A Raw Milk Tragedy Gone Terribly Wrong in the Re-Telling

The photo of Foundation Farm issued by Oregon Public Health, to suggest the unsafe conditions at the farm. As a journalist, I probably read news reports and articles differently than most people….as in more critically. At the same time, I admire well done stories, especially in my own area of expertise. In some cases, I wish I had done one or another story myself. 


So I was intrigued with the recent article in Food Safety News about the Foundation Farm illness outbreak of 2012. From the get-go, this outbreak from E.coli O157:H7, which sickened 19 people, most of them children,  was bad news for all concerned. I wrote several posts about the anguish the incident posed, for everyone concerned. 


From a journalistic viewpoint, the FSN writer, Cookson Beecher, did an excellent bit of reporting in profiling two families—the parents of a little girl who nearly died from complications of her illness associated with Foundation Farm’s tainted milk, and the owners of Foundation Farm. It’s a gut-wrenching human interest story, in which two families who have every reason to fear and avoid the other wind up forgiving and even helping each other.  It’s definitely understandable that the lesson both families would draw from the tragedy is that raw milk is highly risky. 


But unfortunately, Beecher couldn't stay with the human interest aspects of the story—the guilt felt by all, the tragic unfolding of Kylee’s illness, the inspiring reconciliation between the families, the concerns the families have about raw milk safety. No, Beecher turns the story into seriously slick propaganda.

The article cleverly transitions from a cautionary tale about the challenges of producing safe raw milk into inflammatory propaganda that raw milk is inherently unsafe. If you go into the raw milk debate with the view that raw milk is inherently unsafe, then any single example of illness can serve your purpose. Beecher obviously has that viewpoint, and she quickly loses the human interest story in favor of the real agenda. 


It hits all the anti-raw-milk hot buttons in one endless flow. There is the denial of European research showing raw milk protects against asthma and allergies, via a lengthy monolog from the head of an asthma/allergy foundation that includes this bizarre quote: “The thought that this can cure allergies is actually a dangerous thought.” Wow, a “dangerous thought” backed up by serious scientific research.  


There is a slam on the stupidity of raw milk drinkers who won’t heed the CDC/FDA warnings because they, imagine, don’t trust the government authorities.  Turning this story into blatant propaganda will simply increase the cynicism and mistrust of those inclined toward raw milk.  


Finally, there is the slam on Sally Fallon and the Weston A. Price Foundation, as if they are the cause of the Foundation Farm illnesses. (“Its website shows a happy, healthy-looking family with this headline above the photo: ‘They’re happy because they eat butter.’ “)


Interestingly, the article never addresses the story line first put out by Oregon Public Health, which circulated the photo above—the likelihood that the owners of Foundation Farm, Brad and Tricia Salyers, may not have been running the safest operation. While the Salyers obviously don’t want to consider that possibility--they find more palatable joining the chorus about raw milk's inherent dangers--how does Beecher manage to avoid any such suggestion about unsafe conditions? 


In a comment following the article, Shawna Barr raises that issue, inquiring whether Beecher visited the farm, or inquired about safety standards, gently suggesting that conditions at the farm and the farmers’ lack of training, might have raised the risk of tainted milk at Foundation Farm. Beecher responds that “the point of the article isn't about problems at Salyers' farm but rather that no matter how clean things can be on a farm, there's still the risk.”


There you have the writer-turned-propagandist's true confession: While risk is acceptable for other foods, it isn’t acceptable for raw milk. In her view, raw milk is inherently unsafe, and no amount of attention to farmer education and safety standards will change that. Difficult to have a discussion about change when change isn’t one of the options. 

One final note: There are those in the food rights community who won’t appreciate me giving this piece of scurrilous propaganda the kind of attention I have. They would rather ignore it, pretend it doesn't exist. I would argue that it’s important to answer lies with truth. As in political campaigns, you try not to let the opposition define you. Turning this tragedy into ideological ammunition just compounds the tragedy, and it needs to be exposed for what it is.  


I wrote recently about how writers sometimes resort to stereotypes in reporting on food rights. Another example just came out in Modern Farmer, in a summary of hog farmer Mark Baker's legal case against the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and its genetic purification rules. In the space of four paragraphs, Baker's case is pegged as supported by "Libertarians," he is depicted as "prone to...gun talk," and he is described as selling his pigs to high-end restaurants. The "Libertarian" thing seems to grow out of his association with raw milk advocates, who are assumed to all be "Libertarian." Why? Your guess as good as mine. 


The "gun talk" grows out of Baker's reference to guns in an interview with the writer. At the end of the article, the author provides a partial transcript of her conversation with Baker (in response to his complaint about inaccuracy), in which she clearly prods him about guns. ("Do you own guns?....a lot of guns?.....Would you use them to defend your farm?") In my many conversations with Baker, I've heard him refer to guns in one context only: his fear that law enforcement agents might hunt him down somewhere around his isolated farm in their ongoing effort to intimidate him out of business. 


As for his business supplying pork to restaurants, that business ended two years ago, with the DNR rules against so-called feral pigs, some of which Baker raises. 


That's a lot of screwups in such a short article. But necessary when you are creating a particular stereotype. 


Shawna Barr's picture

Yes David, a very disappointing article and huge lost opportunity to talk about lessons learned I'm afraid. Except the lesson to not drink and not produce raw milk. Period.

The politics are exhausting and largely fruitless...whether it be those of the "inherently dangerous" folks or the "inherently safe" folks.

My call is to fellow raw milk producers in the trenches. Good information, the right mindset, and sound processes make a difference. Want to do something to prevent another Foundation Farm? Join us at RAWMI where good information flows and politics stop. Go to the site, fill out an application, and get the ball rolling to join a supportive community of raw milk producers committed to doing it right. Share your knowledge, and gain from others. www.rawmilkinstitute.net

Deborah - Pacifica's picture

David & Shawna - you both are so correct on this...a huge lost opportunity on different levels, plus being a preventable situation that unfortunately gives raw milk a bad rap. Here you have the Salyers, lovely people, with good intentions & honorable people, but unfortunately their experience with this incident has totally scared them off. It does appear that they did not have the experience, knowledge & skills for being raw milk farmers, but they could have had the opportunity to have become so. Unfortunately, that will never be so now. Having them drop out of the raw milk production is a big loss. My heart goes out to them & the others that were sickened & extremely saddened that they will never discover the true benefits of safe, clean, nutrient-rich raw milk. This is not the raw milk experience that any of them should have had. This is also an example that when someone goes into any form of food production, they need to be fully knowledgable & trained in the techniques required. A big appalling aspect of this situation is that those against raw milk production, access & consumption will take full advantage of this incident & 'milk' (yes, pun intended) it for all it's worth. Never mind that there are many, many raw milk farms & farmers across the nation (some of which I have had the privilege to meet in my travels) that have been producing safe, healthy, clean raw milk for many, many years without any incidents ever! But, of course, this will never be mentioned nor acknowledged by the raw milk opponents. The opponents like to say that "raw milk production can never be safe" totally excluding those that have been doing so nationwide for a very long time. This is so frustrating, as this omission gives incorrect information to those who do not know, yet alone, understand the raw milk 'picture'. Another frustration is people, such as the new poster, who have no clue about the history & purpose for pasteurization. The true history of pasteurization came about by a request from Emperor Napoleon III who enlisted Pasteur to save the French wine industry which were causing huge economic losses. It did not come about for the use with milk!

~ Deborah

rawmilkmike's picture

Just in case anyone has forgotten:

Ben Chapman of North Carolina State University says:

“The philosophy that you and I have and others in the world of extension share” “When someone asks me for advice I rarely give them advice.” “I'm just not an advice giver.” Even though the entire conversation was on, what is the proper advice to give on thawing meat.
The Minnesota study “It probably doesn't make any impact on those we need to communicate to.” Why is it so important to get this information to us if it isn't to give us advice? Furthermore, why would you need to get hypothetical data to people who already know raw milk's risks and benefits. If they were serious they'd be targeting the general public but of course that would be free advertising for the competition.

“Wull ya n I that's the conundrum right, like that's the the the, situation, is we can kind a, um ya I don't know, beat our chests and point at this n say look look look more people get sick then this than we thought um but we have to figure out a way to be credible to that population.”

“We've known fur a long long time I mean going back to the history of I have P(IAFP) that this this product is risky.” “This is disheartening part of this whole thing.” “It's one more tool in the tool box”

“We can't tell them not to drink it.”

“Ya ya, I think it's easier or a better way, the more and more I look at raw milk, I, I move away from the dogma that we can't do it we a that that making it illegal fixes it cuz it doesn't and it clearly hasn't um but a the I, I don't know the answer. You get into this whole messy area of well, well if we make it legal and we regulate it then we're giving some legitimacy to the, to the industry but ya it gives us some control measure.”

Don Schaffner of Rutgers says:

“We want to give you the right information and have you understand that information so that you can make the right decision.”

“That's a, that's a startling statistic right a, ta say a that u um that 3.7% of people with infections reported raw milk consumption.” Even though this number is obviously over inflated, it is still very close to the number of raw milk drinker in the state. Which means it is not startling at all.

“Um ya mean raw milk is a risky food and a mean people you shouldn't feed it to your kids fer sure um.”
“If people want to drink raw milk they should be allowed to but let's tell people what the risks are and then they can make their own decision but boy.”
“This is what we want to do.”
“This raw milk situation”

“We don't at this point we don't have enough science to say well OK what we out to be doing is encouraging farmer to do XYZ. I don't think we even know that yet.”


mark mcafee's picture

Thank You!

I am going to reserve my typing on this subject for another time. I have said my piece already.
Instead I am going to invite every one to our 3rd annual OPDC "Camping with the Cows" event on May 3rd and rejoice in the community of those that celebrate life and the tremendous health that is brought by whole unprocessed foods. I have even invited Michele Obama...she loves whole unprocessed foods for our families. We have a place for Marine one to land...LOL!! Rejoice!!


Prof. Don Schaffner Elected Fellow of the American Academy of Microbiology

rawmilkmike's picture

Now how can 2 cows provide enough raw milk for 48 families? (at 8 gals per day per cow)

Ken Conrad's picture


I doubt those two jerseys are producing 8 gal of milk per day, let alone consistently supplying the daily requirements of 48 families.

