Odds and Ends: Eucalyptus and Climate; That CDC MN Raw Milk Study; Dairy Footprints; NOFA-NJ Conference

A eucalyptus farm in Brazil, developed to obtain carbon credits. I love eucalyptus trees, both their smell and their look. But I didn’t like learning about how they are being used to supposedly fight global warming. 


Vast  eucalyptus forests have been planted in Brazil, and the trees are harvested for charcoal. Same with palm trees in Honduras, there to extract bio-gas. 


It’s much worse than simple extension of the monoculture mindset, according to a disturbing documentary I saw earlier this week, “The Carbon Rush”. It dramatizes how the Brazilian and Honduran projects, along with others in India and Panama, are receiving carbon credits for offsetting pollution created in the developed world. 

But, irony of ironies, these carbon-credit projects are not only not reducing carbon emissions, but they are destroying indigenous communities where they have been set up. Local people are barred from accessing the woods and fields that have been planted as eucalyptus or palm farms. Indeed, these projects are heavily guarded by corporate police to keep local people out or, in some cases, like Honduras, to confiscate their land, and murder those who object. 

It’s a discouraging film, but extremely informative about how seemingly rational incentive-based global policies (part of the Kyoto Protocol) get twisted out of shape by corporate manipulation. Well worth seeing. 


I have re-visited that Minnesota study on raw milk illnesses sponsored by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, in an article for Alternet

As I suggest in the article, the research methodologies underlying the study are very dubious. But beyond that, there’s also the matter of a missed opportunity. The researchers had the opportunity to explore with raw milk drinkers their experiences consuming raw milk (whether they are regular or occasional consumers, for example), their long-term health experiences, and their challenges in obtaining regular supplies. Going more in-depth with their subjects would have required a more careful study, and a study geared toward informing. 

But, of course, the study wasn’t about offering positive guidance in any shape or form. It was only about trashing raw milk, so it couldn’t go in any other direction.


Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy Co. sent along a couple of examples of dairy filters to highlight the differences in milk intended to be served raw and that intended to be pasteurized. Here is his explanation for the photos below: 

“My son Aaron took a picture of this milk filter (first photo below) during a random visit to a local 'Grade A Dairy' this last week. It may not be everyone’s dairy….but it is a CDFA (CA Dept of Food and Agriculture) Grade A dairy and milk that flowed through this filter....gets commingled and supplied to consumers everywhere. The very clean filters (second photo below) are from OPDC RAWMI RAMP audits we do every week. These are common OPDC milk filters that show the negligible effects of milking hundreds of OPDC organic raw milk cows....Our RAMP team classifies, grades and places our filters into individual plastic bags. They are frozen for collection and testing each week and that is why they have clumps of ice-milk on them. Filters are as much as ten times more sensitive to pathogen tests as finished raw milk samples.


“When you consider that not all PMO (Pasteurized Milk Ordinance) Grade A raw milk filters may look this bad….all comingled CAFO milk is this bad. Why….because the better raw milk ( if there is any) and bad raw milk (like that which flowed through this filter) all gets dumped and commingled into one bulk tank at the FDA-approved creamery that then cooks it to death.”


Shades of pink slime. 


A milk filter from a conventional California dairy


A milk filter used on raw milk at Organic Pastures Dairy Co.


Compliments to all here on the tone of the debate and discussion following my previous two posts. While some individuals acknowledged temptations to get personally nasty to others, the tone has been generally restrained and issues oriented This is a positive change from past discussions involving public health people, where some have been run off the blog. 


It’s not that the public health people I quoted have radically changed their views, but I’d say they’ve both moderated their tone and shown more willingness to engage in discussion. Who knows where it leads, but it is progress in the context of the highly-charged raw milk controversy.  


As I go around and speak about food rights, I am struck by the deep desire many people feel  to organize and fight the conventional food system.  It was the same this past week at Groton Wellness, in Groton, MA. We had about a dozen people on a frigid evening, and pretty much everyone stayed around for an hour-long discussion following my talk, on possible ways to organize their communities, initiate food sovereignty ordinances, get young people involved in farming, and take on legislative missions. 

People are definitely feeling beaten down, and ever more radicalized, by seeming coordination between the mainstream media and government agencies like the CDC and FDA, to misinform on food issues, and want to organize. 


