Can Homestead Creamery Raw Milk Cheese Case Be Resolved Sensibly? Possibly, If Lawyers Move Away
It’s always dangerous from a journalistic perspective to write about a particular food safety situation in the midst of the regulatory process, especially when it involves raw milk. But in the case of the tiny Missouri raw milk cheese maker, Homestead Creamery, I’m going to give it a shot, because I started in on it in my previous post, and because the case illustrates a number of important issues in the regulatory process.
First, an update: Homestead just received its production permit back late Thursday from the Missouri Milk Board. That allows it to resume production of raw milk cheese after a two-week shutdown. However, it hasn’t yet been cleared to resume sales--either of cheese in inventory or of newly produced cheese (all of which must be aged a minimum 60 days under U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations). Still, Tim Flory, the owner, sounded more upbeat today than he did when I last spoke with him Wednesday.
FDA inspectors today concluded three days of testing of the farm’s cheese making facilities, which included taking dozens of swabs, searching for signs of pathogens. So those results, likely to take at least a few days to come through, will be important to determining when Homestead might re-open.
In the meantime, the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services reported that it has confirmed one illness from E.coli 103 that has been connected via DNA fingerprinting to cheese from Homestead Creamery. There are two other possible cases of “individuals (who) later reported having similar symptoms [to the confirmed case] after consuming cheese from the same producer,” an agency spokesperson told me.
And this important proviso: “All of the individuals have recovered.”
As for the contradictions and issues highlighted in the case, here a few:
*Though this case has yet to play itself out completely, state regulators thus far appear to be treating Homestead Creamery more appropriately and fairly than they did Morningland Dairy. For example, they have only required Homestead to recall the one type of cheese implicated in the outbreak (of the dozen it produces), while Morningland was required to recall everything it had produced in the previous eight months, and to destroy everything it had in its inventory, rather than just the two cheeses originally implicated as contaminated.
*State regulators in retrospect have been careful in their reporting on events. Regulators seemed initially to be unnecessarily hedging in their initial reports, but in retrospect, it appears they were walking a fine line between informing the public of a potential food danger, and accusing the producer before evidence was in. For example, in announcing last week that Homestead had recalled the questionable cheese, the Missouri Department of Agriculture stated, “Preliminary test results received from the Missouri State Health Laboratory indicate the cheese may be contaminated with Shiga-Toxin producing E.coli, which can lead to food borne illness. Confirmatory tests are ongoing.”
*While MIssouri regulators seem to be making an effort to be responsible, the same can’t be said of a couple of the product liability and personal injury lawyers who follow these situations like hawks, in hopes of snaring ill individuals as clients to sue food producers. In my previous post, I quoted personal injury lawyer Fred Pritzker as saying he was “investigating” the Homestead situation, and invited anyone affected by it to contact him.
In the meantime, I’ve come across an even more sensationalist account from a lawyer tracking this case: Dr. Anthony Coveny, a “food poisoning attorney.” A news and entertainment site, Examiner.com, posted a video from Coveny in which he provided an “update” on the Missouri situation: “At least seven individuals have become sick, two are toddlers and one of which is still hospitalized, have come down with HUS, which is a serious disease” that can cause permanent kidney and throat damage, he stated.
“At the same time, the Missouri Milk Board has announced there is a recall” of Homestead Creamery cheese. “We are uncertain if the two outbreaks are linked...We just want to issue a cautionary note to everyone to stay away from raw milk products...It is dangerous to consume any product that is dairy based that has not been pasteurized...”
Yes, Coveny was just doing a public service issuing his “cautionary note," in a video with his firm's phone number plastered along the screen. So, now that Missouri officials aren't mentioning the toddlers Coveny was so worried about, do you think he’ll provide an update on the current situation, and perhaps clarify that the cheese producer seems not to have sickened little kids? My bet is he won’t. He and Pritzker will just move on to the next financial opportunity.
But they don’t help in these situations to achieve the necessary delicate balance--of keeping the public accurately informed about what is happening while simultaneously protecting small producers who don’t have armies of lawyers protecting their interests.
This site's mission is to provide news and analysis about food rights and raw milk. Increasingly, our access to privately available food is under attack by government and industry forces that seek to impose their choices on us. The Complete Patient seeks to provide up-to-date information and encourage the development of community to maintain traditional food acquisition options.
[quote from article]: "FDA inspectors today concluded three days of testing of the farm’s cheese making facilities, which included taking dozens of swabs, searching for signs of pathogens. So those results, likely to take at least a few days to come through, will be important to determining when Homestead might re-open." [end quote]
Isn't this almost the exact thing they told Morningland? Then, when the fdUH found very little of what they claimed they were looking for - no one became ill, no one from the citizenry pressed any sort of charges (so why were they even looking for anything? What prompted the *look-see*?) - the fdUH asserted charges still weren't reduced or dropped. Now they're putting Morningland's inventory to rest today.
the classic canard = “ ... two are toddlers and one of which is still hospitalized, have come down with HUS, which is a serious disease” that can cause permanent kidney and throat damage ... " the fable blazed-to the skies, but for which the dairy cartellists never seem to be able to produce evidence. Works every time = to tug at the heartstrings. The truth goes on forever, but a lie comes to an end. This may be the case in which that particular lie gets put to rest
"...the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services reported that it has confirmed one illness from E.coli 103 that has been connected via DNA fingerprinting to cheese from Homestead Creamery."
Is it Miguel, the soil scientist in this forum, who has said these types of statements are blatant lies? Miguel, please clarify things if you are reading. As I understood your earlier posts, "DNA fingerprinting" does not connect the dairy to a particular person. It would be like saying, if a man was killed and had traces of oak leaves on his clothes, then you could be guilty if you have oak trees near your property. Yeah, but so do like 1 billion other people.
Hi Tomme,
With all due respect to Miguel, I think his perspective on microbiology is misinformed.
I certainly respect Miguel's ecological approach to agriculture that promotes biodiversity, and his emphasis on the importance of soil mineralization. I share those values with Miguel, and as a cheese maker, I only work with dairy farms who implement those kinds of values.
However, a more accurate analogy to DNA fingerprinting would be human fingerprinting or DNA analysis in a criminal trial. Consider that DNA and fingerprint evidence has freed many people who would have otherwise been convicted on fabricated police testimony and coerced confessions.
I realize that there are rare cases where DNA/fingerprint evidence can lead to false convictions, almost always in the case of identical twins. However, it is a far cry from the "oak leaves" analogy you make above. It would require a meticulous conspiracy to implant a very specific strain of a pathogen in multiple sources, after the food has already been packaged, to carry out that kind of deception. Its possible, but I find it kind of doubtful. Our government has more "threats" to worry about than raw milk cheese... for example:
http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/right-wing-violence-increase-west-p...
It behooves commercial raw milk cheese makers to keep their product free of pathogens. I don't have enough direct knowledge of this particular incident to speak knowledgably about it, but I will speculate that there is perhaps a lack of compotent dairy laboratories in a state like Missouri to assist raw milk cheese makers in ensuring food safety. Hopefully this is a void that RawMI can fill as it expands.