The average jersey produces about 6 gals/day and they would need a generous supply of grain at that, especially during the fall and winter months.

In order to consistently produce enough milk to supply 48 families one would need 2-3 times that many cows with straddled lactations. Then again if the families are merely consuming half a quart a day it might just work. In our family half a quart a day wouldn’t cut it where we consume at least 1.5 gallons/day.


rawmilkmike's picture

Thanks for the info on Jerseys Ken. I've recently gained access to a little Jersey milk and wow what a difference. And yes, with a 4 and a 7 year old we drink at least a gal a day.

And check the out.
… …
The following denial begs the question. During a supposed raw milk out break how many of the sick raw milk drinkers also drank pasteurized milk during the out break period and how many of the sick non-raw milk drinkers in the surrounding area drank pasteurized milk during the out break period.

“Pasteurized dairy products from commercial dairies are safe and nutritious and are not implicated in the recent cluster of illnesses.”

D. Smith's picture

All one has to do is look at the source of this information. If ya'll trust dot gov web sites to give you adequate or correct information, you will be disappointed. ;) They're so busy peddling propaganda they don't have time to really investigate anything, and yet about 98% of the people who read that junk will believe it because it's from our gubment. Imagine it.

rawmilkmike's picture

When Don Schaffner of Rutgers said: “The term "minimum infectious dose" is not in line with modern quantitative microbial risk assessment thinking.” I linked to a definition of pseudoscience.

I may only be an electrician but Don's response shows he doesn't even consider the possibility of using empirical data or microbiology in his battle against healthy food. What good is “modern quantitative microbial risk assessment” without any empirical data or microbiology behind it? Using “quantitative microbial risk assessment” this way is pseudoscience. Technically epidemiology is not pseudoscience but the way we're using it is.

dschaffner | when: Sat, 02/08/2014 - 16:12

Sylvia Gibson's picture

Shawna asked some very important questions in the story from David's link. And her questions were basically ignored. It is obvious the writer is very biased, which makes her an example of a poor journalist. Is a writer like that even dignified with the title of journalist? I would think not.

From the story, it appears the the Slayers really didn't have the knowledge to produce raw dairy safely. He is even quoted that “Cows aren’t like horses,” he said. “Cows like to lie down a lot." Horses do lie down, quite often. He stated he had 5 cows and was milking 3...for 48 families? Wow. That statement doesn't add up at all.

When people make such drastic switches in their beliefs, it is a red flag. Money not an issues any longer? In this economy? Spokespeople get paid to shut up about their real beliefs and to shill for those in power... just sayin.

the premise of our cowshare was that a cow gives an average of 3 gallons of milk, per day, for 10 months' lactation. So : with three cows in milk, getting 60 gallons per week enables the farmer to provide a bit more than gallon for each household of those 48 families. Pretty skimpy rations for people who love their REAL MILK, but not unrealistic

D. Smith's picture

@ Sylvia: It does seem odd that the Foundation Farm folks (Brad Salyer) went from being "foodie type people" to people who suddenly thought they probably shouldn't believe "all the hype" about raw milk, even though they were already milking their own cows because they wanted this wholesome food for themselves and their family. That's a damn big turn-around! Also, the article linked to in David's article mentions that the Salyers were broke. It isn't a big leap from there to being all about the dangers of raw milk and probably some incentive from bigDairy to say it.

I had that feeling from the moment I read the article, so I'm glad someone else picked up on it, as well.

D. Smith's picture

Here's another tragedy. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/crosby022114.php3 Apparently our gubment doesn't want small farms but they don't want better cities either. It makes one wonder exactly what they do want. 8-\

[quote from article at the link I posted above]
"If you think that community organizers are always looking out for the best interests of the community, consider the Trader Joe story which was reported about two weeks ago. The Trader Joe grocery chain had to pull out of a planned expansion to a poor area in Portland, Ore., after a community organizing group objected. The group said on Feb. 3 that opening a Trader Joe's in the historically Black neighborhood would "increase the desirability of the neighborhood for non-oppressed populations and risk gentrifying the neighborhood." In other words, let's not make the neighborhood better; let's keep it a crappy ghetto."
[end quote]


rawmilkmike's picture

This is a must see for anyone concerned with this countries oppressive government and constant state of recession.

“Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class by Ian Haney Lopez”

Listen - Aired January 22, 2014 - 8:00am;

Read - Posted on 2013-12-12;

Watch, Published on Jan 14, 2014;

D. Smith's picture

@ rawmilkmike: Well, the point I was trying to get across wasn't necessarily the racial angle, it was the fact that community organizers are supposed to be helping communities become better organized, right? Well, if this is how they go about doing that, we're all in trouble and better keep our eyes open wide. Besides, Trader Joe's would have offered these people, no matter their race, healthier foods. As the article states, it's surely a better option than putting up a 7-11 and selling candy bars and potato chips, or another liquor store. People will shop where it's handy for them, thus buying whatever is available, no? But the community organizers obviously didn't see it that way. Or maybe they did and their mission was accomplished. Oppression, pure and simple. We see it everywhere and not much in that regard has changed in 200 years - for whites as much as any other nationality.

The youtube vid you posted, rawmilkmike, was excellent though.

rawmilkmike's picture

Thanks D.

D. Smith's picture

@ rawmilkmike: When I came across this article today, I thought of you immediately because it's a subject you are keenly aware of, according to your posts here. It's so disgusting, terribly disgusting - but I've simply got to order the book so I can finish reading about it because now I'm hooked. ;>


Sorry to disrupt the raw milk discussion but I have no other way to contact rawmilkmike. :(

mark mcafee's picture

Signs of organic milk contraction in the domestic markets. White Wave ( Deans Foods Horizon etc ) is selling its Idaho Organic operations and buying into Chinese dairy systems and infrastructure. Found this really cool website that shows the PRO V CON of raw milk and has plenty of our arguments plainly posted against the FDA etc... http://milk.procon.org/

I need to get OPDC and RAWMI posted into the last piece of the historical review after 8000 years of raw milk chronology the last piece is a little weak and mostly announces James Stewart the RAWESOME Raid.

I think that we can do alittle better than that considering the tremendous strides towards raw milk safety accomplished by RAWMI and its awesome LISTED farmers!!!

ingvar's picture

Here's an article related to nanotechnology and food.


"... Nanotech also keeps food fresher over a longer period. Brown says the nanopackaging industry is actually larger than its nanofood counterpart, and has three main focuses: barriers, antimicrobials, and sensors. Ideally, the packaging would provide protection from moisture, bacteria, and pathogens. There is also a type of packaging that would involve what Brown calls oxygen scavenging, which means that the packaging would absorb oxygen before it reaches food. Other techniques have involved coating packaging with nano silver particles to make them antimicrobial, using polypropylene and or polyethylene barriers to inhibit moisture, and even embedding packages with silicon-based nanoparticles that can detect pathogens. These are currently being tested, but Brown says that the experimental food packaging has been successful in lab settings. ..."

"... Basically, you can put this yummy blob into the microwave and specify what you'd like it to be. Nanoparticles in the food would be activated by the appliance and change color, shape, and possibly even nutrients. Eventually, the hope is that this food product could become so smart, it would even be able to tell what ingredient one is allergic to and block it. ..."

Have a great weekend everybody!

Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard

mark mcafee's picture

Signs of Pasteurized Organic pasteurized milk contraction in the USA. White Wave ( Horizon Deans Foods etc ) is selling its Idaho Organic operations and buying conventional milk systems and infrastructure in China. Organic milk pay price is stagnant and organic ( that sell to pasteurizers ) farmers are struggling.

Sylvia Gibson's picture

So does that mean they will be importing milk/milk products from China?

mark mcafee's picture

Shelly D.
It is my hope that WIFSS will engage RAWMI some time in the near future and really make huge strides like they have with other industry food safety organizations. They have done great things with the Leafy Greens group and others to assure that our vegetables are safe for consumption by the immune depressed citizens of our cities. It will be glaringly super obvious that Dr. Linda Harris was dead-on right when she testified at the Dean Flores SB 201 hearings in 2008. Senator Dean Flores asked her if the AB 1735 standards for raw milk ( less than 10 coliforms ) were the best standards to assure the safest raw milk. She then said in a very low voice...as if she was scared to say it and as if she was about to be struck by an FDA lightening bolt..."that a comprehenive food safety program coupled with testing was the better program" ( not her exact quote but that was the intent and content). Well...that is precisely what RAWMI did in 2010 and that is what has been found to work extremely well. Thank you Dr. Harris!! Your vision became our mission and history has been made. You helped us see this!! Michele, please share our deep gratitude with Dr. Harris.

Dr. Linda Harris works for WIFSS and I along with the RAWMI LISTED farmers share the credit of her foresight with her. Some people suggest great things...but it is those that actually do them that are the pioneers. These pioneers will be recognized soon and I hope that WIFSS can invite us to join with them to create a raw milk future for America with is solid as a rock and profoundly safe and good for people. The technology is there...the consumers demand is there. The track record is rapidly emerging. The proof just needs to be assessed and reviewed, then mainstream acceptance will follow.

When some see WIFSS as the devil against raw milk....I see it as the portal to the FDA and breaking down all the walls, even interstate walls.

Yes....it appears that WIFSS PhD's helped co-created Marlers real milk facts website. We all know that it is biased. But...we also know that Bill Marler is very bright and intellegent. He will soon see what we have done and he will respect and begin to appreciate its brilliance!

Time is a great thing...it allows for education, information & evolution.

Mary McGonigle-Martin's picture

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points--HACCP

RAWMI has taken this concept and applied it to raw milk production.

rawmilkmike's picture

Scratch A Lie Find A Thief.
Don Schaffner of Rutgers says:
Are you asking if I have an opinion on whether raw milk is a "low risk" food?
who: dschaffner | when: Sun, 02/09/2014 - 12:44 |
"low risk" is not a question that interests me.
who: dschaffner | when: Sun, 02/09/2014 - 12:55
Mike, if "Anyone consuming 3 cups of raw milk per day for more than 6 months ( knows ) it's safer and healthier than anything they've consumed before. " then I don't think peer review or quantitative microbial risk assessment can help them.
who: dschaffner | when: Mon, 02/10/2014 - 06:24 |

“Um ya mean raw milk is a risky food and a mean people you shouldn't feed it to your kids fer sure um.”
“If people want to drink raw milk they should be allowed to but let's tell people what the risks are and then they can make their own decision but boy.”

