses as well, will become impractical to produce. Take a few more nutrient-dense foods out of the system. 

The problem for the FDA, and the corporate processed cheese producers whose interests it is most concerned about, specialized raw milk cheese has become increasingly popular over the last five years. The ACS has seen its membership soar, more than doubling from 2003 to 2011. 

What happens if the FDA inspectors find evidence of pathogens in cheese tested? The article in Gourmet Retailer answers that question with bureaucratese: Any "response to positive findings will be at FDA's discretion, but will likely follow traditional FDA approaches similar to those used whenever a product is believed to be contaminated--including traceback, inspection, environmental sampling, additional product testing, and voluntary recall if necessary."  In other words, expect the full treatment accorded Morningland Dairy and Estrella Cheese--don't be surprised if FDA inspectors dressed in battle fatigues show up to test your premises for days, and then call for a full recall going back six months or a year, followed by a shutdown. 


The only potential good news for domestic producers of raw milk cheese (and it's not very good) is that about 70% of the sampling will be of imported raw milk cheeses, and only 30% of domestic cheese, according to the Gourmet Retailer article. In addition, this will be more an equal opportunity program, with imported sprouts and raw almonds included in the testing. 

Get ready then for another “study” based on this testing program showing raw milk cheeses to be hundreds of times more dangerous than pasteurized milk cheese. The goal is clear: to find excuses to limit or eliminate entirely access to raw milk cheese, and possibly to other nutrient-dense foods like raw almonds (which are nearly entirely imported, since domestic almonds must be pasteurized) and sprouts, whether evidence of a problem exists.or not.

Ora Moose's picture

Which led me to thinking, what's the milk parallel? No cows or plastic GMO commercial cows? I guess I'd rather give it up rather than compromise so you have a point there.

if you got the facts about how salmon are raised in pens = farmed = you'd realize how UNhealthy that meat is. The raising of fish in pens is only another Confined Animal Farming Operations with the same results - UNhealthy food for humans. Fish farms in British Columbia are reservoirs of pestilence, in the form of sea lice ... which destroy the natural fish runs as they go by. Do you want to hear about all the drugs dumped in on those same poor fish, swimming frantically in endless circles within the pens? Do you want me to get you up to speed on how the fish-farmers are leading the way with perversion of genetics, so Franken-Fish will wind up in the markets of the world UNlabelled? With feedstocks being expensive, what do you suppose those fish in pens are being fed? Oh, anything and everything that goes by in the industrialized waste-stream ... "animal byproducts", ie. steam-sterilized manure. So, basically, when you eat farmed salmon, you're eating once-removed shit. Rather than the flesh of fish at the top of the oceanic food chain. Stuff produced by fish farms has to be dyed, in order to make it marketable ... otherwise people don't recognize grey slabs as "food". But the stultified consumer doesn't want to hear about all THAT!

the parallel with the Campaign for REAL MILK, is, that real fish, ie, salmon from a wild fishery, costs significantly more at retail. And is worth it, in flavour alone. You can have the image of what appears to be food, or you can have the real thing. So if you choose to eat garbage because it's cheaper - welcome to it, as long as there aren't laws preventing me from choosing what I prefer, and paying what it takes to secure the line of supply to get it.

D. Smith's picture

This is exactly the point I was trying to make to Ora over in another topic. Well said, Gordon.

Ora Moose's picture

Another saying from the old days: A man does not get warm from sitting in front of a fireplace. Think Playboy, or the food of your choice.

Ora Moose's picture

Ooops again... that should read " a man does not get warm from sitting in front of A PICTURE of a fireplace."

excuses moi sil vous plait.

rawmilkmike's picture

Your right Gordon, they could easily ban wild fish just like the banned wild pigs. You just convinced me to stop buying farm raised.

D. Smith's picture

@ rawmilkmike: Good luck trying to find UNfarm-raised fish. I posted here at least six months ago asking if anyone knew of a good source but got no response. I don't know if that means no one knew of a source or if it meant no one cared enough to answer.