I’ll be in Lincroft, NJ, on Sunday (speaking at 2:30 pm), at the NOFA-NJ Winter Conference. There seems to be a huge amount of enthusiasm for the gathering, and I’m very much looking forward to participating. 


Thank you for sharing the photos of dairy filters. What a remarkable difference.

J Heckman

mark mcafee's picture

It is no wonder that the FDA does not think raw milk is safe....under "their Pasteurized Milk Ordinance" and Grade A standards...it sure is not. Look at the pictures above.

RAWMI LISTED raw milk is a different world of milk!!! A place the FDA fears to tread because of the comparison it will clearly bring. Thank you David for your posting of these two pictures. They are worth more than a million words. I rest my case.

All of the 48 milk filters we have sent off for testing in the last two months have all been negative for pathogens. According to studies on raw milk filters in the EU, milk filters are between 3 & 10 times more sensative ( ie...accurate in finding ) to pathogen discovery and detection than finished milk samples.

It is no wonder that clean raw milk tastes delicious....it is clean raw milk. It is not "the good, the bad and the Ugly CAFO commingled cooked sh**." The truth really stings. Sorry CAFO guys. Those of you that do a great job are being really cheated by those that do not. In your system it all becomes the least common denominator of quality when it is ALL dumped into that huge silo down at the regional creamery. The place that pays you less than dirt.

Disconnect with consumers and their needs and this is what happens.

Shawna Barr's picture

Mark...wow. As you know, we've been to few "real" dairies, and I've certainly never seen a filter from a typical dairy. Amazing. I know they don't all look like that, but the fact that some do and the milk all gets co-mingled...if that is not a compelling argument for direct-customer sales and finding a farmer with transparent practices, I don't know what is.

I'm thinking of hanging the first photo alongside one of our milk filters for our herdshare members to see. They would be...impressed? I'm not sure that is the exact word I'm looking for. Educated is perhaps more like it.

Eucalyptus monoculture is one of the perfectly bad and pernicious projects. In addition to having no constructive purpose, as David says it's one of the elements of the "carbon offset" scam, a pure evil which both drives environmental destruction and misdirects focus and energy which could go into real environmental action. The corporate-environmentalist front groups are there to push the propaganda.

I'll add another way in which it's a Trojan horse. In Brazil there's a move afoot to withdraw from the global moratorium on the "Terminator" variety of GMO. The sham "eco-friendly" rationale which is being given is that it'll be used only with GM eucalyptus, to prevent their pollen from contaminating other trees.


In practice expanded tree monoculture will just drive accelerated deforestation and escalating GHG emissions (industrial ag is the biggest GHG emitter and destroyer of carbon sinks), while once the suicide seed is commercialized in one product, it'll quickly become standard for maize and soy, and then for all other GMOs.

rawmilkmike's picture

Cap & Trade and “carbon credits” the new wall street, for those who believe in global warming.
“GM eucalyptus” oh my god!!!

That picture says it all about the kind of food production practices our "public health" professionals consider to be normative and above question.

D. Smith's picture

Right, Russ. This is why I always have to wonder why public health officials are always testing this and testing that. They already know the answers. But as you say, the norms have changed. If they don't like the way something comes out, they massage the numbers of the current status quo to fit the new normal - via quid pro quo. This is not a sensible way to conduct life.

Here's the latest government whitewashing of Roundup and recommendation that allowable levels in food and water be increased.


By now they're often pretty frank that the "safe" levels are to be defined simply according to how much glyphosate the corporations want to sell and how much has to be sprayed to have any effect at all on the Roundup-resistant superweeds.

Corporate "science" sure is funny. I posted this comment at Alternet:

That's typical corporate "science", and typical "science" coverage in the corporate media.

Meanwhile the media almost never mention studies which implicate structural elements of corporate agriculture in food-borne illness. Salmonella? Roundup (ubiquitous and systemic in all non-organic processed food in the US, as well as meat and dairy products from animals fed on GM-based feed; which again means everything in the supermarket which isn't certified organic) is known to disproportionately kill beneficial microorganisms in the gut while sparing salmonella, C. botulinum, and other potentially pathogenic microbes.