“We don't at this point we don't have enough science to say well OK what we ought to be doing is encouraging farmer to do XYZ. I don't think we even know that yet.”


Ben Chapman of North Carolina State University says:

“The philosophy that you and I have and others in the world of extension share” “When someone asks me for advice I rarely give them advice.” “I'm just not an advice giver.”

“We can't tell them not to drink it.”

“Ya ya, I think it's easier or a better way, the more and more I look at raw milk, I, I move away from the dogma that we can't do it we a that that making it illegal fixes it cuz it doesn't and it clearly hasn't um but a the I, I don't know the answer. You get into this whole messy area of well, well if we make it legal and we regulate it then we're giving some legitimacy to the, to the industry but ya it gives us some control measure.”


The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing its intention to receive and consider a single source application for the award of a cooperative agreement in fiscal year 2008 (FY08) to establish and support the Western Center for Food Safety (WCFS), to be located at the Western Institute for Food Safety and Security (WIFSS) on the University of California, Davis campus in Davis, California (UCD). The estimated amount of support in FY08 will be for up to $1.5 million (direct plus indirect costs), with the possibility of four additional years of support for up to $2.6 million, subject to the availability of funds. This award will improve public health by creating an applied research, education, and outreach program related to the interface between food protection (i.e., food safety and food defense) and agriculture.
Prayer my be our only hope.

mark mcafee's picture

Don Schaffner is a scientist then he will follow the establishe standards used to conduct proper QMRA's. The EU does these all the time. Nadine quoted some of these in her Canadian raw milk presentation. They are considered the Gold Standard for risk assessment.

What he needs is a subset of data that flows from a differentiated source of raw milk, then he can compare data. This is not about finding low risk. When a QMRA is properly conducted, the facts that flow from it are just the facts.

I invite Dr Schaffner to contact Dr. Cat Berge ( PhD RAWMI board member ) and join her in writing a scientific article using RAWMI LISTED producers data as the basis of a comparative study.

At the end, when it is peer reviewed and published.... We will see what kind of risk RAWMI listed producers raw milk presents. Let the facts tell the story.

mark mcafee's picture

My bet.... Dr Linda Harris was right in 2008 and RAWMI has proved it since 2011 with cold hard evidence. Whether mainstream scientists have the guts to put their careers and grant sources on the line to speak this truth is another subject completely. A wonderful PHD that absolutely loves raw milk, but us funded by Milk Check Off dollars, told me once in an email...' A hungry mouth can not freely speak'. Truly sad that our best minds are gagged by financial restraint & grant shackles for fear of being thrown out of the institutions they get a paycheck from.

Truth and free speech are not truly essential parts of university science. That's a very sad fact.

Mary McGonigle-Martin's picture

Mark, you are early in the game with RAWMI. How many years did it take for OPDC to have its first documented outbreak without using RAWMI standards?

So you have to admit that in 2008 you had an entire group of people in food safety who were trying educate you about raw milk safety and you fought this information every step of the way. Now 6 years later, you are embracing it with open arms. What prevented you in 2008 from listening to and believing that information then? I believe there was an a video produced denouncing everything presented in at the hearing from public health experts.

Mr Gumpert. Just a brief 'thankyou' for allowing me the occasional space on TCP blog.
I would also like to compliment you on addressing situations like the one that evolved at Foundation Farm 'head-on'. It would be easy (as at other sites) to just simply avoid such examples. So, full marks from me for bringing balance to the raw milk picture overall.
But, I cannot resist one final observation that relates to risk assessment. My guess is that the farm picture at the very top left might have looked quite a bit better before it rained, and I can't help thinking that rain was a strong risk-factor in this case.
And yes, I carefully engineered my example because I'd like to argue the risk of producing contaminated milk varies with each and every milking (no matter how small this risk might be). As a result, I'd argue that historical risk assessments are of little value, simply because they are historical. And before someone refers me to the presentation by Nadine Ijaz (again), I'd point out that her risk assessment is heavily influenced by information from Italy (and, personally, I have no idea what the conditions on Italian raw milk farms are like). To me, the important approach to the microbial risks should be PROSPECTIVE by enforcing the best possible hygiene during each and every milking (together with a preparedness to not sell the milk if there is a lapse in hygiene). The RAWMI producers seem to get this, but they are only a tiny fraction of the total supply. Non-RAWMI producers, in my mind, need a mechanism for reminding them that they are now in the FOOD business and that the hygiene standards normally acceptable on-farm are now likely inadequate. The question is being able to reach them (a more enlightened WPF might be a good start). Until then, I fear stories like Foundation Farm are likely to be repeated again (Tennessee) and again (maybe when some other pastured cows go out in the rain this Spring and the pastures turn to slop).

I'll probably continue to read TCP (as I have done for some time), but will try to not post messages again.
Having visited some California dairies and toured the Fresno area, I must admit that the current water situation there is very concerning to me, and my thoughts are with all California farmers as they face the challenges ahead. Good luck to all.


rawmilkmike's picture

MrJohn, If according to the CDC:

Minnesota's non-RAWMI raw milk drinkers only have a 1.7% per year(17% per 10 years) chance of getting sick from foodborne diseases. http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sn-minnesota-raw-milk-20131...


About 48 million people (That's 15% or1 in 6 Americans) get sick each year from foodborne diseases. http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2010/r101215.html

Isn't that a negative risk factor? Doesn't that mean that even non-RAWMI raw milk prevents foodborne illness? How much rain do you think it would take for raw milk to go from preventing foodborne disease to causing it?

If my math is off or if I'm comparing apples and oranges please let me know. I promise not to argue.

so true, MrJohn : the conditions to do with rain, and also the water the cows are drinking, are major factors in the risk of raw milk being contaminated. British Columbians do know a bit about rain … particularly, Nadine Ijaz, who pioneered cowsharing here. Against the mountains, we get 120 inches per year.
Re ; what the Italians know about producing raw milk = well, they’re doing fairly well, so far … over the last 3000 years. Roman white cattle = Chianninas = aren’t exactly a dairy breed, but there’s Brown Swiss and red+white spotted cows [ descended from Jacob's cattle ] giving lots of raw milk for those who want it. The Eye-ties would laugh at you if you told them it was ‘a threat to the public health’.
…. I have a photo here - taken when my Dad and his comrades-in-arms were fighting their way up the peninsula - of a milk vendor at a doorstep, with the goat, circa 1943-44. Didn’t get any fresher than that. Won't surprise me to see it still going on when I get over there to trace the route of British 8th Army Axis 55
Yes, so far the RAWMI producers are only a small percentage of those who are producing REAL MILK, but, now that they've set the bar, beyond doubt, we’ll see anyone who wants to do it seriously, copying them. Let’s get one thing straight : such better practices demand higher prices for the product. One of the major components of the Campaign for REAL MILK is ; educating this nation how our health and our heritage was stolen from us with the subterfuge of “cheap food”
The drought in California is nothing less than catastrophic, yet Ham-mericans drift-along in ignorance. For dairies, one part of the coping-strategy is : barley-grass fodder sprouting chambers.

rawmilkmike's picture

Gordon, wasn't it Joel Salatin that said industrial food is only cheap because it's subsidized.

Shawna Barr's picture

John, I find the I agree with you once again. It is about mindset shift. From homestead food production mindset to community food production mindset. Or in the case of the TN situation you reference, from Grade A dairy PMO mindset to raw milk dairy mindset.

Here's one form of producer outreach that is happening now:

David Gumpert's picture

You make a very important point when  you say: "Non-RAWMI producers, in my mind, need a mechanism for reminding them that they are now in the FOOD business and that the hygiene standards normally acceptable on-farm are now likely inadequate. The question is being able to reach them..."

The mechanism you speak of is known as agricultural extension. I don't know of a single state that provides agricultural extension classes or other education for raw milk producers. One of the reasons for this blackout of official education is to ensure that there are continuing outbreaks of illness. Providing easily accessible education programs to raw milk producers would, as you suggest, make them more knowledgeable about safety practices, which would have the effect of reducing illnesses. Reducing illnesses runs counter to what the dairy industry and public health professions want--they want illnesses to "prove" that raw milk is inherently unsafe (or at least they have until recently, when we've begun to see signs of a small shift in the public health profession). The article I highlighted in FSN was making that point once again. If raw milk is inherently unsafe, then there is no "mechanism" to fix the problem. 


Ken Conrad's picture

“Reducing illnesses runs counter to what the dairy industry and public health professions want.”
This is indeed the truth in a nutshell, and in more ways then raw milk?

The unfortunate aspect with respect to extension specialists, (even those who grew up on raw milk), is that very few of them out there are willing to stick their necks out and encourage healthy production practices aimed at reconciling the consumption and sale of raw milk. Especially here in Canada where it’s consumption is strongly discouraged and its sale is strictly forbidden.
And when I speak of healthy production practices I am not speaking strictly in terms of bacteria! It is the variety of microorganism that gives raw milk its genuine healthy, life giving qualities.

The purpose of the following study is probably aimed at replicating alpine cheese production. Studies such as this will hopefully nurture greater respect for raw milk’s diverse microbial life giving qualities. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3765600/

“This work enlarges the knowledge of fungal consortia inhabiting raw milk and introduces microbial ecology among the altitude-dependent factors, in the composition of Alpine pastures, with the potential of shaping the properties of milks and cheeses, together with the already described physical, chemical and botanical variables.”

Why is the story propaganda? Raw milk IS inherently unsafe. Duh, that's why we've pasteurized it for so many years. I think they are just trying to prevent more people from harming themselves and their children. I suggest you watch the video about Kylee Young (http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2014/02/video-parents-of-sickened-girl-urg...) to see that raw milk does cause irreparable damage. Get the message out that this is not a safe product. We can prevent illness and death. Trust science.

Sylvia Gibson's picture

It appears to be a matter of opinion as to whether raw milk is safe or not.