Farmed fish could be done to a point where it would be a better alternative than ocean fish, but instead of making it a credible, lucrative, healthy business venture, the entrepenuers of today have seen a dollar sign and forgotten about all the good things. The farmed fish could be raised using good water (better than ocean water probably as it stands right now), they could be fed a diet as close to what they'd get in a natural ocean setting, they could be allowed to live their lives pretty much as they would normally do. Using a few nets rather than fish pens/corrals it could be done as close to natural as possible.

There are online sources for salmon but the buyer really has no idea. I read an article last year which stated that if a package says "Alaskan Salmon" it must be ocean fresh and not farmed. I don't know if that is still true today or not.

Ora Moose's picture

D, after Fukushima I'm not so sure I'd want to eat any Alaskan fish at all or even most produce/fruit from CA or the west coast in general.


D. Smith's picture

I'll take my chances, Ora. Whatever nuclear stuff is in the water is probably a lot less intimidating that what is fed to farmed fish.

Ora Moose's picture

D, again please reconsider the risk. Not so much for us older folks, but more for the children as radiation has a cumulative effect over a lifetime. Glow in the dark seafood anyone?


D. Smith's picture

Well, I don't worry about it too much Ora because I don't eat a lot of seafood anyway. I've never been a huge fan. But Dr. Mark Sircus has some good information on how to deal with radiation with simple methods. Nevertheless, I think Fukushima has had an affect on the entire world, so limiting our access to foods without exposure would be a near impossibility. Most likely the farmed fish are akin to consuming a double-whammy because they're fed a junk diet of GE'd grains, plus all the stuff Gordon mentioned, as well as having been exposed to the radiation. It's the same with lots of other processed foods, too.

rawmilkmike's picture

D, I'm not much of a cook. The last time I got shrimp there was a choice there. I'll definitely check the fish this week. Are we going to see fishing boat shares now?

D. Smith's picture

Man, I haven't even thought about shrimp for a long time. It's just not something we eat very often. I think the last time I had it was in a shrimp cocktail when we were at a Christmas Party up in Deadwood about three or four years ago. If we lived near one of the coasts we would probably indulge in more seafoods, but living in the center of the nation limits our choices to everything being frozen, never fresh. I prefer fresh seafood because once it's been frozen it tastes really oily and fishy to me. Even fresh caught local fish, like walleye or perch, taste really oily to me once they've been frozen. I prefer beef any day of the week. ;)

rawmilkmike's picture

D, I was at Pick N Save here in Milwaukee Wisconsin today. They had Gulf shrimp, Atlantic cod, and a couple others. The guy said they were wild caught. Is this another thing I've been taking for granted?

D. Smith's picture

I haven't really looked into any fish other than salmon. But when purchasing salmon, it is my understanding that the term wild caught means nothing - it needs to say Alaskan salmon or wild Alaskan salmon. The term wild-caught is very ambiguous. IMPHO, all of these terms are somewhat ambiguous. http://www.wildpacificsalmon.com/site/680079/page/439406

I guess for a while everyone thought the fish that were caught farther north were probably better because of the colder water. and were not as tainted due to our lovely environment, but I'm thinking it probably doesn't make a hill of beans of difference. This is a good article which helps clarify the whirrds used today, meant to confuse us mostly. With confusion comes victory, or so they think: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/15/sustainable-seafood-wild_n_1191...

I think we are all a little bit alarmist about our foods though, because we've probably been eating a certain amount of radiation, etc., for a long time. It's not like Fukushima is the first disaster we're had involving air/ground quality. The military has been using NV as a testing ground for decades and all that stuff in the air had to go somewhere. Not only that but if CA is really having the problems with radiation that people are saying, it would affect all foods, including milk, because the cattle are eating grass which has been tainted by the stuff. It's not just in the ocean waters, after all. So how would you escape that? And why would it be limited to CA?? That doesn't begin to include natural pollutants like ash from volcanoes, etc. Volcanoes have been erupting for a long time.