"Our government has more "threats" to worry about than raw mik cheese..."
Bill, raw dairy is in fact a huge threat to the establishment. Look at the numbers I've posted here recently showing the astronomical amounts of money the pharmaceutical cartel makes. You have to make the connection between chronic epidemic disease, such as cancers, ms, diabetes... and severe mineral deficiency, particularly calcium deficiency. If you ignore establishment academia and media... and just go talk with people that use raw dairy and seek out their testimonials, I think you will see it truly is a superfood, the last thing the establishment wants.
My analogy with the oak leaves might not accurately reflect Miguel's true views here, I hope he chimes in. I'm going to try and find his earlier posts here on dna fingerprinting.
As far a cheese goes, from what I know it's been around a long long time, way before the types of testing you seem to advocate. As I posted in the previous article here, I don't want testing on my dairy, I want all the microbes, so that my immune system is acquantied with them and working properly. As I've said, it's the guy living in the plastic bubble who's putting himself at risk. In Nature, everyone's touching everyone and everything.
Still waiting for your reindeer milk cheese btw.
Tomm, I disagree about the subversiveness of raw milk. In fact, there are many upper-class establishment figures who are advocates of raw milk and raw milk cheese, including Prince Charles and Abby Rockefeller (of the Rockefeller dynasty) to name a few.
Of course, traditionally raw milk is consumed by the lower-classes as well... farmers and peasants who tend to dairy animals. But the recent trend of taking raw milk in a fluid & "sweet" (high pH) state into the cities, to sell to people who have little to no direct contact with the dairy animals is a bit unprecedented historically, and is only possible because of modern refrigeration and motorized transport.
While its true that historically, many dairy products (especially soft-ripened cheeses) probably had levels of listeria that would send today's public health agencies into a fit, if you study the cultures that consumed raw animal products they almost always had a way to cope with the microbiological hazards. In France, raw milk cheese is almost always consumed with wine. Not a coincidence. Studies have shown that alcohol consumption reduces the risk of listeria infection. Or take the Japanese tradition of eating Wasabi with their Sushi. Wasabi is anti-microbial. It serves a similair purpose as drinking wine with camembert.
I don't want to give you the impression that I am a germophobe. I just think the view that you and miguel are presenting is not very scientifically accurate.
Also, I failed to mention the laws of Kosher, an ancient health code, which requires strict seperation in the handling of milk and meat, among other things. The laws of Kosher are a bit primitive and out of date, when compared to our modern understanding of hygiene, but they nonetheless provide an illustration of how even the ancients understood the importance of good hygiene when handling potentially hazardous foods such as milk and meat.
the rationale for Kashkrut has nothing to do with hygiene. It's an outworking of the Talmudic technique of taking everything in the Scriptures and utterly perverting it. Go into a mainstream super-market, and see if you can find a product on the shelf which ISN'T branded with that symbol of the religion of the Pharisees .... "just a co-incidence, nothing to worry about"
Gordon Watson-
Pork is repeatedly disparaged in the Old Testament, as in this from Leviticus: “And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.” This prohibition is generally understood to be a reference to pork’s danger as a source of infection from the infectious disease, trichinosis (which has since been eradicated via effective sanitation). The prohibition on eating milk with meat, as I understand it, grew out of disrespecting the mother by consuming both its meat and its milk together.
Here's a quote from MIguel, from this forum, re DNA "fingerprinting":
"When health departments speak of matches of bacteria fingerprints, they are being deceptive. What matches are PFGE patterns. These patterns may match even when the two isolates are NOT genetically related. PFGE patterns only can be used to distinguish between isolates that both originated from the same colony of bacteria. Health departments have to assume that they are looking at isolates that were once clones of one original bacteria. Of course if you start with this assumption it isn't surprising that the conclusion is the two isolates "match". The assumption cannot be proven and is not possible outside a laboratory..."
Btw is it true that over 10 million people in this country drink raw milk? If we take the pitifully small govt numbers for disease attributed to raw milk, and then reduce them further to allow for govt lying, use of agents, and other shenanigans, ... and further realize that most people get sick because of other factors, ... and if we compare this all to the health benefits of consuming real dairy, can we all agree we can round the disease numbers off to zero, and move on? Who's with me?
Thanks again for this info. I've always said that a DNA match wouldn't prove anything. To know they don't even have that really blows the CDC out of the water.
Well DNA fingerprinting certainly epitomizes and caters to our controlling nature!
Despite our perceived ability to accurately detect a specific bacterial presence, does that mean the identified bacteria is indeed responsible for causing illness in one out of 200, 500, or 1000 individuals exposed?
Perhaps, however when all is said and done it is merely another way of grasping at straws in an attempt to redirect blame rather then deal with the crux of the problem. Namely, a highly regulated industrial food production system that unnaturally and narrowly focuses on the genetic, chemical and mechanical manipulation and adulteration of food for the sake of profit and control.
Ken
That's absolutely right. There is no way these government regulators can admit they are the cause of all sickness in this country. Our food and drug regulations are all used to cause the very thing they were written to prevent.
Bill,
You not only disagree with me about microbiology,you disagree with the people who study ecological microbiology and are the ones who are beginning to understand that,just as in farming and the soil,"the community is the unit of study". It makes absolutely NO sense to isolate microbes and study them in isolation.In any system ,macro or micro, it is the relationships between the members of the community that is of most importance.
It is true that DNA evidence can be used to find out if two isolates are distinguishable ( do not match). The other possibility is that the isolates are not distinguishable. Just because they are not distinguishable does not imply a match. The actual reason that they are not distinguishable is that the investigator did not look hard enough to know if they match or not. The standard for PFGE analysis is to use two different enzymes to digest the isolate. Research by Randall Singer and others indicates that at the very least six different tests with six different enzymes need to be done to have any kind of reasonable probability of "matching " isolates. The tests are subjective and not often reproducible .
When it finally sinks in (and it is beginning to) that microbes in the soil, in our guts,and in our food all are part of one big community of living things and they obey the same natural laws wherever they are,then we will understand that illness is a result of upsetting the relationships in the system.
You can destroy these relationships by plowing the soil , eventually resulting in sterile soil. You can destabilize the climate by removing parts of the system that moderate the weather , like cutting down trees, plowing huge areas, draining rivers dry,etc. On a microscopic level the destabilizing influences are agricultural chemicals, preservatives,antibiotics , sanitizers etc, etc,.
A while back I posted an article from NATURE. In it David Relman talks about the approach of isolating "pathogens" and placing blame on these micro organisms.
" Relman, a clinician himself by training, says this focus is understandable. "They're sucked towards pathogens, and they have practical questions to deal with in the clinical workplace. They're not in need of more diversity." But that has to change, he says. "We have to get away from this monolithic, one-dimensional perspective of a one-bug-one-disease picture of health," Relman says. "The community is the unit of study."