I believe that fast foods and chemically added, over processed foods are unsafe and contribute to the endemic poor health of Americans. Science has shown this to be true, yet those in power and those with the most $$$$ obviously don't care about the common people, its all about money.

noun: propaganda; noun: Propaganda

information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
"he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda"

David Gumpert's picture

tsiebertz, your statement about raw milk being inherently unsafe is your belief, it is not a proven fact by any means. The video about Kylee is one unfortunate example of illness. It has nothing to do with the "science" you say we should trust. 

rawmilkmike's picture

Tsiebertz, according to the CDC people who don't drink raw milk are 9 times more likely to contract a foodborne illness than people who do.

Minnesota's raw milk drinkers only have a 1.7% per year(17% per 10 years) chance of getting sick from foodborne diseases. http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sn-minnesota-raw-milk-20131...

About 48 million people (That's 15% or1 in 6 Americans) get sick each year from foodborne diseases. http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2010/r101215.html

mark mcafee's picture

This message is intended for my friend Bill Marler but must be expressed publically,

I know that you deeply care about people and stand against all sorts of opposition and strife in your efforts to speak what you feel in defense of health and safe food. You are regarded by many as a foremost spokesman for food safety!

Please please answer this simple question:

Why did you write an article in your FSN journal about the newest death from PASTEURIZED Roos Cheese and not ever mention that the product was a PASTEURIZED product??? Not one hint!

It is critical that you include the processing origins of the illnesses and deaths. You know full well that pasteurized milk and especially pasteurized cheese has a track record of serious illnesses and many deaths and now another one!! The last pasteurized cheese deaths to occur just this last week from ROOS Pasteurized cheese. You are not serving the public good by not informing the public of the dangers of pasteurized cheeses.


This was not raw milk cheese...this was pasteurized cheese and the public needs to know about the innate food safety deficiencies associated with pasteurized cheeses and processing & heating of milk in the making of cheese. 60 day aged raw cheeses simply do not have LISTERIA or deaths associated with them. You also know, because you have deposed many world class scientists, that raw milk and raw milk cheeses have powerful enzymatic and bacterial activity which tends to reduce or outcomplete LISTERIA. Hence the CDC data that shows no listeria associated illnesses with raw dairy and tons of listeria in pasteurized dairy. YOU KNOW THIS better than anyone. You vet the experts!@!

Please, please.... I ask you in the name of humanity to start telling the whole truth!! Please amend the article to include the word "pasteurized" in it....this is the very least you can do.

I look forward to seeing the change. This is not about politics. This is about dead people, true tragedy, funerals and real human lives. Lets rise above petty FDA alliances and speak some truth here.

Most sincerely...

Sylvia Gibson's picture

Could it be propaganda through purposely omitting? People may ASSUME i is RAW cheese that caused the illnesses. So much for being factual, poor reporting.

Mary McGonigle-Martin's picture

Mark, the article was posted on FSN. It clearly states, "These are presumably pasteurized cheese products, not products made using raw milk." Did you read the article?

mark mcafee's picture


Bills heart is bigger than that.

mark mcafee's picture

Speaking of raw milk food safety. RAWMI is inviting everyone to join in our FREE webinar on February 27th at 1400 PST. http://rawmilkinstitute.net/what-we-do/education-and-outreach/next_webinar/

The title is Udderly Safe Raw Milk.

We will touch on important RAMP elements specific to udder health and methods to assure very low Coliform counts, zero pathogens and dramatically reduced risk raw milk production.

mark mcafee's picture

As always....the news reports that the deaths happened 6 months ago and we just find out now?? Pasteurized outbreaks always get the ice put onto them and massive delays on the bad news flowing out bound. This just adds to the numbers of deaths and illnesses. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/22/listeria-food-chees...

This one is personal....ROOS pasteurized cheese killed a Californian.

mark mcafee's picture

Maybe...just maybe, there is a hint of progress in the reporting by the CDC. Even though they do not mention the word pasteurized in their report, they do make the serious improvement of not suggesting to the public to stop consumption of raw cheese or raw milk. In the past when pasteurized products sickened or killed, the CDC would recommend no consumption of raw dairy products ( even though the illness was from pasteurized ). This did not happen this time.

This is a littlestep in this little 1/4 inch by 1/4 inch measure of raw milk progress and reporting accuracy and story telling. http://www.cdc.gov/listeria/outbreaks/cheese-02-14/index.html

mark mcafee's picture

Yes. I looked carefully at the article. I did not see a mention of the word pasteurized. Did you see it? Where. Did we read the same article

Mary.... There was no one teaching me anything back in 2005-2008. It was all solo time. The state never taught me anything. They just passed AB1735 with out a whisper or a hint of a hearing. It was legislative ambush. Far afterward....we realized that low coliforms were part of the whole picture. There was no team of people helping OPDC. The inverse was true. Teams of people with lab coats were trying to shut me down. I do not consider that 'help'

mark mcafee's picture

Mary. The word pasteurized does not appear in the Marler FSN Article that I linked too

Mary McGonigle-Martin's picture


James Andrews wrote the article for FSN. You linked to Bill's blog.

Mary McGonigle-Martin's picture

Here is another FSN article that also mentions it was from pasteurized cheese.

D. Smith's picture

I've read three articles today, all from widely different sources, and none of them mentioned the word pasteurized OR raw. It's all wide-open space. One of the articles mentioned newborns being ill from the Roos cheese. How does a newborn eat cheese? Or did they mean to say that the newborns became ill from the breastmilk of the mom's who actually ate the cheese? There are some key items not addressed in these articles.

Mary McGonigle-Martin's picture

I'm assuming they are newborns because they were born prematurely due to the mother having a listeriosis infection.

David Gumpert's picture

Think we'll get some video of that? Perhaps a family profile? I can see the Food Safety News feature now: "A Pasteurized Dairy Tragedy Unleashed on a Newborn--A Family and a Producer Come Together in Common Cause: How Did We Ever Let That Pasteurized Cheese Into Our Lives???!!!"....Sorry, but I've become a tad jaded. 


Mary McGonigle-Martin's picture

What you are describing is the Jack-in-the Box outbreak. Victims, Executives and one brilliant attorney worked together to make positive changes in food safety. Dave Theno of Jack-in-the-Box still carries around a picture of Lauren Rudolf, the first victim to die, in his wallet.

D. Smith's picture

No, Mary. IMPHO people should not have to make assumptions about these things when they read the articles. The journalist should either provide the entire truthfully vetted story, and all relevant information, or they should keep quiet. Since many people depend on what they read to be gospel, doncha think that's the least that should be required of journalism - no matter the author? Doctor, lawyer, Indian Chief . . . and still the question remains unanswered, other than your assumption.

rawmilkmike's picture

What is an outbreak and how is it associated with raw milk?

mark mcafee's picture


Thank you for digging up the other FSN articles. The FSN article that I provided the link too was written by Bill himself and did not mention the word pasteurized. Thank you for providing the two additional FSN articles which do mention the presumption of pasteurization.

Maybe the FDA should now seriously consider " consumer warnings on pasteurized cheeses" becuase of their direct association with repeated Listeria M. outbreaks and many deaths.

I know that a group of doctors many years ago sued Deans foods and other brands in an attempt to force a "warning label on pasteurized milk" becuase of its assocation with lactose intolerance and the subsequent gas, pain and diarrhea. http://milk.procon.org/sourcefiles/Lactose_Intolerance_Lawsuit.pdf

Not sure if the suit is still brewing.

mark mcafee's picture


What are your feelings about the death of a newborn and 8 other seriously sickened people secondary to a pasteurized dairy product?

I would truly like to know how you feel about this? I know how you feel about raw dairy. I would like to know if your feelings are as passionate when a baby dies from a pasteurized dairy product? We all know you are pasionate and very committed to arguing against raw milk. I would like to hear how you feel about pasteurized dairy products, now that we know they have killed 10 since 2007 and the deaths included babies.

Whittier farms 3 dead 2007 Listeria
Pasteurized cheese 3 dead 2011 ( not sure the brand )
Craven Brothers 3 dead Listeria 2013
ROOS 1 dead Listeria 2013

Now is a great time to make your case.
I thank you in advance....Much appreciated.

Mary McGonigle-Martin's picture

Any outbreak regardless of the food source is tragic. I think soft cheeses, whether raw or pasteurized, shouldn't be sold. Due to the risk of listeria, the most deadly pathogen, soft cheeses should be banned from retail sale.

David Gumpert's picture

Mary, you are getting carried away in your old age, I fear. First you are banning raw milk (sometimes). Now you are banning soft cheeses. This one is especially interesting because, as I wrote in your favorite publication, the FDA itself failed to document a single illness in 23 years from soft raw milk cheeses. Just a few in the whole world over that time. http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/02/fda-hones-in-on-limited-raw-milk-cheese-despite-absence-of-a-single-documented-case-in-23-years/#.UwpRp_WYZLM

What comes next in your list of banned foods? It's a slippery slope.

Ora Moose's picture

David, you have commited the cardinal sin: calling out a woman for being old. Me, I stick with calling them delusional ( they like men, go figure) and it's much safer. Works for reason.

Deborah - Pacifica's picture

Ora - I think David, like me has become so totally frustrated & so done with Mary...I truly do not blame him!! Lol!

Sylvia Gibson's picture

Perhaps banning all the pharma drugs that have harmed and or killed should be banned also? And why stop there....so much to police and ban, just not enough time!

Deborah - Pacifica's picture

I'm with you on that, Sylvia! By the way, good to see you here again...missed you! As you can see, not much has changed here! Lol!

Deborah - Pacifica's picture

Oh...how are you liking your new place? Getting use to the difference between there & here?

~ Deborah

Sylvia Gibson's picture

Indeed, this place appears to be the same. It's bloody cold here! I have found that food was way cheaper in Sacramento than Arkansas or Virginia and that includes at the farmers markets. Raw cows milk has recently been made legal in Arkansas, I haven't found any producers close by. Right now I am missing the abundance of fresh fruit and veggies and warmth!

Deborah - Pacifica's picture

Oh, I bet, the last time I was doing a site visit in Arkansas, the EP Lab staff that I was working with also lamented about the lack of fresh produce, raw milk & pastured meats. Will you be coming back here? I sure hope so. Keep me posted on what's going on with you. Sure miss your in-sites here.