Sure enough, botulism is surging among livestock, while salmonella-driven illness has also soared in tandem with CAFOs and GMOs. As for pathogenic E. coli, it's a purely CAFO-generated problem.

And then CAFOs and GMOs both systematically create antibiotic resistant strains of pathogenic bacteria.

Yes indeed, it's clear why the corporate system is desperate to find a scapegoat, just as it's desperate to suppress the rising Community Food movement, including raw milk. As a new economic sector and social/political movement, Community Food is becoming a potent rival to corporate agriculture and its affiliated politics, in proportion as we the people learn how we're being poisoned by corporate food.

Most important to realize in repudiating the domestic enemies of the Republic, is = the communists are venal, but they're not stupid. Americans started making noises indicating they'd awakened to our food + water supplies being poisoned - the Campaign for REAL MILK being the pre-eminent example - so, right quick "Progressives" climbed-aboard the "Community Food" / slow food bandwagons. Their various fronts in Vancouver ... all govt.-funded, of course ... are deftly steering the genuine energies of the nation off into the miasma of govt. oversight.

I entered in to our Court hearing the essay by Arthur Burns entitled "And Not a Shot is Fired" : it being a handy explanation of how the one-world-govt. Agenda is being imposed. Just the meerest co-incidence that Tim Shum was imported from Red China to head-up a local ( so-called) "health Authority" in British Columbia? Hardly ; the more one delves-in to who's at the levers of power, the more compelling the evidence is, of the medico /pharma industries being a crucial aspect in that anti-christ conspiracy. My experience in BC, exemplifying what happens to the messenger - after I started publicizing how the very nutrition has been stolen out of the mouths of our children, they criminalized the whistleblower.

And that's no idle rhetoric. When one goes back into the history ... lo and behold, who was the instigator of the quota system for managing the economy? Why J Maynard Keynes his-self! Thus, the raw milk controversy is just one of many battle fronts against the Fabians' in their "long march through the institutions".

Anticipating the comments from the Peanut Gallery : yes, I can live with govt. regulation. "The mark of the immature man, is ; he's willing to die for his cause. The hallmark of the mature man, is ; he's willing to live for his cause" My kinsmen obtaining our birthright = REAL MILK = is so important that I can compromise, if I must.
To this Campaign, I bring the lesson learned in the DeTax thing [ fighting the iniquitous income tax] = this country is ruled by people who hate us. At this point in the Israelite cycle, you're in subjection to them, no matter what. So you have to figure out your own coping-mechanism. With the income tax, one is compelled to cheat, in order to survive. The racketeers know that better than do the little tax-serfs. Bribery is how every communist system works. Applying that understanding to the raw milk issue, means, we have to bribe the cartel, in a currency of their choosing. Knowing they're whores, all that remains is = negotiating their price .... there are lots of different ways to convey a bribe, other than just old-fashioned raw banknotes in a brownpaper bag

rawmilkmike's picture

Gordon S Rothschild, If your kinsmen are denying you your birthright you need to talk to the head of you clan.
This is a must see for anyone concerned with “people who hate us” “income tax” “govt. oversight” “communists”. Or big government as some call it.

Dog Whistle Politics: Has Wrecked the Middle Class

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

Watch, Published on Jan 14, 2014;

For the “anti-Christ ” and “one-world-govt. ” maybe start with the Byzantine empire 300 to 1400.

mark mcafee's picture


You got it. A picture really says it all and leaves an clear emotional - intellectual impression that you can "visually taste". Even the Rutgers, FDA and other "raw milk resistant & paycheck resistant PhDs" "will get it" through some deeper human alternative information absorption pathways. The RAWMI LISTED data, plus these pictures are literally the "coup-de-grace" of our demonstrated raw milk food safety point!! Remember that the clean filters shown above were after 400 OPDC cows milked!!!

There are two raw milks in America...one for people and one for the pasteurizer!!!

When I saw all the discussions about and between PhD's on the previous TCP in the last few days and weeks....I could not help myself. I thought this might stop the conversation and academic confusion cold in its tracks and start some deeper reflection about the real no BS truth of what we are saying and have demonstrated.