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101124/full/468492a.html
miguel
Miguel,
I don't disagree with you that there are problems with the germ theory of disease. Certainly, having a robust immune system and gut biodiversity are all helpful in preventing disease.
However, that is beside the point here. The question is where legal liability rests when a person is sickened by E. Coli carried in raw milk or raw milk cheese. Like it or not, we live in a free market capitalist society (believe me, I'm no fan of it...) and product liability is part of this free market system. If listeria or E. Coli is carried in the cheese, its not the consumer's immune system that should be faulted. Its the producer of the food.
You may have a valid point about needing to do more tests to verify the isolate's match, but that's not a reason to argue against product liability based on DNA match. Would you feel comfortable (for example) exonerating corporations that sell toxic toys or GMO-laced foods from product liability, and instead just take a "caveat emptor" approach? Because that is where your logic leads us.
I really would like to live in a society where communities raised their own food to feed everyone locally, and we were not depenent upon the capitalist marketplace to feed ourselves. But I see this ideal betrayed everytime someone drives 4+ hours to transport a few gallons of raw milk from farms in Wisconsin's Coulee region all the way to Chicago, just to make a quick buck.
Bill,
I have to assume then that you disagree with the human microbiome project finding that everyone's microbiome does contain "pathogens". There are many reasons why PFGE "fingerprints" cannot be used to track a "pathogen".Do you really believe that bacteria rarely change their genetic makeup during the trip through a digestive system? What does it matter that you eat some food with listeria in it if listeria is already living inside of your body? If a sample of bacteria from a food and bacteria from your stool are both incubated in the same nutrient rich broth designed to grow pathogenic listeria what are the chances that some of the listeria from both agar plates will be similar? Do you think that bacteria are constant in genetic makeup and do not adapt to their nutrient source? Just because the CDC and insurance companies have an upside down theory of disease is no reason for us to ignore the obvious cause of illness.This is the whole point of keeping us focused on bacteria.It is a distraction. Zero tolerance for "pathogens" in food can only be achieved by eliminating much of the diversity in our micro biome .This is what I see as being an upside down approach. In order to achieve "pathogen" free food we have to accept food with residues of toxic chemicals in it . Don't you wonder how your microbiome is affected by these chemical residues? Less biodiversity in your food less biodiversity in your microbiome. Is that hard to understand?
miguel
I do not disagree with the human microbiome project. Where we disagree, Miguel, is that the human microbiome project invalidates existing methods for pathogen detection and identification.
Personally, I have eaten cheese that was known to contain listeria and I never got sick from it. (and that batch was made from pastuerized milk... imagine that. Most listeria contamination of cheese comes from the processing and aging enviroment, not from the raw milk)
But I am a healthy young adult. Its quite a different matter for someone in a vulnerable demographic (for example, a pregnant women) to consume cheese laced with listeria. 1 in 5 listeria illnesses results in death, and most result in hospitalization. Consider that for a few moments: who is paying for those hospital bills? How would you feel if your pregnant wife, sister, or mother were killed by listeria-laced cheese?
A wide array of different organisms with different and distinguishible genetic makeups can be grown in the same nutrient-rich agars that are used in laboratories, without the agar altering their genetic makeup. Also, cheese culture companies often use the same media to grow up different strains of lactic acid starter cultures, each with different properties. As a cheese maker, I know that a culture of thermophillic rod-shaped bacteria will behave differently than a culture of mesophillic coccus-shaped bacteria in the cheese vat, and will produce different flavors and textures in the cheese. Yet, they are both grown in the same medium, and the freeze-dried powders are indistinguishable to the senses.
Yes, bacteria adapt to their enviroments over time, through random mutations and through horizontal gene-swapping, but I fail to see how this invalidates PFGE methods. If anything, it suggests that the problem of PFGE methods is that they may occassionally miss some potential pathogen links because of mutations that happen in the time period between infection and when the samples are collected for lab analysis.
As for the problem with chemical residues... yes I share your concerns. I'm not generally in favor of chlorine (except for CIP cleaning) although currently I have no choice but to use it because it is the policy at the cheese factory where I make my cheese, and because of a lack of accessible & approved alternatives. Personally, I'd rather use something like peroxyacetic acid or hydrogen peroxide, which break down into harmless compounds (water, oxygen, vinegar). But in the meantime, I make sure to rinse the chlorine sanitizers off my cheese making equipment using water or whey before I put the milk or curd in it.
You talk about the chemical resides as if humans are the only species on the planet which use chemicals. Bacteria, plants, and animals use chemicals all the time.
'scuse me, clarification:
Where we disagree, Miguel, is that the human microbiome project invalides existing methods for pathogen identification and detection, as you seem to be suggesting. I do NOT think it invalidates those methods, although it does call into question some of our overarching assumptions in our approach to dealing with disease.
The question remains if our microbiome does include bacteria that are classified as "pathogenic" but they do not cause any health problem for us are they really pathogenic? I think you are missing out on a chance to understand why food can sometimes make people ill,simply because you are already absolutely sure of the dogma that "pathogens" are the cause. I think you need to be able to better define what a pathogen is before you can go about identifying and detecting them, let alone tracking them from one place to another.
miguel
Miguel, I think you are making some very sweeping conclusions based on some pretty preliminary evidence. Yes, certain individuals have very low levels of pathogens present within their bodies and do not get sick from them. The reasons that these pathogens do not attack the body are complex and are not always fully understood. Certainly, having a strong immune system helps.
But again... this is no way invalidates PFGE or pathogen detection methods. The causes for illness are complex, and I'm not suggesting that the presence of a pathogen is the sole cause of illness. But having a pathogen present is one of the major prerequisites for illness, and if a pathogen is carried in a commercial food product, the producer is liable for any resulting illnesses.
I'm not sure why you continue insisting on an extreme and misguided interpretation of the available evidence. Is it just because your interpretation is convenient for the particular political agenda which happens to be popular around here? It strikes me as being similair to Joel Salatin when he implies that nuclear fusion can take place within a living cell via "biological transmutation", when a far more likely scenario is that the mineral balance in the soil changes over time because of wildlife and deep-rooted plants drawing up existing minerals from subsoil layers. No "biological transmutation" is neccessary. It seems to me your argument is essentially the same, except instead of talking about minerals we are talking about pathogens.
"1 in 5 listeria illnesses results in death... how would you feel if your pregnant wife, sister, or mother were killed by listeria laced cheese?"
Bill, how many people do you believe are killed annually by listeria from raw cheese? Even if your disease theory is true, are the numbers so small that it's not even worth mentioning? The numbers I'm finding for (govt alledged) fluid raw milk disease, with 10 million or so drinkers in the US, are so small I don't even know why space is taken up in this blog on the subject. And you're always saying cheese is much safer than milk.
Let's hear some numbers and put your theories into perspective. How do they compare to the risk of getting hit by lightning?