The FDA should be more worried about this metallic kind of poisoning in the food supply if they're going to take on the subject of food. Mark is right - the FDA should be narrowed to the DA and concern themselves only with drugs (and lose the food part of their *title*), letting the USDA work on the food supply. But there's a reason why the words food and drug are both used in the same title. We haven't yet begun to see all the reasons why.

Ora Moose's picture

relatively rare = non existent or we'd jump on it. Get it right, Bill.

Ora Moose's picture

At the risk of over posting. Looking at the picture on this latest blog post, it jumped out at me that the foods I'd consider most dangerous are the grapes and walnuts, not the cheeses. Just saying... a solution in search of a problem is a great way of putting it David.

First of all, 99% of "raw" cheese sold in stores, are not raw. Most all "Raw "cheese is taken to temperatures well above 140 degrees ( and in many cases , taken to 1 degree and 1 second less than pasteurized). This is dead cheese with no life force and no enzymes. "Raw" , for the truly "raw" conscious person means that all enzymes are intact, which means they have not been subjected to temps above 105 F. , or less. Most cheese companies are taking their cheeses to much higher temps. They can do this because there is no "legal" description for the term "RAW". This "new " program is designed to continue the brainwashing of the consumer into thinking and believing that something is actually being taken away from them...IE "raw cheese" , when in fact it was never raw to begin with! It`s just another way to cover up the deception that already exists in the RAW cheese fraud that has existed for a long time.

David Gumpert's picture

I have heard this complaint before from raw food aficionados, and I think it is well taken. However, I seriously doubt the FDA views the problem of heating raw milk cheese the same way you do. As far as its people are concerned, the fact that it hasn't gone through "official" processing that includes pasteurization means that it is as suspect as if it had been heated to less than 105 degrees. Its people don't recognize the subtleties you refer to about enzymes or proteins being affected by excess heat. To them, raw milk is raw milk is raw milk….and it's all high risk and shouldn't be allowed for sale. 

D. Smith's picture

All because the FDA pretends not to understand the difference between good and bad bacteria. To them it's all bad because they have been compensated to say so. They don't even understand their own "science" which they hold up as being the gold standard.

They don't quite have all their wagons in a circle, but admit it? Never. And certainly not where raw milk is concerned when bigdairy has their red dot on the FDA's monetary interests.

rawmilkmike's picture

David, I think you miss JS's point. The states only responsibility is to tell us when raw foods are not raw or otherwise not as labeled. We all ready know their true intention is to eliminate competition on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry.
Oh, and: great article David. Very informative.

rawmilkmike's picture

Thanks JS, I had heard roomers but didn't know the extent of the fraud.

Why is the ACS collaborating with the FDA in trying to keep the details a secret? More appeasement? We already see how well that's been working for them.

David Gumpert's picture

Russ, I had the same Qs. I'll see what I can find out. 

rawmilkmike's picture

You're right David, this is just another tool to be used against fresh foods, vitamin supplements, and midwives, the same as these new raw milk bills which call for additional testing of raw milk. Any talk of raw milk safety that doesn't start with the acknowledgment that raw milk is already a low risk food will in the end be counter productive.
Has everyone seen the:
“Revised Presentation July 8 Raw milk myths and evidence by Nadine Ijaz pdf”
Nadine's study is perfect and it proves raw milk is a low risk food which should be enough to end the raw milk debate once and for all.
Are these conference calls a way of keeping things off the record? Can they be recorded?
Thank you David, “theoretical mathematical extrapolations made in the face of real-life evidence showing not a single illness over the previous 23 years(Is this since monitoring began?) from listeriosis involving soft raw milk cheese.”.
“illnesses linked to 60-day aged cheese are relatively rare despite microbiological evidence of pathogen survival” “the new FDA testing appears to be focused on finding evidence of pathogens not on finding evidence of illnesses. ...listeria in very low volumes have been found not to cause illness, the European Union allows the presence of listeria in foods at low levels” (despite the use of the ambiguous term linked) What if this is true for raw milk? We know there is what is called the infectious dose but has anyone bothered to test the infectious dose in raw milk? I'm sure we could easily find thousands of willing volunteers.