The science about the 3 to 10 times more sensative milk filter sensativity is found in the 2012 Giacometti studies. This study is referenced in Nadines PP linked here on slide 40.


Mary McGonigle-Martin's picture

But Mark the raw milk outbreaks since 2005 have been from milk meant for people to drink. All this talk about two raw milks in America....one for people and one for the pasteurizer.... is pointless when the one meant to be consumed by people is causing the majority of outbreaks.

You know I support the mission of RAWMI, but let's be honest, the need for RAWMI is because pathogens are getting in the milk indented for human consumption.

Shelly-D.'s picture

"But Mark the raw milk outbreaks since 2005 have been from milk meant for people to drink."

Mary, learning about what went on behind those outbreaks, I strongly disagree with you. When you have farmers starting to produce fresh milk when their sole experience has been in industrial/conventional dairying, and they haven't bothered to learn that raw milk production requires different practices but just assume that they can do the "same old thing" - or they come in with habits they learned from their grandparents and haven't updated them in 100 years -- then they are producing IPP milk, whether they are labelling it as "raw milk" or not. It is NOT meant to be consumed by people -- except the farmer markets it that way. It is industrial milk - even if the herd consists of 3 cows - if the agister or farmer is not using raw milk best practices (and RAWMI isn't the first - farmers could easily have been looking to England and Europe to learn what to do), then it's industrial milk intended for pasteurization and processing (IPP). The methods count, not the destination.

When choosing a farmer, the consumer must know what to ask for, because unfortunately many farmers DO pass off IPP milk as raw milk. We've seen that numerous times. In fact, having a background in a commercial, CAFO, dairy where cows are kept on concrete floors may even be a red flag - many of the best raw milk farmers I know came into this with NO commercial background, no set of assumptions. They have microdairy herdshares (10 cows, 30 goats or less), and are quietly producing a high quality, artisan product for their shareholders. It can be done, very safely, and they just want to be left alone.

Mary McGonigle-Martin's picture

Shelly, have you looked at the data regarding what type of dairies are involved in raw milk outbreaks? Do you know how many have been heardshares?

rawmilkmike's picture

“Raw milk myths and evidence by Nadine Ijaz pdf”

mark mcafee's picture

I predict an even quieter anti-raw milk resistance. The more they stir the raw milk pot....the more the issues come into focus for the dollar voters.

The best outcome for the dirty milk filter PMO grade A industries is to pray for an equalibrium of sorts: Where they get the processed cultured products, the export markets and class 4 products like dried powdered milk, processed cheeses, pasteurized yogurts, flavored pasteurized milk and icecreams. We get the local fluid raw milk consumers and perhaps the raw Kefirs, the good cheeses and all of the local family business and they get to keep the chains and costcos's and the long shelf life products. This becomes a market fight into a new paradigm and future. Comes down to who they can continue to fool and who will tolerate and digest it.

Time and dollar voting will tell. I know that China is buying export dairy products like crazy. Why?....in 2003 a high level emissary from the Chinese Government visited OPDC to try and get ahold of UHT technology. They had been directed to "make the Chinese taller by drinking milk" like in the West!! Their first mistake, they had come to the wrong place. UHT at OPDC??? They had no clue what an immune system was...when I started to talk about the role of bacteria in the GUT and immunity....their eyes glazed over and they started looking at their interpreters with funny looks on their faces.

Boy were they extremely confused....short on information and short intellectually for sure. Now...it gives me impressions of North Koreas Kim Jong-Un.

All very weird. All very insecure and China-Ego-Centrist. None the less...American and New Zealand Food Inc dairy exports are loving it.

Local and family first!

D. Smith's picture

Can people buy raw milk with food stamps?

If not, it would be my guess that this is why the "regulators" are itching to keep and get everyone onto a food stamp program of some kind. They are even out recruiting people to apply for food stamps and other gubment entitlement programs (hand outs, basically). When someone signs up, that means you and I pay for our food twice. Isn't our gubment benevolent though?

rawmilkmike's picture

This is a must see for anyone concerned with this countries oppressive government and constant state of recession. Or big government as some call it.