Also, do you acknowledge the possibility of any health benefits of using raw dairy over pasteurized? I think if you look you will find tons of evidence in the real world. If the minerals in raw cheese DECREASE the risk of your pregnant wife, sister, mother ... getting sick, when you look at the overall picture, then should this be hidden by focusing only on alledged health risks of raw dairy? How would you feel if your pregnant wife, sister, mother were killed because you prevented them from having the protection of real food?
I think if you look at the subject honestly, seek out real world testimony, you will see raw cheese and other raw dairy prevent disease overall, even including the rare disease instances attributed to them by the govt. Do you think it's a good idea to attack and hold accountable people who produce raw cheese, that are actually reducing the risk of disease for their customers?
Finally, you need to look into the idea that exposure to small amounts of microbes, even if pathogens, immunizes us against them. Since real world evidence shows dairy to keep "pathogens" in check naturally, it seems an ideal food to protect us from disease if we allow those minute amounts in the food. In other words eating the raw cheese with minute amounts of listeria could prevent you from getting sick from luchmeat with large amounts of listeria...
People ate raw cheese for thousands of years. Without doing paranoid lab tests. If raw cheese becomes more popular, we can expect a DECREASE in disease, because it is loaded with minerals we can absorb. I do think you are suffering from establishment induced hypochondria, and are being blinded to the health benefits of real food, only looking at disease numbers, never disease prevented and cured. There are enough real problems with our food supply. People need to get out of the way of raw dairy. It can only improve our health overall.
Looking at disease numbers “alone” stems from an innate human characteristic of the need to search for something tangible (no matter how simplistic) and to adopt it as an easy or convenient solution to a complex problem.
Establishing blame is not good enough for those with a belief or an agenda. Someone has to be held accountable for their predicament, and seeing that a microbe cannot be held accountable for it lacks emotion (fear), then the only place for them to turn in their search for accountability is a vulnerable human being i.e. the small producer. They are certainly not going to willingly take responsibility for and admit that their actions and regulations are responsible for causing and/or exacerbating illness.
Current methods used to mitigate disease via control of a specific microbe or pathogen if you will, coupled with the arrogant and paternalistic way in which they implement such methods are not sustainable. The disease paradigm and the industry it has spawned is currently lashing out at those who are a threat to its credibility.
Ken
Update: I still can't find any deaths from raw cheese, except this weird case of some illegal mexican cheese or something. If 10 million people drink raw milk in the US, then raw cheese is probably consumed by over a million, I buy it now from the farmer that sells me raw milk. Looks like the only place where people die from listeria from raw cheese is in the establishment textbooks that Bill Anderson uses.
And guess what? When I google "annual raw milk cheese consumption", the seventh article that comes up is "Raw Milk: A Mother's Story in Food Safety News. Guess who's story it is? Our friend Mary McGonigle, telling how dangerous raw milk is.
Three hundred million people live in the country. 10 million drink raw milk, hundreds of thousands of healing stories out there, and yet Mary McGonigle gets to tell her anti raw milk story in Food Safety News. It IS a small world, isn't it?
"just to make a quick buck" What planet are you from Mr, Anderson? There are no bucks being made transporting raw drinking milk in Wisconsin.
Are you sure about that, Mike? Because I'm pretty sure that there are people who make money transporting raw drinking milk in Wisconsin. I wouldn't say that they are getting rich doing it... the big bucks go to the CEO of Dean Foods and his ilk.
Bill are you talking about transporting raw milk to the processing plant? I thought we were talking about milk that is consumed in it's raw form.
I am talking about milk that is consumed in its raw form. I'm fairly certain that there are people who are making some money (like I said... not big bucks, but some money) doing that in Wisconsin.
Unless he's charging $20 a gallon he's not even breaking even.
If he's doing for his health than it's not just to make a quick buck.
"we live in a free market" What? It wouldn't be imposable to get fresh healthy food in a free market.
Rawmilkmike, you can give up on teaching Bill the meaning of basic words, like "free market." He accuses others of ideological blindness, but it is an extreme case of the pot calling the kettle black. There is not a single activity I engage in on a daily basis that is not impinged on by some government regulation, program, subsidy, etc. and yet people like Bill continue to try and scape goat "free markets" for problems they could never create, because they do not exist.
Kind of like when little kids blame messes on ghosts or goblins or things...
You are right that free markets do not really exist, John. They are social constructs -- imaginary creations in the minds of right-wing politicians and neo-classical economists. That being said, there are such things as markets, and they are very much the product of the state. If not for the government, there would be no markets. They are flip sides of the same coin of ruling-class control.
So why do you regurgitate the Orwellian term, "free market"? (Which to most people sounds like a good thing.) The correct type of expression is, "Under governments and corporations there are no free markets. Marekts for food, and for pretty much everything else, are naturally local/regional, and 100% demand-based. What we have is a command economy based on corporate domination."
Same for "free trade", for example. Do you regurgitate that fraudulent term as well? Basic principle of method - purge all system language from our expression.
Russ, there are no free markets, period. At least not in the way that neo-classical/neo-liberal economists idealize them. ALL modern markets are bourgeois social constructs, regardless of how "organic" or "local" they are. You fall into the neo-liberal/neo-classical mold when you fetishize these types of markets, as if they are somehow more "free" than larger-scale markets.
And class domination does not require corporations, although they can certainly expidite its implementation. Oppression can just as much grow out out "organic human communities" (your favored term) as it can grow out of "alien hierarchies." Your fetishism of local organic markets is a petit bourgeois utopian fantasy. Capitalism is a totality, and we must treat it as such.
There can be human communities, or there can be atomized devastation and enslavement. There's no middle ground, and for good reason you haven't even tried to describe what you think the middle ground is. We can choose to do the best we can to build these communities, or surrender and perish. Meanwhile, for all your radical chic rhetoric, your specific prescriptions are always the essence of liberal conformity. (Mind you, that's here, at a discussion website, and not just in your interactions with regulators.)
As for what kind of communities could follow the end of the fossil fuel age and the collapse of the corporate state, no one's making utopian claims for them. That's a figment of your opposition to any true democracy movement. The answer is that these communities will be as good or bad as we make them, but they'll offer the opportunity for a new beginning, supported by modern agroecological knowledge and the heritage of true democracy struggles, which offer hope that the post-oil decentralization will be better, politically and materially, than the pre-oil.
Meanwhile I can't imagine what you want, unless it's the "communist" version of capitalism. But like I said your actual prescriptions here have been, across the board, conformist. You certainly don't support Food Sovereignty action like those of Via Campesina or the Brazilian Landless Workers' Movement, at least not among "decent" middle class societies. Your prescriptions have been precision-tailored to your pro-legalism small-craftsman position. And you have the nerve to accuse others of the "petty bourgeois" mindset! I was at a 4-H presentation last night where Food Freedom was the main topic, and my main thought throughout was, there's not enough of a civil disobedience mentality here, or anywhere else. So there's an example of our radically differing views of the alien "law". That won't change when/if the Food Control Act infringes on my actions as a small direct-retail farmer.