Shelly-D.'s picture

they always talk about these "mathematical extrapolations" - this is a weapon they found worked to great effect because their "150x more dangerous" report where they first trotted this out big-time was promoted far-and-wide by the press as being "fact" and still is.

So you can build any mathematical model you like (e.g. "Hey guys, let's multiply it by 1000!") and publish your "results" without disclosing what your model is, and the press and health safety "experts" lap it up. Notice that they never reveal the model or the assumptions that go into it - that's kept well hidden.

It's worked now for the "150-times" study, the "Minnesota 20,000" study, and now they're going after raw milk cheese with it too.

When is anyone going to question the hocus-pocus their hiding behind the label of "mathemathical model"? When is the press ever going to ask "What model?" and begin dissecting whether the math is right or not? Is everyone so intimidated by math that they won't ask questions?

No, they're quite punctilious about parsing the math where it comes to data presented by dissenters from the system. What we see here is the corporate media standard set by the NYT and followed by the rest - anything asserted by big corporations or corporatist government is to be taken at face value, and the media's job is to serve as stenographer.

rawmilkmike's picture
chuck's picture

I don't know where I read this but there was a test with raw milk. They introduced pathegens in raw milk and the natural reaction of raw milk killed them all making the milk safe to drink.

Chuck ... Finding us guilty of 'causing a public health hazard by supplying raw milk for human consumption', the judge based his ruling on triple cyber-hearsay. Now, preparing to appeal my sentence, I have to show the Court just a tad more substance than your vague reference.

rawmilkmike's picture

Gordon, have you considered using some of my math or: Nadine's study, it proves raw milk is a low risk food. Wouldn't that help.
“Revised Presentation July 8 Raw milk myths and evidence by Nadine Ijaz pdf”

rawmilkmike's picture

Gordon, competitive exclusion is a legitimate argument that should be brought up, time permitting, if you have the article handy. I hope you are at least allowed to dispute the triple cyber-hearsay. A competitor or anyone with a conflict of interest should not be allowed to testify as an expert and given greater credible weight than the consumers of the product. And don't let them make any statements off the record like at the Hershberger trial. If raw milk is a “health hazard ” than so are all foods even after testing and inspection. The only argument between the FDA and the raw milk consumer is whether raw milk is the safest or second safest food. The state is trying to ban a food and they know they don't have the authority to do that or they would have already done so.

chuck's picture

According to a recent review in the journal ofexperimenttal therapeutics and oncology, lactoferrin exhibits fungistatic, bacteriostatic, bactericidal and antiviral properties and inhibits the growth of parasites.It is effective against E.coli. In 2004, the FDA approved lactoferrin for use as an antimicrobial spray to combat virulent E.coli O157:H7 contamination in the meat industry ! This from The Untold Story of Milk by Ron Schmid, ND. I'm still looking to find the test they did with raw milk. Get back to you on that.

thank you for that reference, Chuck. It is most helpful overall. But my previous post was an attempt to be - gently - sarcastic. This forum has input from some of the world's experts, on that topic. That study - by Organic Pastures and/or Weston A Price - is controversial because some of us believe it to be so, ie, that raw milk certainly does eliminate traces of pathogens. Whereas other people in this campaign ( people of good will) dismiss it.