Dog Whistle Politics: Has Wrecked the Middle Class by Ian Haney Lopez

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

Watch, Published on Jan 14, 2014;

rawmilkmike's picture

I'm not saying I go for the fly hypothesis but if this is how Campy works, isn't it possible we're looking in the wrong places here in America? How can you possibly blame a couple of cases on raw milk when the world is in the midst of a real pandemic. And when I say pandemic I don't mean three unconfirmed cases.
Fly Transmission of Campylobacter
Gordon L. Nichols
Journal List Emerg Infect Disv.11(3); Mar 2005 PMC3298251
An annual increase in Campylobacter infection in England and Wales begins in May and reaches a maximum in early June. This increase occurs in all age groups and is seen in all geographic areas. Examination of risk factors that might explain this seasonal increase identifies flies as a potential source of infection. The observed pattern of infection is hypothesized to reflect an annual epidemic caused by direct or indirect contamination of people by small quantities of infected material carried by flies that have been in contact with feces. The local pattern of human illness appears random, while having a defined geographic and temporal distribution that is a function of the growth kinetics of one or more fly species. The hypothesis provides an explanation for the seasonal distribution of Campylobacter infections seen around the world.
Campylobacter spp. are the most common bacterial causes of diarrhea in England and Wales. The epidemiologic features of Campylobacter infection have proved difficult to discover, and extensive strain typing has failed to clarify the main transmission routes. Testable hypotheses must be established to explain available evidence, particularly the reason for the observed seasonality. Relatively few outbreaks of Campylobacter gastroenteritis occur, and most cases are sporadic. In case-control and case-case studies of sporadic Campylobacter infections, most cases remain unexplained by recognized risk factors
The relative geographic uniformity of the increase seen in May of most years has the temporal appearance of an annual national epidemic. Because person-to-person infection within the community is uncommon, it is likely that the epidemic is caused by a single main driver for human Campylobacter infection.
Contamination of a range of foods by flies will result in a pattern of infection that will not be amenable to identifying specific vehicles through standard case-control, case-case, or cohort studies, unless specific objective or subjective assessments of fly numbers can be obtained.
This hypothesis arose after a lecture by Professor Sandy Cairncross at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, in the spring of 2002.

mark mcafee's picture


Your support of RAWMI efforts is deeply and warmly appreciated. Thank you for that vision and support.
On this very nice Saturday morning....I will however, take exception of your "OUTBREAK" comment.

When the CDC and researchers claim that more ourbreaks are caused by Raw Milk than by Pasteurized milk....that is contrived & manipulative researcher bias at its FDA & CDC grant award winning very best!!!

The number of "OUTBREAKS does not tell us the NUMBERS of PEOPLE SICKENED". People are what matter to me and should matter to everyone! Especially when the CDC cherry picks the date ranges to avoid the deaths from pasteurized milk in 1985, 2007 and more even more recently in 2013. It is undisputed that NO deaths have occured from any raw milk in America since 1972 according to official CDC data. Dr. Michele Russel makes a great point that the CDC data is not perfect and there is most certainly un-reported information on both sides of this equation & argument and suggests that we not blindly trust the CDC data anyway.

One pasteurized milk outbreak...."this is counted as just one Outbreak" caused more than 150,000 serious illnesses in 1993 from Salmonella in pasteurized milk!!


It is intersting that the investigators were not permitted access to the farms and that the farms implicated were never named!!! All to cover pasteurized milk!!! This is written right in the CDC report!

That is one OUTBREAK event. In 2006, when your son was sickened...just a few weeks prior, CDFA investigated 1900 people sickened from pasteurized milk. Seven were seriously sickened and hospitalized. Interestingly...there was no press release from CDFA on this huge pasteurized milk event. When OPDC was accused of sickening several people in 2006 ...we were hung from the nearest tree with great fanfare & celebration and even before the data was investigated. Then later the state "pays for the 7 day recall" and has OPDC sign a "release and agreement not to sue them"...becuase they could not find a link to causation or a bad bug that matched any illnesses even in our milking cows manure. Not to mention that at that exact same time in 2006, three people died and hundreds were sickened by one outbreak of Ecoli from Spinach!!

Most raw milk outbreaks impact just a handful or fewer of people. It is completely disengenous to even try and equate an "outbreak incident to numbers of actual people sickened".

Have a great weekend and celebrate life!