Perhaps where we disagree, Russ, is that the raw milk movement is in any way a "true democracy struggle." I support the legalization of raw milk, but only within the framework of proletarian democracy... not through the various shades of "free market" nonsense that dominates this movement.
Also, what you seem to view as "liberal conformity" I just see as basic working class solidarity. Anyone who has worked in a cheese production facility knows that you can't release cheese that has pathogens, and that in the event a pathogen-laced cheese is released, it needs to be recalled. Your hostility to this most basic solidarity (don't make other people sick!!) reveals the individualistic and petit-bourgeois character of the argument you are making.
Also, when you accusing me of using "chic-radical" rhetoric, I can't help but think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Real radicals don't waste their time with this raw milk nonsense. The only reason that I take a special interest in it because of my particular place within the division of labor.
I apologize for the grammatical errors above. There is no way to correct them once the comment is posted.
"Anyone who has worked in a cheese production facility knows that you can't release cheese that has pathogens ... it needs to be recalled."
Bill, then how were people able to produce cheese, FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS? They didn't do your weird tests, they didn't believe cheese is pathogenic. Bill, you need to read the real world accounts of cultures that used cheese and raw dairy. No, they didn't die from the cheese, they lived into their hundreds.
Bill, as I say, the only place I can find people dying from cheese is in those establishment textbooks you use. It's part of their program to discredit natural life enhancing foods. Why don't you make yourself a nice big bonfire and flipper them into it? Yeeee haaaaaaayyy.
Hi Tomm,
Not sure what "establishment textbooks" you are talking about. I am very well-versed in old world cheese making traditions, from doing my own research and from a previous job where I sold artisan cheese. My views do not come from the "establishment", they come from actually working in the cheese industry.
People who historically made soft cheeses made them for their own local village. Their customers all probably shared immunity to the local "germs" (for example, when Americans travel to Mexico and get sick, while the locals do not).
Those historic cheese makers did not have automobiles or refrigerated trucks, as modern cheese makers do, to transport perishible cheeses for hundreds and sometimes thousands of miles, in a very short period of time, in order to sell them. Before the rise of railroads and automobiles, the only cheeses that were transported over long distances for sale were very firm long-aged cheeses, such as Gruyere or Parmesan.
Today because of modern science and microbiology, we understand that these hard cheeses are much less likely to contain pathogens, because of their low moisture contents and long aging period.
Bill, I don't believe old world cheese making traditions used your lab testing. I believe the idea that cheese is full of pathogens and needs testing, comes from the establishment. Just like the idea that sex is dangerous and we are full of pathogens and it's irresponsible to touch each other... comes from the establishment, not from the real world. For example, our closest relatives on this planet do not die from touch, everyone's touching everyone, and they thrive on sex. I would recommend The Sexual Life of Savages c1929, about a free love society in the Pacific, and they did have contact with Europeans, sexual and otherwise... and yet were extremely healthy physically and psychologically. The establishment germ theory starts to fall apart when looking into the past. But you won't learn these things in school.
I'm wondering if you've considered being a local cheesemaker, instead of the big time railroad refrgeration long distance type of operation you describe. LIke, say you got a little land and a couple milking cows, 8 gallons a day would make a lot of cheese I would think... sold locally, no refrigeration needed, I mean wasn't that the whole idea of cheese? Of course today could you even do that legally? Anyway, until I start making my own cheese, that's the kind of place I'd like to buy from. free up your time for other things.
Read your green article btw, hope you noticed how the govt uses infiltrators and other agents to sabotage movements...
land + 8 cows + Bill Anderson = local cheese business???? Is this a kickstarter.com proposal? I'll subscribe. Bill????
To your last point, Tomm... yes the government does those things. It doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees with you or has a personal story that contradicts your preferred narrative about raw milk is working for the government.
Regarding the "free love" society in the Pacific, keep in mind that those were small and isolated social groups, and I wouldn't be surprised that prolonged contact with the outside world is damaging their "free love" culture. Severe sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS require a much larger population base to sustain the disease than that kind of society would have. This is a basic tennent of any epidemic disease. The disease does not affect gather-hunters because of their low population density and small social group size of 150-200 people. (Compere that to modern cities which can have millions of people). Jared Diamond (author of "Guns, Germs, and Steel") did a pretty good job of explaining how sedentary civilization led to the rise of deadly epidemic diseases... diseases which did not exist in gather-hunter times. Its not because of "the establishment." Its because of civilization.
That being said... I agree with you that the establishment's conservative view of sex runs against human nature. But that does not mean we should practice free love in the same way that gather-hunter humans did. Our social group size today is far to large for that. Rather, it means we need to make sure that everyone has access to reproductive services, safe sex, and scientifically-based sex ed (not the repressive "abstinance only" nonsense, which doesn't even work anyways). And that requires a committment to public health.
Not sure how we ended up talking about sex here. Its a bit beside the point. The point is that modern societies require public health. Its true that past societies did not, but there were good reasons for that.
One clarification, Tomm.
Deadly epidemic diseases will affect gather-hunters. Its just that those types of societies do not produce those types of germs. The evolution of those germs requires more densely populated civilizations.
"It does not mean that everyone that disagrees with you... is working for the government."
No, but it does mean that people need to be looking for that kind of thing in the government's war on natural foods. And they will see it.
"Severe sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS..."
Bill, this is exactly what I am talking about, establishment fearmongering. If you had bothered to read my earlier posts a month or so ago, I referenced the book, Inventing the Aids Virus, by a world class scientist, with the foreward written by Nobel Prize winning virologist Kary Mullis, both agreeing it's impossible for hiv to be the cause of "AIDS". Mullis is inventor of the PCR virus test used by hospitals btw, that's how he won the Nobel Prize. Unfortunately, Bill, the establishment lies. Sex and natural foods have a lot in common because the bad guys use the same kind of scare tactics with both. AIDS has nothing to do with sex.
"Our social group size is far to large (for free love today)"
Maybe you could tell your theory to our closest cousins brainwise, bottlenose dolphins. They cover huge distances daily in the oceans, and their favorite pastime is free love, as they visit one group to the next...
The truth is, sex, as well as eating whole foods like raw cheese and milk... is the best thing for preventing diesease. But you'll never hear that in any of those establishment textbooks, the health BENEFITS of sex. Epidemics aren't caused by healthy living in synch with Nature's design. They're caused by bullets, the psychological harm of having one's society destroyed, establishment slop food, etc. Stds, when they really exist, are psychosomatic, typically, also called reverse placebo. Your mind has a tremedous effect on the funcioning of your immune system, for good or ill. Being taught your whole life that your genitals are obscene, that sex is dirty, that God punishes you for healthy desires, ... can cause severe problems with the functioning of your immune system in the genital region. This is also the main cause of pain in childbirth. Also, eating the establishment diet makes you vulnerable to infections you wouldn't normally get. See Price's evidence, how people didn't get tuberculosis when they ate their whole food diets... If you think living in cities increases disease risk, that's all the more reason to have lots of sex and lots of whole foods like raw cheese, to immnunize yourself from health problems.