As for my appeal : When one gets entangled in political issues which wind up as "contempt of Court', we find that judges are not the slightest bit interested in real evidence to the contrary of the Central Party Line. Judges owe their appointments - and very existence - to political connections. See Jonathan Swift's satire Gulliver's Travels into the Land of the Houwhynyms. His take on the legal racket from 300 years ago, is perfectly applicable.
It's my calling to "walk through the exercise' in Court. so when I rail against the stupidity of the Powers-that-Be, it's harping-away on my perennial point : we are not going to be allowed to win in their ball-park. Rather, the victory is being won by those who go out and do the chores, this evening ... actualizing our heritage = this land of REAL MILK and honey. As long as we acknowledge the Source where our food comes from, the race traitors in high places can never take it away from us

rawmilkmike's picture

Gordon, there you go again. How does race make someone your ally?

rawmilkmike's picture

Gordon, This is not a toxic chemical that you have dumped into a waterway. Raw milk is a product that your customers have come to you specifically to buy.
The court must have a definition for “public health hazard ” that doesn't include everything and everyone. Or it must admit that health hazards are not illegal.
I just looked up the definition of “public health hazard” and found that :
It is not illegal to sell products that are a “public health hazard” and it is not illegal to drink raw milk. So what was the courts point?
There is no such thing as an illegal public health hazard.

mark mcafee's picture

The FDA is at it again....

Cravens pasteurized cheese kills three in mid 2013....and what does the FDA do, it attacks raw milk cheeses!!?? I have seen repeated food safety incident reports that report illness or death from a pasteurized dairy product, only to have the recommendations read: only eat pasteurized dairy products, raw is very dangerous.

To include all cheeses that are made at temperatures just below pasteurized temps as raw is completely disingenuous and stinks of the FDA agenda. OPDC has even branded our raw cheeses as Truly Raw just to expose this thermal wasteland between 102 degrees and 160 degrees that the FDA allows industry to call raw....but it sure is not!!

rawmilkmike's picture

Mark, is it possible the FDA doesn't do anything about Cravens pasteurized cheese killing three in mid 2013 is that they have no real evidence just like when they attacked OPDC!!??

Randy C in SWVA's picture

While this may appear to be new, these changes have been coming for some time now. All the way back in October 2002, Congress passed a bill dealing with food safety and bioterrorism. It was to become law on 12 December 2003 (and did) and it has taken 10 years for the FDA to act on it. My milk inspector has kept us up on these changes over the years. This year we were to register with the FDA for more intrusive inspections. We decided not to and terminated our milk manufacturing permit (to make raw and pasteurized cheeses.) In fact we made the decision in September 2012 to quit and sold our 50 gallon cheese making vat in March of 2013. The FDA is legendary for harassing small farms and farmstead producers all in the name of safety when in fact it is more likely that they are simply working for big food and big pharma instead.
According to our milk inspector, there was a regional milk inspectors meeting in PA last fall where the milk inspectors left with the impression that FDA's goal was to regulate the small producers out of business by requiring testing of every batch of cheese before it was sold. Think of the impact that will have on fresh cheese makers! So, I then asked, what will this cost and the inspector said testing a batch of cheese costs $1,200.00. A typical small cheese maker makes 50 gallons at a time, so that cheese is worth $800.00 at $16 per pound. I then ask who is going to pay for this and the inspector said he didn't know. There is a meeting in January 2014 to discuss these issues and I may find out then.
Small producers have enough problems without having to deal with this. It is little wonder there are any left and as I said, the goal appears to be to put those who are still afloat out of business. I'm glad I got out of the cheese business while I still could rather than having to sell my vat and other equipment to the scrap yard at $0.12 per lb.
Raw milk will be next. The FDA hates it. They don't want animals to drink it and they certainly don't want you to drink it. Remember the Dane County, WI judge who ruled a few years ago that the family standing in front of him didn't have the right to own a dairy cow? Things are going to get much worse on the food front in the years ahead. (The judge in question went on to work for Monsanto shortly after that ruling.... golly gee... what a surprise.)

rawmilkmike's picture

Thanks for the heads up Randy.

mark mcafee's picture

If the FDA wants a real war...they can tangle with raw milk and see what kinds of third degree consumer- producer burns they get.