Sylvia Gibson's picture

My daughter is being transferred from Va to San Diego....Woohoo. Haven't been there since the 60s. She's already found where the farmers markets will be. My family is still in Sacramento so I'll be back and forth. I am hoping to get some sort of garden in this spring.

D. Smith's picture

@ Sylvia: Indeed, those drugs should be banned. The biggest trouble with all of this is that the agencies who have to ban these things are the same agencies who approved the use of them in the first place. In other words, they'd have to take a step back and they seldom do such a thing unless it's so noticeable that even our somnambulated population notices. It doesn't matter whether we're talking drugs, water, food, chemical use, GMO's, smart meters - whatever. Banning something means they were wrong or at least partially wrong from the get-go. That's like asking these agency dweebs to open their mouths wide enough to put in both feet at once.

Sylvia Gibson's picture

I am amazed that so many people willingly take many of the drugs advertized on TV where they tell you the horrid side effects.

Medicine does have its place, I feel that it is not the be all answer. Starting with what a patient consumes, their environment, their emotional state,lifestyle, etc contributes to whatever outcome they have, and sadly, it is poor. If those aren't corrected or changed, then whatever the problem is with the patient won't be resolved. Handing out pills like candy is not the answer.

Banning will cause a loss of revenue, and we can't do that, now can we? BUT, if they ban products that are infringing upon their riches, that is a good thing for them.

D. Smith's picture

I recently posted an article at my forum telling how the medical cartel is now going to stop giving information on the MOST dangerous side effects of their drugs. They know they're scaring the britches off people so they've decided to be "less honest". We should not be using chemicals to try to become healthy - it just doesn't work and is quite risky. I'll take my chances with real milk and real food.

Mary McGonigle-Martin's picture
David Gumpert's picture

More confusion, Mary. Those queso-fresco cheeses referred to in your links are already illegal, i.e. banned. All raw milk cheeses must be aged at least 60 days (that FDA reg has been on the books since the late 1940s). The illnesses you are referring to result from cheeses that haven't been so aged, and thus  are illegal; the producers should be prosecuted for violating the law. The link I provided you about the FDA study showing no illnesses from soft cheeses for more than 20 years was for legally produced cheeses, those aged at least 60 days. I don't think you meant to include those, unless you are simply desiring to engage in a scorched-earth approach--ban every damned soft cheese, and screw it all! 

Mary McGonigle-Martin's picture

Sorry David. I scanned what you wrote last night and did not re-read it. I'm missed the 23 year part. I thought you had written no illnesses ever from soft cheese made from raw milk.

D. Smith's picture

According to the article at this link http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?id=9441777 these were considered to be semi-soft cheeses.

So, Mary, you think all soft cheese should be banned? That's a bit over-the-top, doncha think? I mean, where do you draw the line on a thing like this? There is no food which is 100% safe, that's just a fact of life. As you've now seen once again, even pasteurized, sterilized foods are not 100% safe. I'll take my chances with real food over overly-processed foods any day of the week.

[quote from link]:
"The outbreak is linked to semi-soft, Latino-style cheese called cuajada en terron or fresh cheese curd that is sold from a chain of grocery stores in Maryland."
[end quote]

rawmilkmike's picture

With this many people eating Queso Fresco Cheese, you know it's a major threat to the big cheese.

How does this make any sense? “Eating it can make people very sick, especially pregnant women, the elderly and those with weakened immune systems.” These are people who are likely to get sick regardless of what they eat. So why blame the Queso Fresco Cheese? These people have many more likely exposure risks, even the air, as Ken pointed out. These associations are pure speculation by competitors with an enormous conflict of interest.

How often is Queso Fresco Cheese made with raw milk and how often is it made without heating the milk to at least 185 degrees?

Mary, would you have France ban all its soft cheeses as well? I guess French children must be dying by the millions from ingesting these dangerous substances - can you give us the statistics showing mortality rates in France from soft cheese?

Ken Conrad's picture

Dare to hazard a guess what would happen if a guide map such as this were made available for public access to raw milk? Perhaps some day it will become the norm.

When I traveled in England back in 2007, I tried to find real milk without success. Glad to see this link.


“The mechanism you speak of is known as agricultural extension. I don't know of a single state that provides agricultural extension classes or other education for raw milk producers.”
I think that is currently true.
But I want to suggest a way it might change. Cooperative Extension Service is publicly funded. The raw milk community of producers and consumers are taxpayers. Raw milk is a legal food. We need to speak up and demand that our interests be addressed.
Extension works with many different private agricultural groups to organize and put on educational programs for farmers and the general public. As an Extension Specialist I do not know of any legitimate reasons why Extension cannot work with groups like Raw Milk Institute.
Become the squeaky wheel and demand fair representation for raw milk producers.

Dave Milano's picture

The seeming recalcitrant desire to systematize every aspect of our lives is what has gotten us in this mess in the first place. Solutions will certainly not be found by feeding more of ourselves to the beasts that already dine on us daily.

The primary business of institutions is to institutionalize things. It is what they do best. Institutions are emphatically NOT good at determining right and wrong. “Proof” for institutions is a very flat thing, always and only established within an intellectual framework limited by the paradigm that supports the institution. Institutions therefore often ask the wrong questions, and then, since they never suspect that truth might lie outside their field of vision, often don't even find correct answers to the questions they do ask. That is exactly how we ended up with a world ruled by a zillion “correct” laws, regulations, rules, and policies, that is still biologically, sociologically, and economically sick to death.

The notion of a finding solutions within these institutions is extremely wrongheaded. It supports the very thing that needs breaking down. It's not even a reasonable short-term fix. Claiming some little piece of the institutional pie is a loser's game because it does nothing to change the foundational paradigm. Second, fighting institutions on their scale is only to become what one hates. (And anyway, when it's King Kong vs. Godzilla, the town always loses.)

Arguments on this blog and everywhere else will undoubtedly proceed forever and ever unresolved (especially when organizational science--the great paradigmatic god of truth and justice--gets involved, since the first message of organizational science, just like politics and religion, is that we cannot live properly without its conclusions, so must depend on paradigm-certified experts for direction).

May I suggest that we would do far more good by simply getting out of the way of individuals and families and communities who are trying to care for each other, rather than telling them how to do it?

mfpellicano's picture

"May I suggest that we would do far more good by simply getting out of the way of individuals and families and communities who are trying to care for each other, rather than telling them how to do it?" Thank You Dave Milano, because that is exactly what many of us ARE doing! Following good practices...and "caring for each other." That IS community...humanity...substantive living. BTW David G., you don't need to apologize for being "jaded," because we all certainly understand that intellectual frustration. Marietta

rawmilkmike's picture

I am open to any reasonable suggestion but:
Doctors pushed for mandatory pasteurization of commercial fluid milk and got it, 100 years before admitting they know nothing about raw milk. They were the first inspectors.
Dairy farming is very very complicated. Doctors have been regulating something they know nothing about for over 100 years.
How is it possible doctors still admit they know nothing about raw milk, after 100 years in the dairy industry, even though up until 50 years ago half the country was still drinking raw milk? Since most adults can't drink pasteurized milk, raw milk most likely accounts for a large percentage of adult fluid milk consumption and they still haven't seen fit to do any empirical research on it.
Doesn't this confirm something we should already know, that being that raw milk is the medical industries stiffest and most serious competitor?
Don Schaffner of Rutgers says:
“We don't at this point we don't have enough science to say well OK what we ought to be doing is encouraging farmer to do XYZ. I don't think we even know that yet.”

The CDC says “The enzymes in raw animal milk are not thought to be important in human health.” In other words they don't know.

There is no evidence that raw milk consumer's risk of stomach flu has anything to do with raw milk other than they are probably not drinking enough of it. There is no reason to think, just because a child puts a few ounces of raw milk on his Froot Loops in the morning before school, that the raw milk would have anything to do with his stomach flu days later.

David's article here begins, "A Raw Milk Tragedy..."

I really feel sorry for most of the people reading and posting here. David's title starts by assuming there really was a raw milk tragedy, and then goes from that premise.

Watching you guys is like watching kids on a playground, being tricked by an older evil kid, you try to help but the kids ignore you...

Several articles back, I made a post, explaining why I no longer post in this blog, the center of gravity here being way too far from Reality. I'm making one more post here because you guys are a threat to me and the whole raw milk community, with your childish approach.

I made a lot of posts last year, and they got erased. I'm not going to repeat the links. But one of the themes of my posts was that dirty tricks is standard operating procedure for the government. I posted articles going into how all the well intentioned grassroot movements have historically been infiltrated and derailed by government agents, and other means. Over and over again well intentioned people have learned this the hard way...I posted that video of that "testimony" of the 14 year old Kuwaiti girl, before Congress, breaking into tears, telling her make believe story about babies being thrown out of incubators by Iraqi soldiers... This fake testimony was used by Bush Sr over and over to launch the first Gulf War.

I compared the wording of this Kuwaiti girl to JillyB's testimony in this blog, the mother involved in the Foundation Farm "Raw Milk Tragedy" that is the subject of David's article here. Some of Jillyb's words are almost word for word identical with that Kuwaiti girl's: "my life was changed forever...", like it came out of the same CIA textbook.

You space cadets need to start waking up. I don't mean to offend anyone, but so many of you being clueless to how the government operates, is a threat to us all. There is no reason to take that Foundation Farm story seriously. It's a government stunt.

Mary Martin Mcgonigle's pattern fits exactly with how government agents operate also. Going around endlessly retelling her "tragic story" (which no independent group has ever bothered to even investigate), these isolated stories being retold over and over by the media cartel, and yet the thousands of mothers with real world stories of children healed of life threatening conditions like asthma, how much airtime do these stories get with the media cartel? Basically zero. (I already mentioned how farmers get fined 8000 dollars for putting mothers' raw milk healing testimonies on their website, but Mary Martin Mcgonigle and company are allowed to put their "real life stories" about the alleged dangers of raw milk online, with impunity. The website Mary is hooked in with can't seem to find any of the thousands or millions of raw milk healing stories, only (alleged) disease stories.