Bill, re your idea that sexually free societies were limited to small hunter gatherer groups far from cities, not true. Start digging around into "Roman orgies", etc., ... but you'll have to be a pretty good detective. It's taken me a lot of years to recover most of the true story... Needless to say, what they teach you about Rome, Greece, and so much more is fiction, but pieces are in there...
I am aware of the often promiscuous behavoir in ancient Greece, Rome, etc... Tomme. There was, of course, also a lot of sexual repression in those societies, especially against women. I think it would be a mistake to describe them as sexually liberated.
I'm not sure how sex got into in this conversation. It is kind of tangential. My point was that you cannot simply take a situation in the past (i.e., the lack of pathogen testing by historic cheese makers) and apply it to the present. The material conditions, social structures, and social behaviors today are very different than they were before the industrial revolution.
Re "establishment textbooks", I recall you asking people, "Have you ever taken a course in ...", referring to modern techniques related to dairy. Those are the textbooks telling people ancient foods are dangerous, those are the books that I think would make great kindling for a bonfire.
Re "establishment textbooks", I recall you asking people, "Have you ever taken a course in ...", referring to modern techniques related to dairy. Those are the textbooks telling people ancient foods are dangerous, those are the books that I think would make great kindling for a bonfire.
Tomme, compared to most cheese makers in Wisconsin, I'm very small. I make about 250-300 pounds of cheese at a time, with raw milk from a single farm that is certified organic. You are correct that I have taken some "establishment" coursework as a requirement for my cheese maker's license, but most of my knowledge comes from first-hand experience and from my own research.
The kind of cheese I make does require refrigeration, too. It will not ripen properly at room temperature. The cheese will taste bad and turn to mush.
@Bill: LOL - "I'm a working class radical in my dreams, but in reality I'm forced to be a petty bourgeois conformist and apologist." Sort of like Oscar Wilde's "I'm lying in the gutter, but looking up at the stars."
Is that why you "support the [corporatist] legalization of raw milk [by central governments]", rather than its decriminalization, or better yet recognizing that there's no central government which can legitimately police what are naturally local/regional foodsheds?
If you find the community food movement so distasteful (raw milk is of course just one piece of it, the template for the planned FDA assault on produce under the regimes of the Food Control Act and its accompanying bureaucratic onslaught), who's forcing you to be part of it? There's plenty of Marxists who would tell you to quit being a small craftsman and get a real "proletarian" job. Given your rhetoric, mustn't you obey that imperative?
I don't know what you are talking about, Russ.
Firstly, as I'd hope you are aware, the so-called "turn to industry" which the US Socialist Worker's Party undertook in the 1980's was an unmitigated failure, because is coincided with the beginings of global neoliberalism, the financialization of the US economy, and the outsourcing of traditional manufacturing jobs to the (so-called) third world. The "turn to industry" policy transformed the SWP from a once-powerful force of working class radicalism into an ever-diminishing sect, and set the stage for the rise of the ISO over the last 15 years, which I would argue IS petit bourgeois "Marxism", more in the sense that it is composed primarily of privileged "declass" intellectuals than anything to do with "small craftsman."
And for the record, I'm a Wobbly, not an orthodox Marxist or Trotskyist. If anything, that makes me a lumpenprole, not a petty bourgeoisie.
I find the raw milk movement so distasteful because it is a manget for some of the most disgusting and reactionary elements in American society -- The John Birch Society, the Alex Jones & Mike Adams wackos, Gordon Watson types, etc, etc...
I do not believe that the raw milk movement is representative of the broader local food movement. If this movement were really serious about democratization of milk production and consumption, then we need to be working to increase the number of people involved in dairy farming. And that means breaking up the factory farms, agrarian reform, etc, etc... all massive socialistic undertaking of property redistribution.
Can you imagine how these "libertarians" would react to an idea like that?
Ah Bill, my friend.
Actually pretty much all of us endorse the end of factory farming, more involvement in farming, the end of massive mega-farms and all the above, but not by the MEANS you endorse (violence). One type of violence does not generally solve another type.
We think we can do it by free, open competition and cooperation, removal of corporate subsidies and gov't regulations that exist not to protect public health, but government profits, and other means, and the end of the FED that is one of the main reasons land and wealth has been consolidated into the hands of a few large businesses and families.
Oh, but peaceful means like these just aren't radical enough, eh?
Keep misusing words and labels Bill. Your constant posting, abuse and tarring and feathering of anyone who doesn't hold to your orthodoxy, and general demeanor is the best way to ensure that no one will ever take your views and positions seriously.
Not sure what you mean by this, John. I do not consider the destruction of illegitimate corporate property to be "violence." Perhaps you do? If so, then you would have to, on principle, be opposed to the Boston Tea Party of 1773. Important to point out, though... no person was harmed (unless you consider corporations to be people)
The only "violence" I have ever advocated is to disposses the ruling class of their political power. And frankly, I think this could be done without drawing a single drop of blood, if there was sufficient international working class solidarity.
I am not a gun nut. In fact, I continue to be appaled at the NRA's tacit endorsement of racist violence (i.e. the George Zimmermans of the world), and the general "libertarian" refusal to speak out against the incredible violence which our Federal Government has inflicted upon immigrant communities over the last 4 years. Obama has deported more immigrants than any president in American history (over one million) yet the only thing Ron Paul has to say about it is that he wants to amend the constitution to abolish birthright citizenship.
You are deluisional if you think our ruling class will give up its power voluntarily, John. There's a reason that the US spends more on the military than any other nation on the planet. There's a lot of privilege to protect here.
If we could abolish capitalism peacefully, I'm all for it. Tell me how.
Also, John, for all of your talk about the FED, libertarians are awfully silent on the question of the IMF, WTO, and World Bank. For anyone who has seriously studied the issue (see, for example, John Perkin's "Confessions of an Economic Hitman") these institutions are the cause for FAR more violence than the FED. However, because this violence is directed against people of color without access to the same privileges as middle-class white American "libertarians", you completely ignore the violence.
And lets not forget your man Rand Paul's support for the FBI... only the most violent domestic Federal agency in American history.
http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/right-wing-violence-increase-west-p...
Bill, again, you must not actually read any true libertarians, as they also speak out against all those institutions and more.
If you were any blinder Bill, you wouldn't be able to see the keys to type your un-factual idiocies about people and movements. "You completely ignore the violence," evidence, please Bill, evidence. But you can't provide evidence, as you have a set of rigid, ideologically driven categories that bind and blind you.
I have already posted the evidence of Ron Paul's Xenophobic position on immigration. If you'd like me to post it again, I can oblige. However, if you are asking for evidence of the Federal govt's violence against immigrant communities, there is plenty. For example:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/18/deportations-customs-remove-rec...
There is plenty more that has been written about the violence against immigrant communities over recent years. But of course, since immigrants aren't within your privileged little group of white middle-class Americans that you confer the importance of "rights" to, I guess this violence doesn't matter to you, hey John?