So far raw milk is clearly been a states rights issue. So far it is clear that the FDA will stay & steer completely clear of raw milk. It is whey too hot and they know better.

This is perhaps why my OPDC FDA citizens petition has languished at the FDA for more than 4 years in spite of FTCLDF legal heat to move it along. They can not and will not touch it because if they do they must acknowledge states rights issues and that opens Pandoras raw milk box for them. Something that would bring in RAWMI data, the CA market experience, RAMP, Testing standards, EU studies, Asthma, mad moms and the genie would be out of the raw milk bottle forever.

FDA best policy for now....just keep on denying and staying away from raw milk. They do that quite well.

churchlanefarm's picture

Don’t taunt them Mark, they may just be domineering and smug enough to take up your challenge.

However it may very well be just what’s needed in order to upset the apple cart.

Have a Happy, Happy, Happy New Years everyone!


rawmilkmike's picture

U 2 Ken

Shelly-D.'s picture

You are certain they'll exempt raw milk? Not that optimistic here, sorry. They have every right now to claim that all raw milk is "Adulterated" by virtue of having any bacteria in it at all. And all raw milk farms will have to put in expensive equipment and procedures to come up to the industrial standards they're setting (oh yeah, small farms have 3 yrs to comply). But as they can now claim that ALL raw milk is "Adulterated," they can now seize and condemn it all. It's all here at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adulterated_food and in federal laws.

mark mcafee's picture

Here is my taunt to the FDA, if they cleared my conditional FDA Citizens Petition request to approve interstate commerce of some state inspected raw milk...then they would actually get control over that raw milk and could set standards for raw milk.

That is a serious taunt. A old and very wise man once said to me...."be careful what you wish for??!!" You might just get it. Well...my wish is that if the FDA approved conditional insterstate sale of raw milk...they would in fact sit down and come up with some really smart and really good standards. That is not a bad thing. That is a challenging but perhaps a very good thing. I know that RAWMI is up to the challenge. We would love to sit down and smoke the raw milk peace pipe with the FDA if they would truly listen and we could share what we know with them from our work with RAWMI and also other great national and international raw milk research sources.

The other side of the taunt is that the FDA would have some serious control over rawmilk....at least if it went over state lines.

All this is wishful speaking....but crazier things have happened.

if I was the FDA, I would seize the opportunity to control interstate raw milk sales and set some very impressive raw milk standards and be done with it. It would make the FDA look good and make that raw milk very impressive as well.

I love challenges. That would be awesome!! Never saw a challenge I didn't learn to love. Some of them I did not understand up front...but when we figuered them out...I loved them all.


rawmilkmike's picture

If the FDA is saying a so called foodborne pathogen in raw milk is “inherent” or “unavoidable” then they must determine a “regulatory limit, or action level” unless they admit the so called pathogen in raw milk “does not ordinarily render it injurious to health” in which case they'd be unable to call it “adulterated”.
Has the FDA determine a “regulatory limit, or action level”? Haven't they already said that these so called “foodborne pathogens” don't normally cause illness in most people?

Shelly-D.'s picture
Deborah - Pacifica's picture

Shelly - it is so disheartening to see garbage articles like this, especially from a physician. Clearly, it is evident that she is just parroting what she has been brain-washed with & has not done her own research for the truth. Luckily, there are many other physicians out there that do know the truth & do support raw milk with children. She really needs to see the documented studies of benefits that have saved many children from previous health issues.

rawmilkmike's picture

Even though this is the most anti-raw milk article I’ve ever seen and filled with distortions, half truths and even out right lies, look at what they don't say and don't even bother to deny.