Mark and Mary,

These are the outbreak numbers according to CDC records and state reports since 1998. Due to under-reporting, the number of actual illnesses per outbreak were probably higher (source: http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com/outbreak-tables). The link has tables that break down the type of dairy products (e.g., fluid, queso fresco cheese, etc.), but in summary:

Milk and Cheeses/Products Sold as Pasteurized
29 outbreaks, 2,824 illnesses (1,880 of the illnesses were at prisons), 8 deaths

Unpasteurized (Raw) Milk and Raw Milk Cheeses/Products
136 outbreaks, 2,468 total illnesses, 2 deaths

The 2006 campylobacteriosis outbreak you refer to involved 1,644 inmates and milk produced at a prison vocational institute. The prison milk was not distributed to the public, which is probably why there was no press release. Here's the paper we published describing the lab investigation part - http://jcm.asm.org/content/51/1/195.long


Shelly-D.'s picture

Michele, I take issue with these statistics. In no way should illegal Mexican bathtub cheese be counted in the statistics of fresh milk-related "outbeaks" (and those two deaths were due to this very-much suspect product). The two consumables are very different. Fresh milk which has come from clean farms using raw milk best practices and been stored from cow to glass in sterilized containers at 4-degrees or less, is not the same as what may have come from dirty cows and dirty farms and left at warm temperatures to culture who-knows-what. Not only that, but these statistics are also fabricated because the people who gathered the statistics made no effort at all to find out whether the unpasteurized milk was IPP or or if it was DHC - frankly, many of us believe that they intentionally omitted this information in order to inflate the statistics in order to increase public alarm. Either that, or they were ignorant of the difference or really do not care - neither of which I would expect from public health "professionals" who are supposed to be experts in these things, while we are supposed to be the lowly stupid peons (or at least, that is how they treat us). They want to be considered experts, so why do we seem to know more than they do?

Shawna Barr's picture

Revealing my ignorance here Michele....

What is "Queso Fresco"? And are there any theories on why there has been so much illness associated with it? I have a recipe for Queso Fresco in my cheesebook (says nothing about using a bathtub) and it is basically a low-heat, low acid cheese. Is it the cheese processing that was suspect, or the milk itself? And, is it known where the milk came from? Was it raw milk from a "raw milk dairy", a family cow situation, or a pre-pasteurized bulk tank?

David Gumpert's picture

Michele, you make an intriguing observation I've never before seen anyone in public health make about the 1,644 illnesses in the 2006 outbreak from pasteurized milk. You say, "The prison milk was not distributed to the public, which is probably why there was no press release." Many of the illnesses from raw milk you tabulate affected individuals who belonged to herdshares. That milk, as well, was not distributed to the public. Yet there were invariably widely distributed press releases, not to mention outraged articles from product liability lawyers. What was the difference between the prisoners and the herdshare members? Both belonged to discrete groups (though the prisoners were in a public institution, while the herdshare members belonged to private organizations, and had signed agreements taking personal responsibility for possible illnesses). Does the difference in treatment have something to do with the possibility prisoners are considered less important? Or does it reflect the lack of recognition accorded herdshares by the public health community?

One other thing: In reporting the data, you continue with a bad habit started at Real Raw Milk Facts, and continued by the CDC. You report total numbers, never saying that the period covered was 14 years, and that the average number of illnesses from raw milk was 176, and for pasteurized milk 201, per year. Those numbers are quite small when considered in the context of approximately 30,000 reported (by CDC) food borne illnesses per year. Context is real important in discussing these issues. 

Mary McGonigle-Martin's picture

David, they put a press release out about herdshare illnesses/outbreaks to inform the people who may be in the herdshare that the milk is contaminated. Also people in herdshares share their milk with others. One of the teens in the Oregon outbreak became ill by being served raw milk in a herdshare members home. They don't have to release the information to the public that there is a foodborne illness outbreak in a prison, because they know who and where the prisoners are.

Mary McGonigle-Martin's picture

I checked the data chart I created for E.coli 0157:H7 raw milk outbreaks since 2005. There have been 15 outbreaks. Of these 15, in four of the outbreaks, children became ill after consuming raw milk in the home of the person who purchased it. In other words, the parents did not purchase the raw milk. It was given to them in the home of someone who consumes raw milk.