Also, I have not even begun to touch on the violence against animals or against nature. You eat meat, don't you John? I'm certainly not a vegan, but killing animals is a form of violence.
Have you read this article, John?
http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/right-wing-violence-increase-west-p...
Please show me where an American-style "Libertarian" speaks out against the WTO, IMF, and World Bank.
Bill, spend just a few minutes reading Mises, lewrockwell and the like; you just choose to ignore any evidence that contradicts your views.
Gasp, Bill, some people think nations should actually have borders and the like that define their communities, laws/lands. Your ranting on RP is old, and illogical and futile as always. You don't care that real black people (which you aren't) have pointed out he isn't. Oh, and again, the whole treating/caring for an interracial couple in the 70s when racial tension was real and paying their bills, but yep, we are back in the Billtopia. Sure people are lining up to live in your little enclave, Bill, and begin rebillecation programs because of all our capital-topia-dispen-anarcho biases and prejudices, which you have clearly risen above.
Have a good day Bill, knowing that RP and his movement is one of the fastest growing parts of the American ethos and especially among young people.
People are tired of others telling them what they can and cannot do with their resources, communities, etc. you included and your tyranny by Bill-ocracy.
Hi John,
I've spent more than just a few minutes reading Mises, Rockwell, and Rothbard. I've seen plenty of criticism of central banking there. It is mostly neoclassical arguments about how the banks affect markets. There is very little that specifically, directly, and materially addresses how the IMF, WTO, and World Bank affect the (so-called) "third world."
Your attempts to dismiss Ron Paul's clearly racist history is tokenistic at best. The Ron Paul movement is full of racists and xenophobes, even if you yourself don't profess to be one. Perhaps you missed this... but America is going to have a white minority by the time you and I are in our golden years. I don't have a problem with this. It would seem, however, that many Ron Paul supporters do.
Evidence, John. Where is the evidence of the "Libertarian" hostility to neo-liberal global capitalism?
Fact is, they are complacent with it, and very much a part of it.
Bill, I am done posting after this, as I have productive things to do, other than display your great ego and ignorance to the world. Hundreds of articles on lewrockwell.com and dozens on Mises.org all talk about the problem with any centralized (both here in USA, or more generally at the world governance level), and the need to resist it. Oh, you must have missed all the times Ron Paul spoke against the IMF, WHO, etc., but oh wait, when something doesn't fit your narrative, you just ignore it.
Because the ones in the US generally write more about the main US institutions that mimic the global ones and again, Schiff, North, Tom Woods, etc. all tackle the global ones in their writings, speaking, podcasts, etc., just means, gasp, they are dealing with the most pressing issues in their context, and seeking to use them to reach people here so that the movement grows and then something can be done about the larger institutions as well.
But just to show how easy it would be for you to answer your own asinine ramblings and objections, this took me 6 seconds to secure on google,
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul206.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul17.html Ron Paul on the IMF scam
WHO and other groups appears with startling frequency as well, which a google search will also show... but alas Bill, for all your erudition, you have yet to learn to even use google it seems.
The evidence is there and plain for anyone to see and find, who hasn't already fallen into a pit because they are blind.
John,
Do you mean the "WHO" (World Health Organization) or the "WTO" (World TRADE Organization)?
I rest my case. Your agenda is not against the ruling class. You are against public health. Get your priorites straight.
Oh wait, that took only 3 seconds, same results, hundreds of libertarians speaking out against it,
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul250.html
Last week I had an opportunity to present the case against US membership in the World Trade Organization at a seminar in Washington. Later this summer Congress will have a similar opportunity to raise objections about the WTO when several colleagues and I bring a resolution to the House floor seeking the wholesale withdrawal of the US from the organization.
But again, Bill, continuing displaying your massive ego and ignorance to the world, especially the way you conveniently ignore any and all evidence (that is available literally with just seconds of efforts) that doesn't fit your per-conceived and incorrect narrative.
John,
I thought you were done responding to me.
Unfortunate for American "Libertarians", overthrowing the US ruling class takes more than just the few seconds required for a google search. As expected, these "Libertarians" are mostly interested in "Liberty" for the white property owning middle class. Its congruent with the overall trend of the raw milk movement (though certainly not the broader local food movement!)
Also, I'm afraid your narrative is the one that is mistaken. "War of Northern Agression." PLEASE, John. The South was aggressing against us for years, as we tried to free slave. Not mention the English "classical liberals" who financed the slave trade with Africa, and the incredible violence the slave trade required.
This
is
be-
com-
ing
dif-
fi-
cult
to
fol-
low.
May-
be
start
a
new
com-
ment?
Who needs Alex Jones when you have Journalism like THIS?
http://www.tni.org/report/state-power-2013
Yes, I'm talking to you Lola Granola and Barney Google (among others....)
"They are social constructs -- imaginary creations in the minds of right-wing politicians and neo-classical economists."
I assume by that you meant all politicians, and and system economists. In this corporatist system, terms like "right-wing" and neo-classical" are either redundant (where it comes to all economic and all basic political issues) or meaningless.
No, they really aren't meaningless and redundant terms, Russ. I would hope that someone as well educated as you would recognize that there are left-wing politicians, and alternatives to neo-liberal/neo-classical economic models.
And by left-wing politicians, I'm NOT talking about Obama of course (who is a center-right neoliberal), but about left-populists such as Hugo Chavez in Venezuala or Alexis Tsipras in Greece. One can recognize these figures as alternatives to the right-wing/neo-liberal figures that currently dominate both parties in the US political system, while also recognizing the shortcomings of these self-styled revolutionaries who operate within the constraints of bourgeois "democracy."
I forgot to mention one of the best of the left-populist (self-styled revolutionaries) who works within the contraints of bourgeois "democracy": Evo Morales of Bolivia.
Again, one can recognize that figures such as these are better than the rightwing neoliberal alternatives, while still recognizing the shortcomings of their methods.
As I said, I was talking about the Western corporatist system.
Meanwhile, where does your defense of FDA thugs as "just doing their jobs" and your proclivity for artifically cheap industrial sushi fit into this typology you're discussing here?
Russ, are you not familiar with Jill Stein's presidential campaign for the Green Party.
As I said, real working-class radicals do not waste their time with this raw milk nonsense. My interest in the issue is only because I make raw milk cheese. There are far more important civil liberties concerns, such as the ongoing "Green scare"
http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/green-scare/
Leave it to a cheese maker to call raw milk nonsense. Bill is your cheese really raw milk cheese?
Mr. Anderson, you asked "Would you feel comfortable (for example) exonerating corporations that sell toxic toys or GMO-laced foods from product liability, and instead just take a "caveat emptor" approach?". Corporations are free to "sell toxic toys or GMO-laced foods". In most cases they don't even have to label them toxic. Sewing them only forces them to label it toxic.
Well, I am opposed to the rights of corporations to sell toxic toys and GMO-laced phoods. At the very least, labelling these things as toxic would help to mitigate the issue.