David's blog says comments are welcome if "genuine". Why he allows someone like Mary to post here is beyond me, someone obviously hooked in with a propaganda website.

I posted about the Iranian government that the CIA overthrew in the early 50s, when their president wouldn't play ball with Big Oil. As one author who wrote about this said in an interview, "Even today he (the Iranian ex leader) would be amazed if he knew how much of the "unrest" and "instability" leading to his overthrow was simply created by the CIA.

People, the secret government spies on everything we do. Even the most spaced out person, if you simply investigate things in the real world, will quickly find that they are the real terrorists, they are the bad guys.

I can't give people common sense. But I feel duty bound to tell you all once again, being spaced out like most of you are, about the most basic facts on how the government operates behind the scenes, makes you a threat to everybody.

Being involved in environmentalism, you come across the secret government presence regularly. To give but one example, a girl that was head of a small environmental group (less than ten people), wrote up how they got derailed and all ended up with criminal records: A guy joined their group, seemed like a good guy... ended up sleeping with the her, did other things together... and ended up talking the group into doing this illegal stunt with a local corporate polluter. It was all a set up, everyone got busted and now has criminal records, except for of course the government agent that instigated the whole thing. You can find all the stories like this you want, out in the Real World.

On a different note (no pun), I posted a song about raw milk in that earlier article I posted in this month. I am focusing on non verbal communication such as music, from here on out. Reason and real world facts don't seem to reach too many people these days.

Ok back to your debate on whether it's ok to eat real foods, and whether the government and media cartel are trustworthy.

ps the lyrics to my song are hard to hear so here they are:

Mother Earth turns right on time
I see the Sun feed the trees
I see the cows in the field
The ancient food nourishes me

But there are evil people
who want to make you sick
with their modern fake-foods
and their dirty tricks

David Gumpert's picture

Tom, Mary wants soft cheeses banned, and you want Mary banned. Not sure either step leads anywhere positive. 

It's also tough to disprove a negative--that I didn't remove your posts from this site. That accusation seems to be part of the larger conspiracy you see. The fact that dirty tricks are standard operating procedure doesn't mean we totally opt out and let them have their way. Our duty is to expose as many as possible to public light. Take the latest example that I highlight in this blog post, about the effort by Modern Farmer to portray Michigan pig farmer as a trigger-happy zealot. That is all part of a larger effort by government enforcers to position him as an extremist, a threat to law enforcement....indeed, an enemy of the State. You know what happens to people so positioned. It's easy to justify unleashing violence against them. It's only when the fraud of their tactics is exposed publicly that we begin to put them on the defensive. Not always, but at the least, publicity makes them hesitate. And in such struggles we come to appreciate more just how threatening someone like Baker is to the corporate status quo. 

Looking down with condescension on those seeking openness and justice isn't a satisfactory answer. But I do very much like your idea of injecting music into the food rights movement. A wise person told me recently that the Civil Rights movement had as one of its huge assets very moving music, and that food rights supporters could learn from that. So I applaud your initial musical contributions. 

David, first, I never claimed that you removed any of my posts, so I apologize if my wording sounded like that. I think you are a sincere person, and have written some very courageous things. And as I said before, I like you. I brought up the missing posts to alert you to the fact that that happened, and also in case anyone was wondering why in older threads, they are missing. They may have been deleted in an automated way, as I said in an email to your webmaster email, if you received that. And of course the govt may have deleted them in some way. I don't really care. I don't think too many people read the archives.

Also, I didn't mean to sound condescending to anyone, but to be truthful. I watch my mother pouring this "ultrapasteurized" cream into her coffee, she has no molars left, you can look at her and see she would really benefit from a rich source of calcium like raw milk, and yet she is afraid of it, due to government propaganda. So I was trying to use punchy language here to get people's attention.

Btw there's a typo in my post above at a key part, it should read: "A guy joined their group, seemed like a good guy... ended up sleeping with her (the leader), did other things together... and ended up talking the group into doing this illegal stunt..."

I brought that up to show that, even though it's true what you once said, that government agents lurk in the shadows low key, well they also can be quite animated.

Time and time again people involved in grassroot causes have underestimated how devious the government is. People in raw milk should be aware of what you are really dealing with here. So when people hear stories about children drinking real milk and then having millions of dollars in medical bills, or children's noses falling off, or their heads exploding, or whatever, no one should assume these are real stories. People who want to understand raw milk should talk to people in the real world, and they will find that raw milk heals disease, not the other way around. Once again, the biggest business they have going today is Sickness aka Healthcare. They make more money off people being sickly, calcium starved... than they do off oil, autos, or anything else.

Btw David, if you or anyone wants that musical document I recently typed out (sent to Ora), let me know. Music is a real asset. And what I discovered over the last few years, is the original tunings for music. To give one example, people today speak of playing a song "In a key". But no matter what key you play your song in today with 'modern tuning', it will have the same feel, because all the keys have exactly the same proportions. But originally, playing in a different key meant playing in a whole different harmonic current. Each key had its own flavor. And the notes were in tune, unlike today, where the music is blurry. I explain this in that document I typed up.

so if anyone wants it, let me know.

Deborah - Pacifica's picture

Nicely done analysis which includes many references. http://nourishingliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/milk_one_page.pdf

Sylvia Gibson's picture

That is a good analysis.

mark mcafee's picture


Thank you for your position on pasteurized and raw soft cheeses. Much appreciated.

Here is a little something to really celebrate. One of our OWN RAWMI LISTED producers...Christine Anderson of Oregon ( while pregnant with her daughter ) took on the Oregon Department of Ag and won!! She won before court in a settlement. This press release and short video tells her story.

You might want to look very closely to her milking practices and UDDER conditions and milk management environment. She is clean and very green!!
These are all part of her RAWMI LSITED RAMP protocols and her bacteria counts are fantastic. I get them every month...I know.
She is the future of raw milk and also micro-raw milk dairies in the USA and abroad and I can not say enough how proud I am of her intelligence, guts and action. She is a true hero and she is a great mentor and example to others. Emphasis added!!!

She is the answer to Foundation Farms...she is the real story!!!



Ora Moose's picture


You said "David's blog says comments are welcome if "genuine". Why he allows someone like Mary to post here is beyond me, someone obviously hooked in with a propaganda website."

I have often wondered the same thing myself. But it wasn't until recently (when some of my comments taking Mary to task were deleted) that I realized circular arguments are only fair if the whole circle is visible. Once you remove mine and leave the 180 opposite, it is deligitimized and that's why I won't be posting here anymore.

I ask you which are the offensive comments:

The few Mary Marlers that keep attacking our community and proclaiming "DANGER raw milk is deadly even though I can't prove it with facts but I can make a lot of money off it so my opinion should be the law and trump your choice to buy and eat/drink whatever you want,"


The ones calling out corporate shills and propaganda artists and their oft repeated non scientific falsehoods?

Sorry, dripping sarcasm doesn't win over many opinions but it's how I tend I communicate hope I didn't offend you. Have a nice life.

Over and out.

David Gumpert's picture

Ora, whatever comments of yours I removed, and I don't think it was more than a couple, were removed when you became overly personal in your attacks (the reason I remove or edit pretty much any comments). I'd say that you have gotten your arguments in pretty effectively overall. 

As difficult as it may be for you and others (and sometimes me as well) to tolerate Mary's views, just keep in mind that her view is representative of a significant segment of people out there....people who are very fearful of food and who don't have inhibitions about putting limits on what foods all of us can access, in the interests of some romantic view of "safety." To me, it's important to understand what the opposition is thinking. 

Sylvia Gibson's picture

Know thy enemy....

Ora Moose's picture

David, I do understand that many if not most of the general public is just not well informed about the inherent dangers of just about any food, which is why they consume contaminated toxic crap with a smile and accept the government regulation propaganda as gospel truth.

Mary on the other hand, has cruised this blog longer than me so in her case ignorance being bliss does not apply and she pushes hard with relentless vengeance, claims through her veil that we are all deranged wacko sicko imbeciles and therefore knowingly child abusers, without ever addressing any of the scientific studies many have posted and referred to often here... knows fully well that what she's promoting and trying to pass into prohibition law infringes on all other people's basic food freedom rights - and has no conscience problem with it which is what infuriates me. Beauty is only skin deep, ugliness is to the bone. Delete that if you wish.

I'll leave you with this disco ditty turn table turning "The man loves milk now he owns a million cows" CAN YOU IMAGINE ALL THAT MILK! I saw two signs, west and west. Drive in reverse. Tell me that I'm dreaming.


Here is a great resource on the dangers of raw milk: http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-questions-and-answers.html.

Can drinking raw milk hurt me or my family?

Yes. Raw milk can cause serious infections. Raw milk and raw milk products (such as cheeses and yogurts made with raw milk) can be contaminated with bacteria that can cause serious illness, hospitalization, or death. These harmful bacteria include Brucella, Campylobacter, Listeria, Mycobacterium bovis, Salmonella, Shiga toxin-producing E. coli, Shigella, Streptococcus pyogenes, and Yersinia enterocolitica. From 1998 through 2011, 148 outbreaks due to consumption of raw milk or raw milk products were reported to CDC. These resulted in 2,384 illnesses, 284 hospitalizations, and 2 deaths. Most of these illnesses were caused by Escherichia coli, Campylobacter, Salmonella, or Listeria. It is important to note that a substantial proportion of the raw milk-associated disease burden falls on children; among the 104 outbreaks from 1998-2011 with information on the patients’ ages available, 82% involved at least one person younger than 20 years old.

Yes pasteurization began in the wine industry. But after they figured out the process they realized they could use it on other foods to make them safer, such as milk.

How does milk get contaminated?

Milk contamination may occur from:

Cow feces coming into direct contact with the milk
Infection of the cow's udder (mastitis)
Cow diseases (e.g., bovine tuberculosis)
Bacteria that live on the skin of cows
Environment (e.g., feces, dirt, processing equipment)
Insects, rodents, and other animal vectors
Humans, for example, by cross-contamination from soiled clothing and boots

Pasteurization is the only way to kill many of the bacteria in milk that can make people very sick.