Consumption of Raw Milk: A threat to Public Health
Leslie Nichole Sadeghi - University of Tennessee - Knoxville

Milk-induced allergies are another topic of debate. Poulsen et al. (1987) conducted a study in mice showing that homogenized milk increased the likelihood of milk allergy, whereas raw milk did not. Nonhomogenized pasteurized milk did not induce as much of an anaphylactic response as homogenized milk.

...the cost and benefits of possibly living without allergies verses taking the chance of succumbing to a possibly life-threatening bacterial illness need to be measured. Overall, substantial differences between nutritional values of pasteurized and unpasteurized milk and the specific benefits of raw milk have not been proven scientifically (Potter et al., 1984).

Shelly-D.'s picture

I wish the physicians on our side, especially the pediatricians, would speak up about it, because their voices are not being heard.

chuck's picture

when her nose hits the wall, she'll wonder what the hell happened. Or she's some one whos income depends on not understanding it. To bad because her family will suffer her ignorance and all those who she misleads.

Shawna Barr's picture

The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology hold that there is no epidemiological benefit to homebirth, and that the safest place for women to give birth is in a hospital. However, ACOG recognizes that where one gives birth is a deeply personal decision and many families will choose home birth for the benefits, epidemiological or not, that they believe it offers. Wisely, OCOG does not call for an all out ban on home birth or on home-birth practitioners. Rather, they make a clear distinction between "Planned Home Birth" and "Unassisted Home Birth." Recommendations are made for which women are better candidates for home birth than others, and what kind of training is necessary for home birth attendants.

As a result, home birth outcomes in America are generally good, and likely much better than would be should home birth be banned. If home birth was banned, mid-wives would be denied access to training, insurance, partnerships with the greater medical community, and would be forced to operate "under the radar." Women would still choose home birth, not doubt. But the conditions would undoubtedly be less safe.

Where one gives birth, what one feeds their family, what medications one choses to use...these are DEEPLY personal decisions, and ones that people are going to make in their own way, regardless of bans.

I implore the AAP and other health and medical organizations to ditch the banning effort in favor of education, information and research. People are going to choose raw milk even though the FDA holds there is no benefit in doing so. And given that fact, if public safety is the primary concern, more research and information is yet needed to promote best practices.

rawmilkmike's picture

I did posted a lengthy comment. Probably a waste of time. But did find this on the same sight. What if we apply it to what we know about HUS?

Deborah - Pacifica's picture

Wishing everyone a joyous upcoming New Year's. We are just hours away from ushering in a new year...a new year to continue the needed work for spreading awareness regarding raw milk and real foods. The public will not be getting this info from the mass media, so it is up to people like David & so many others that work so hard to get the information out! Realize that there is more to this though, how many people are truly aware of what has been quietly & deceitfully put into place by our government (whether local, state or federal) that all interconnects to many of the current issues that we are fighting?! Make this year, the year to expand your knowledge & awareness about what is really going on. Learn what has been implemented already & that is desperately needs to be reversed. Spread this information & challenge family, friends & acquaintances about these concerns & issues. It is only by spreading of the information that can make & save freedoms & choices. Sorry, that I haven't been on here too much recently to participate in the discussions, but my out-of-control traveling schedule, as well as, recent participation in other political concerns have kept me quite busy. Things should be settling down now & I look forward to sharing more things here on this forum. Keep up the good work David, it is people like you that keep the momentum going. And by the way, if you are not familiar with 'Agenda 21', I highly recommend researching this as your first assignment for 2014!

rawmilkmike's picture

The FDA likes to play stupid when asked about the benefits of raw milk.
Here's a very interesting:
Presentation Transcript on
and supplementation of lactobacillus culures in animal feed.

Ora Moose's picture

RMMike, I don't know how you research and come up with this stuff but to me it is very valuable and interesting. Agree that FDA mostly pretends and does not actually want to present clear guidelines that they might then be bound by, they prefer to obfuscate and straddle situations as they present themselves.

Peas on earth. A little dirt, a little water and there is life growing and sustaining despite the suppression forces that be for money interests.