But I guess that makes me an opponent of the "free market", hey? I can just see it now... some "Monsanto-libertarians" railing against the "big government bureaucrats" who want to ban and/or require labelling of their precious GMO crops and highly processed phoods.
Here they are. The "Monsanto-libertarians" I was talking about.
Also known as the "Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow" , it is a right-wing think tank with strong libertarian tendancies, that supports GMOs, fossil fuel drilling in the Arctic, and deregulation of polluting industries and agribusiness, etc... among other thing.
Heres their libertarian take on GMOs
http://www.cfact.org/2012/05/22/rare-corporate-courage-and-common-sense/
And for an idea about who funds them, look no further:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Committee_for_a_Constructive_Tomorrow
"Monsanto-libertarians" indeed.
A person that buys their food directly from the farm knows allot more about their food then the person who buys it from the supermarket. The foods in our stores are basically uninspected and unregulated since they are not inspected for any of the things that health-conscious people are concerned with.
"...It is dangerous to consume any product that is dairy based that has not been pasteurized...”
How come lawyers and govt entities are allowed to advertise raw milk is dangerous, but people who advertise raw milk is healing, get attacked by the govt?
Even if you support your claim with testimonials showing people have been healed with raw milk, the govt will reject this as "anecdotal" evidence, and say you need double blind studies. How come they don't need double blind studies to say it's harmful?
How come if a dairy farmer has a customer that gets diarrhea, the customer can sue, and will recieve monetary compensation if he can convince a court it was from the milk, but if the dairy farmer has a customer that is healed of cancer with the raw milk, can the farmer then sue the customer for monetary compesation for the value of having healed the man's cancer?
“Big Ag group trying to ban raw milk sales in South Carolina - your help needed to stop this tyranny.”
http://www.naturalnews.com/038828_raw_milk_South_Carolina_farm_bureau.html
Ken
Faux laws- nothing more than political horse manure to avoid commercial risk are not going to protect those so “shielded” from the brewing storms and rising winds of responsibility.
Are you ready for this?
Another reason to steer clear of GMO products; high concentration of formaldehyde found by German researcher in GMO corn.
At the family dinner table: “Finish your corn dear, you need that formaldehyde.”
In the restaurant advertisements: “We have only the best corn-fed beef! Yum!”
Maybe caskets could be made from it. After it puts you in an early one.
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
@ Ingvar: Do you suppose we'll soon see ethanol made from this same corn?
Has this GMO/formaldehyde laced corn been the stuff we've actually been using (unknowingly) for the past decade+? My bet is we've been exposed to it a lot longer than we realize. Corn and soy (in some form) are in almost everything these days, including clothing, shampoo, toothpaste, etc. I would also bet there are many GMO *corns and soys* around, all containing different, sometimes random, genetic organisms. This is why, to me, the whole absurd idea seems beyond dangerous because they don't even KNOW what they're creating. Thus my question here, many times and unanswered, do these folks eat their own concoctions?
This sounds familiar.
“If raw milk was such a public hazard, why did they have to dig up statistics from 1912 to 1937, and not more recent ones? The dates they chose were during the beginning of the “Industrial Age” and mass migrations to urban areas, where cows were also brought into the city to provide milk to the growing populations. Sanitation was obviously not what it is today, and the movement of small-scale raw milk suppliers today in the 21st century is in the opposite direction – out of industrial milk production and back to the countryside and artisanal methods.”
“But here is one other fact to consider: The farmer, Stephen Hook, has starred in a full feature film about raw milk, The Moo Man, which currently is being promoted at the Robert Redford’s Sundance Film Festival. So by choosing to prosecute Farmer Hook, they have chosen a very high profile figure in the raw milk movement.”
http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/raw-milk-vending-machine-supplier-in-uk...
Ken
As for raw milk and outbreaks, it is all about perspective. Some view it as a big deal and others don't. http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com/raw-milk-news/story/cdc-reports-large-nu...
When I click on Mary Mcgonigle's link here, the title says, "Real Raw Milk Facts", and has a section called "Real Life Stories".
Guess what. All the "real life stories" are about people supposedly made sick from raw milk. I don't see any stories about people healed from raw milk. But out in the real world, I can easily find these stories. For example a woman in the neighborhood that healed her borderline osteoporosis by switching to raw milk. I guess it IS all about perspective, whether you want to promote truth, or govt disinformation.
“For the years 2009 and 2010, 13% of the outbreaks were related to dairy. Among the 36 dairy-associated outbreaks of which pasteurization information was reported, 26 (81%) involved unpasteurized products.”
Correct me if I'm wrong David, but the government's own numbers say 10 million or so people drink raw milk in this country, yet diseases attributed to it average 48 cases a year. This is so small a number it's not even worth bringing up, even if these cases were genuine.
If 10 million drink raw milk, then there must be hundreds of thousands of real world testimonials of healing out there, yet Mary's website didn't find one. The fact that Mary would link that scam website to this blog tells you all you need to know about Mary McGonigle.
Tommculhane,
You are correct about the government's numbers indicating about 10 million raw milk drinkers. Where things get dicey is with the numbers on illnesses. The CDC's own numbers fluctuate widely from year to year, but generally show 50 to 150 illnesses each year attributable to raw milk. The site Mary Martin links to, realrawmilkfacts.com, has a new table that seems to distort the illness situation by including several that are highly questionable, such as one outbreak of 60 or so illnesses from illegally produced queso fresco cheese. In a small universe of illnesses, such exaggerations skew the numbers, and make it difficult to know who and what to believe. That is part of the site's intent--to make raw milk look as unsafe as possible.
The key thing David, is to realize that the govt admitting to 10 million raw milk drinkers ends the debate. All people have to do is interveiw local drinkers and ask about their experience with raw milk. If even 1 of 10 tells you it has healed them and prevented disease (and my experience says it's going to be more than that), that translates into 1 million healings and prevention when you apply it to the 10 million base.
No matter how you do the math, any sincere person that checks this out will see the govt and other arms of the fearmongering campaign against raw milk are to be dismissed. You don't even have to get into how sketchy their disease numbers are: campylobacter outbreaks where the govt can't even show us the test results they claim to have used while other tests show no campylobacter, mysterious farmers having unfortunate "ecoli outbreaks" with their milk, HUS being blamed on milk instead of on antibiotics...
If the govt tried to make a plant illegal because they claim 1 person had an allergic reaction and died from it, but they leave out the little detail that the plant saved 10,000 lives, what's there to debate? (and then you find the "allergic reaction" looks really sketchy to boot...)
Overall, I think we're in agreement--that the benefits of raw milk outweigh the risks, given that the risks have declined with improved sanitation techniques and the focus by more farmers on improving production techniques, such as via the Raw Milk Institute.
David, why do you keep saying "the risks have declined with improved sanitation techniques and the focus by more farmers on improving production techniques"? You yourself have shown the bias in outbreak reporting. Improved sanitation will have no effect on bias so how will it improve raw milk's safety record?
Pages