Unpasteurized milk could contain bacteria from cow feces. Would you scoop feces out of the toilet and eat it or feed it to your child? This is what you are doing when consuming raw milk. Please protect your children and give them pasteurized products. There are no proven benefits to consuming raw milk.

Would you scoop feces out of the toilet, boil it, and feed it to your child? Because that's what your doing when consuming pasteurized milk products. There are no proven benefits to consuming pasteurized dairy products either.

Ora Moose's picture

Woah Katie, not a nice visual but points are well taken and unfortunately all too realistic in these corporate/industrial food days. If only people knew...

D. Smith's picture

@ tsiebertz: you said "there are no proven benefits to consuming raw milk". Could you please back this up with some sort of "research" or "science"? Making a statement like that is merely your opinion if you don't back it up with something concrete.

Most of us on this site have been drinking raw milk our whole lives, or next to it. People the world over have been drinking milk from cows, goats, camels, donkeys, etc., for generations. How did they manage to live on this "dangerous" unproven product? And live they did, or none of us would be here.

Then you said "pasteurization is the only way to kill many of the bacteria in milk that can make people very sick". I noticed you were careful to say "many of the bacteria". If that's true, what happened in this cheese incident? Did the pasteurization not take?

How many deaths from raw milk/products can you find?

How many deaths from pasteurized milk/products can you find?

This article you are quoting talks about "outbreaks". Where are the bodies?

T Siebertz : perhaps you could introduce yourself to readers of this forum, by telling us how much experience you have with REAL MILK? So far you come across as someone knows not whereof you speak.... simply parroting bumpf you read in a book written by over-educated idiots who've never stood next to a cow in their entire lives. let alone held drank some raw milk.
... For the most part, contributors to this forum are people who grew up never suspecting there actually are domestic enemies of the Republic. They extended good will to a certain individual who told her story ( over and bloody-well over again ) presuming that she was sincerely oriented to resolving the controversy. But it turned out that she was here first and last and ONLY to pollute the discourse, and spy-out what was happening with REAL MILK, to wear out the saints / hinder us. Strikes me you're a fresh recruit in the pay of the dairy cartel, since their last provocateur gave herself away.

Deborah - Pacifica's picture

Tsieberts - most definitely there is plenty of documentation, studies & papers done on the benefits of raw milk and raw milk consumption. You are obviously not looking in the right places. I, myself was raised on raw milk, raw cream & raw milk butter. I raised 4 daughters, who are all adults now, on the same...none of us ever had any issues, problems, illnesses, etc. Now there is clearly an issue today with regards to people's immune system & gut/intestinal health that was not present many years ago. This seems to play a part with regards to some people having a possible reaction to raw milk upon first consuming it. The Salyers situation was very abnormal compared to all the other raw milk producers that have been in existence for many years in many states & who have never had any issues with the health of their customers. You are not getting the complete information about raw milk & what you are getting is not the full truth. Here is a current analysis for you to read, I think you might learn something very valuable. http://nourishingliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/milk_one_page.pdf

~ Deborah

ingvar's picture

Why didn’t someone point this out before?
My goodness gracious.
Thank you thank you thank you.
I suppose you are under the impression that there’s been nothing but all wall-to-wall anecdotal information in these parts and when was there ever going to be something sure?
There was a fact here once but it got all lonesome and wandered off years ago?
And here they are! All kinds of facts! At cdc.gov/foodsafety !! I should trust this, is that what you’re saying? That we, in fact, can all take it to our graves. A multi-decade personal detour for each of us through Badhealthville getting there is ok, you think? As rmm points out the real competition won’t mind our taking that detour, they’re here to help us through it. To shove us into it too, if they could. I can’t wait to “ask my doctor if this nutritional advice is right for me”! Wonder what ‘ol doc will say?

I think Mark Mcafee’s question is much more politely stated than what I just wrote and worth an answer.

Have a great week everybody!
To health!
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard

Ken Conrad's picture


“Fecal microbes” if you will are ubiquitous and invisibly present throughout the environment from the soil, to the water of our lakes, rivers and streams and yes even in aerosolized form. Everyone must endure exposure to these microbes if they wish to develop a healthy gut flora and immune system. Now I am not advocating that you go out and eat shit, however I do have these three questions for you.
Where do you figure your first initiation to the microbial world took place? What was the nature of those microbes? And, do you respect the role that those microbes play in your life?

Now although the following article tends to focus on the negative implications of aerosolized microbes, and how to manage them, the info from it provides germaphobes such as yourself with a much needed perspective.

“Bacteria are abundant in the atmosphere, where they often represent a major portion of the organic aerosols…important plant and livestock pathogens are dispersed through the atmosphere…the diversity and biogeography of airborne microorganisms remain poorly understood… our work suggests that the diversity of bacteria in outdoor air is high and that these bacteria sometimes come from unexpected sources, such as dog feces.”



Ken Conrad's picture

Here is a little more information for those who choose not to read the article, “Our results point to feces, and dog feces in particular, as a dominant source of bacteria in the outdoor air in the metropolitan areas sampled here, particularly Cleveland and Detroit (see Fig. S3). Several additional lines of evidence support this conclusion. First, the dominance of common mammalian gut-associated bacteria in many of the winter air samples is striking, and these bacteria are very rare in other environments from which bacteria may be aerosolized, including soils, leaves, and lake waters.”

if this doesn’t cinch the argument that = having swine anywhere within a country mile of a dairy, is insane = then don’t come crying to me when you come down with weird ‘zoo-notic’ diseases. Especially, don’t demand my tax dollars to pay your medical bill. Now PROVABLY : what’s floating-around in the air arising from the guts of the pigs on your place, goes up your nose then into your lungs. Is that what you choose, now you know better ?
... Just a co-incidence that our God categorically prohibited us from touching pigs, let alone eating swine-flesh? Read the Bible and ALL of it. Regardless of what false teachers in the pulpits of the govt. licenced Baal-barns say, the agricultural + food laws for the nation of Israel are for us, today. Every law has a consequence, whether or not you’re aware of it, or will admit it once you’ve been warned
as for the argument that farmers are walking around breathing-in aerosolized bacteria from cattle … true. But think about what those cows eat and how they digest it. Very different than pigs, and dogs.

rawmilkmike's picture

Gordon, Many raw milk consumers have found that healthy people don't have allergies and are rarely effected by pathogens of any kind.

From the article:
“We show that, IN ADDITION TO the more predictable sources (soils and leaf surfaces), fecal material, MOST LIKELY dog feces, often represents an unexpected source of bacteria in the atmosphere at more urbanized locations DURING THE WINTER.”

“Scientists have long known that bacteria are UBIQUITOUS in the atmosphere.”

I've gotten conflicting information on this. Are cows afraid of pigs? Do pigs effect the milk output of cows?

Sylvia Gibson's picture

OH good Lord! Soon they'll be demanding we scoop the dog poop a special way. UGH.

It's a wonder we all didn't get sick and die when we consumed the unwashed carrots, strawberries and other produce while growing up. And dad has always used various types of manure and he rarely used gloves.

D. Smith's picture

My Mom never used gloves when messing in the garden or with farm-raised "fertilizer" either. What we need gloves for is the stuff they manufacture now - like Miracle Gro soil mixes, etc. That stuff is so fully of chemicals it smells to high heaven and it burns your skin. Not only that, it's not really "soil" anymore (it never really was) its become a hodge-podge of twigs, bark, and heaven knows what else. Nope. I'm more afraid of industrialized stuff than I am of a little poop, no matter what animal it comes from. By all rights if we believe everything we hear about what's in our air these days, we should all be having to wear hazmat face masks at all times. If monsanto et al continue to run the world, that's just about what WILL happen. I wouldn't run an industrialized farm nowadays if they paid me to do it.

No. damn. way.

rawmilkmike's picture

tsiebertz, any one of those CDC claims can be easily disproven with a simple Yahoo search. The FDA is even worse. Check out their site once. And of course all of your speculation and guesstimation is “laughable” to anyone who has been drinking raw milk for more than a year, especially for people who have switched from pasteurized to fresh milk. 1 in 6 means a family with four children should experience a foodborne illness every year. This isn't rocket science people.

mark mcafee's picture

Dear Tsieberts,

Could you introduce yourself and give a brief description of who you are and what your qualifications and background is ?

You are very uninformed. You have not reviewed the EU studies and apparently have not looked into the CDC data. There have been zero US deaths from raw milk. The deaths recorded at the CDC are deaths from some unknown illegally imported Mexican cheese. I know for a fact. I submitted a. FOIA and the CDC clarified the data and confirmed the illegal Mexican cheeses.

Please give us a little bio on yourself.

rawmilkmike's picture

Anyone asking you to sign a petition to legalize raw milk is probably working for the other side. These so called raw milk bills are designed to do the exact opposite of what their proponents say. Cow shares and food clubs are the only way to go and neither is recognized in Wisconsin. Even Wisconsin’s incidental sales exemption is ignore by the state. What is regulation other than an agreement between consumer and producer? The only purpose of regulation is to prevent unfair business practices and to insure that consumers get what they pay for. What is it called when producers conspire to limit choice?
“Lessons from the Fall of RomneyCare”
The Massachusetts plan was supposed to accomplish two things — achieve universal health insurance coverage while controlling costs. As Romney wrote in the Wall Street Journal, "Every uninsured citizen in Massachusetts will soon have affordable health insurance and the costs of health care will be reduced." In reality, the plan has done neither.
“Perhaps the most publicized aspect of the Massachusetts reform is its mandate that every resident have health insurance, whether provided by an employer or the government or purchased individually. "I like mandates," Romney said during a debate in New Hampshire. "The mandate works." But did it?”
“Massachusetts residents had until January 1, 2008. Those without insurance as of that date will lose their personal exemption for the state income tax when they file this spring. In 2009, the penalty will increase to 50 percent of the cost of a standard insurance policy.”

“Such a mandate was, of course, a significant infringement on individual choice and liberty. As the Congressional Budget Office noted, the mandate was "unprecedented," and represented the first time that a state has required that an individual, simply because they live in a state and for no other reason, must purchase a specific government-designated product.”


mark mcafee's picture


Looks like Georgia is looking at retail raw milk sales!!


D. Smith's picture

This is an article about GA, but they show a photo of a SD raw milk farmer and buyer?? How strange.

Damn I hate it when the links are posted at the top of the comment.

mark mcafee's picture

The national dairy processors have dropped "GOT MILK?" as their tag line and have adopted "MILK LIFE" instead. CA will continue to use GOT MILK?

This advertizement goes after cows milk as dirty ( video tries to expose pasteurized milk as dirty and quickly shows a cow with a dirty manure covered leg being milked by hand...ouch!! ) when promoting Almond milk...it would seem that the dairy case has some very unfriendly sku's that are trying to kill each other off!!


D. Smith's picture

MilkPEP would be better off if they spent the $50 mil on cleaning up bigDairyFarms, you know, by starting to do things the right way, rather than advertising a product to which people are starting to turn up their noses.

Sylvia Gibson's picture

To clean up the mega dairies, would be admitting they are unsanitary, not gonna happen.

D. Smith's picture

And ain't that the dyin' truth! You're so right, Sylvia.

rawmilkmike's picture

1909 transcribed - from pdf image,
TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1909
Dr. J. R. Winters of New York says Dirty liquid can not be made healthful. Fad makes weak infants.
Physicians who stand at the head of the science of pediatrics—that branch of medicine which pertains especially to the hygienic care of children and the treatment of their diseases--continue to show a lively interest in the New York Herald's exposure of the fallacies of the pasteurized milk fad.
“A rosy, plump, lusty child was never seen where pasteurized milk had been its only food for a prolonged period," said Dr. Joseph E. Winters. For 30 years Dr. Winters has been a specialist in the treatment of children. He is a prominent member of the American Pediatric society, is consulting physician at the Demilt dispensary and visiting physician to the Willard Parker and Riverside hospitals.
Dirty Milk Dangerous.
"That contaminated, germ-infested milk can be rendered clean, pure, suitable food for infants," Dr. Winters continued, "is unworthy of consideration. Pasteurization does not render dirty milk clean, stale milk fresh, nor germs harmless. Pasteurization is a recourse to palm upon a credulous public milk unfit for food.
"Proteid is the vital constituent of every cell. Cell nuclei are rich in iron, magnesia, phosphorus,
lime, potash and soda. No formation of cells for fresh growth can occur unless these minerals are in organic union with proteid, as minerals to be assimilated must be in organic union with proteid.
Heat Dissolves Union.
"Animals for which milk is a sufficient food die of inanition when the minerals are extracted. The result is the same with the minerals restored to the proteid, fat and milk sugar, the organic union being broken up. Organic union of mineral and proteid in milk is light and easily dis solved. Heat dissolves this union, Pasteurization therefore, dissolves or loosens this union. Milk in which the organic union of mineral and proteid has been dissolved will not sustain life. Milk in which this union is partially dissolved half sustains life.
"Cells in every part of the body are half living half dead. This is the primary and fundamental cause of
the excessive death rate in children. Susceptibility to disease, lost recuperability are attributable to the need of minerals and proteid in organic union, for the formation of the cells and the renovation of tissue.
"Physiological chemistry immutable and fixed as the rising of the sun, interdicts pasteurized milk. And experimentation also concurs, as experience demonstrates pasteurized milk to be iniquitous. Pasteurized milk was in practically universal use among tenement babies during the summer of 1908, and yet between June 1 and July 18 the mortality from diarrhea among infants under 1 year old was 47 per cent higher than for the corresponding period of 1907.
"In 13 summer weeks, from all causes, the deaths of infants under 1 years old were 5662. Cells half living, half dead, invite diseases. The zealot of pasteurization is as arbitrary to the law of nature, which is the law of the creator, as is the anarchist to the law of government.
"Now as to the claim that the pasteurization of milk is an economy to the poor as well as a hygienic boon. The fact is that five six-ounce tubes sell for 5 cents, whereas an 8-cent quart bottle of milk will make at least three quarts of the diluted mixture in these tubes, or more than 15 cents a quart for the whole milk. Furthermore, with the pasteurized article there is no rental and no delivery. It would appear, therefore, that pasteurized milk is neither charity nor philanthropy."
"Mournful Little Old Men."
Dr. Winter's views on this subject were already well defined two years| ago. At that time, in response to an inquiry addressed to him asking his opinion of pasteurized milk. Dr. Winters wrote:
"Introduction of sterilized milk was promptly followed by an epidemic of scurvy-rickets.
Pasteurized milk substitutes a sub-acute form of this affliction, insidious, obscure, equally pernicious. Rachitic or semi-rachitic weakly children are inevitable where pasteurized milk is the exclusive food,
and the reason is obvious."
Dr. Winters here specified the points already enumerated concerning the necessity of organic union of the proteids and minerals for assimilation and nutrition. He then went on:
"The half-starved, rachitic, mournful little old men and women fed on pasteurized milk distributed under supposedly philanthropic auspices, are sad examples of this. Numerous obscure, unanalyzable, undefinable, unrecognizable, morbid states are encountered in the wake of pasteurized
milk--the aggregate expression of want of proteid and minerals in organic union. It is alleged that the
pasteurization of milk prevents diarrhea in children and is a cure for this affection. The worst and most
incurable cases of this disease seen at the Demilk dispensary during the summer months are those of young infants exclusively fed on pasteurized milk from the public stations. These observations have been made by Dr. Babcock. Dr. Tyrrell and myself for years. The children recover on raw milk.
Calves Grow Thin.
“Of eight healthy calves a farmer fed four on pasteurized milk and four on raw milk. The four fed on raw milk throve and gained weight. The four fed on pasteurized milk developed diarrhea and lost weight. The experiment was then reversed. The four well calves, formerly fed on raw milk, were now fed on pasteurized milk. They then developed the same ailment and lost weight. The four calves formerly fed on pasteurized milk were then fed on raw milk. The disorder ceased and their weight increased.
"In a downtown dispensary where pasteurized milk was used for years by the physician in charge, his successor reported that 98 per cent of the children treated had rickets. The most shocking, distressful cases of malnutrition encountered dispensary work are those of infants 'who have been fed exclusively on pasteurized milk.
"It is inconceivable that the Intelligence of this city would reproach itself by receiving milk from tuberculosis herds, pasteurizing it and offering it as food for the children of the poor."
The Wenatchee daily world. (Wenatchee, Wash.), May 04, 1909, Page 6, Image 6

mark mcafee's picture

It is a time to celebrate for conventional dairies and their processors. They are making money again. Why??? Because the Chinese are suckers and truly ignorant. I know this to be true...I was visited by the highest level Chinese agricultural representatives in 2004 and they wanted UHT milk with a Long Shelf life so they could grow taller. They had not a clue about what an immune system was and did not comprehend mal digestion.

It appears that America has dollar voted and fluid pasteurized milk is done....now it is on to 1.6 billion niave suckers and a new grand group of dollar ( yen ) voters that look to the west and ignorantly, blindly and niavely follow. The Chinese have much to learn and their greatness is not going to be very great very long. Their airquality is horrendous and their GUT quality will soon follow as they add an inch their height as a national doctrine and central communist party directive.

My brother has done much work in China...he reports that it is one of the most corrupt places on earth. He says that cheating is everywhere and that there is no appreciation of contracts or the meaning of integrity.

Sounds like a great place for pasteurized fluid milk to thrive..... At least for a while...until the brain starts to listen to the GUT and visits to the doctor and the toilet catch up with human physiology. The truth always wins....eventually. Poor corrupt suckers.

Ora Moose's picture

Mark, I worked in Brasil for a few years and would vouch for that country to be the most insanely corrupt and class divided population, financially educationally and social aspects in the world that I have ever seen. I wonder if raw milk is popular down there, I don't remember. I do have a vague recollection of cows being worshiped in China?

Just over a century ago, China for forty centuries had a kind of permanent and sustainable agriculture. The book “Farmers of Forty Centuries, A Permanent Agriculture in China, Korea, and Japan” written by an American soil scientist did much to inspire the organic farming movement around the world. Abstract: Published just over a century ago, Farmers of Forty Centuries or Permanent Agriculture in China, Korea, and Japan, served to document the viability and productivity of traditional agricultural systems that relied on composting, and complete recycling of all types of natural waste materials, as a means of sustaining soil fertility. This cardinal rule of waste management and organic soil husbandry became known as “the law of return” to organic farming. With regards to nutrient management, organic farming methods uses restorative cultural practices that include the law of return principle which encourages the closure of nutrient cycles. In these respects, organic farming methods are arguably more firmly grounded in ecology and sustainability than the promotions of the chemical fertilizer industry which has largely displaced traditional soil fertility practices. Farmers of Forty Centuries is a classic with valuable lessons and experience to offer towards teaching modern concepts in sustainable agriculture.
More info at this link: http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/5/6/2796

rawmilkmike's picture

Thanks Mr. heckman@aesop.r..., for the info. Textbook history was never very interesting in school but information like this, I can't seem to get enough of it.

Is it possible there could be some truth to Mark's statement do to GE's WWII.

“Werner Gruhl estimates China's war losses at 12,392,000 civilian dead due to the Japanese occupation and 3,162,00 military dead. He also estimates an additional 1,445,000 deaths due to internal Chinese conflicts.”

“Werner Gruhl, Imperial Japan's World War Two, 1931–1945 Transaction 2007 ISBN 978-0-7658-0352-8(Werner Gruhl is former chief of NASA's Cost and Economic Analysis Branch with a lifetime interest in the study of the First and Second World Wars.)”

Of course, it could just be that when ever politics are involved, governments are very good at playing dumb. Listening to the CDC and FDA you'd think we were living in the stone-age, with their “we believe this and we believe that” and “no evidence to support this and no evidence to support that ” and “we estimate this and we estimate that”.

D. Smith's picture

The words "sustainable agriculture" will have absolutely no meaning until we get people to realize that on this planet, organically grown foods and GE'd crops cannot co-exist. It's just not possible.

too bad the Chinese haven't heard about the ill effects that an increase in height has ... such as ovarian cancer and childhood diabetes... it's not all good.

D. Smith's picture

Idaho guv signs ag-gag law. "The bill had the backing of the state's $2.5 billion dairy industry."

Read all about it here: (short article) https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/02/28-8

Permission to abuse without recourse. Imagine it.