One was purchased retail, one was purchased on the farm and two were from herdshares.

rawmilkmike's picture

Mary, Did you say 4 out of 15? Then did you say 1+1+2? Doesn't that = 4? Most importantly did you say “children became ill after consuming raw milk”? Do you realize how many bacterial exposures a child has in a week(not to mention all the junk-food and bad medicine)? Even you would know better than to arbitrarily assume it was the raw milk without any proof. You know very will that most of these association can't withstand the light of day and are easily be proven to be false. Most of the cases that can't be proven false have no evidence at all. And like I've said many times before, the governments evidence actually proves raw milk is preventing diarrhea not causing it, like you are inferring.

David Gumpert's picture

Mary, you know as well as I do that those press releases go out for two reasons only: propaganda and fear mongering. The herdshare operators know who their members are, and contact them when there is an outbreak. The prison kept it quiet because the authorities decided it wasn't good propaganda to publicize that there had been an outbreak involving pasteurized milk. In fact, as I understand it (I believe it was discussed on this blog), the CDC refused for several years to even include the prison outbreak in its outbreak data....for the same reason, not good propaganda. 

David Gumpert's picture

Mary, I should amend what I said. In some situations, local public health people are no doubt sincere in putting out press releases, hoping to disseminate information warning unaware individuals that they might have consumed a tainted product. The problem is that such releases have been misused, not just to warn about specific food safety problems, but to disseminate propaganda about certain foods, like raw milk and raw milk cheese. So you get a situation not unlike the boy who cried wolf--where people wonder about the intentions of those putting out the releases. 

mark mcafee's picture


How about going back to the CDC starting line in 1972 and taking the data to the finish line today . It is not quite fair to start after the Jalisco pasteurized incident ( 49 deaths in 1985 ) and finish before other more recent incidents have been reported, like the deadly Craven brothers pasteurized cheese incident this last year. This race of the data needs to be fair and square. Where is the data from the 150,000 Americans sickened as shown in the CDC link I provided above in my prior comment and post? The CDC themselves report more than 422,000 illnesses from pasteurized dairy since 1972. I think you missed quite a few pasteurized dairy illnesses in your query. Perhaps....change the date range and bring in all the numbers.

Shelly....I could not agree more. There has been a rather steep and lonely 15 year raw milk learning curve for us pioneers that produce raw milk for people. Where was the CDC, NIH, FDA or most any other government agency to help us make the quantum leap from Grade A PMO raw milk to low risk raw milk for people!!! They were a no show! In fact mostly, they fought us in the most unfair and unkind ways. That is why the pioneering, committed, caring, ever learning, innovative, consumer connected, raw milk producers of America are nothing short of All-American heros.

Excellent question. The national foodborne disease outbreak surveillance system in the US changed in 1998. Online statistics only go back to that year (see http://wwwn.cdc.gov/foodborneoutbreaks/). A list of older outbreaks can be found here - http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com/PDFs/comparing-raw-pasteurized.pdf. However, I think the recent outbreaks in this century are more relevant to prevention practices than those from 30-40 years ago.

The tables in the earlier link separate the Mexican-style queso fresco outbreaks from fluid milk. The paper describing The Abuelo Project (mentioned by Ben Chapman) has a good description of some of the unique food safety risks from this cheese http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1421

Shawna Barr's picture

Got it. Bulk tank milk intended for pasteurization, possibly from dairies with Milk Filter #1, made into low-temp cheese not age over 60 days. No mention of actually bathtubs. Milk contained pathogens, people got sick. Solution: teach people to home pasteurize. Makes sense, especially if a clean source of raw milk was not available or affordable.

What strikes me about this story is how the education had a ripple effect. I'm seeing this with RAWMI's education efforts big time. Producers are talking about processes and information sharing is happening that just wasn't five years ago. Locally, I'm seeing producers opt not to provide raw milk until they have their plans in place, milk tests back, etc. This is new, at least where I live.

mark mcafee's picture

In all fairness to past and recent progress on the high quality raw milk production learning curve, early assistance came from very brave PHDs including: Dr. Ron Hull of Australia, Dr. Ted Beals MD, Dr. Joe Heckman of Rutgers, with a very deep contribution from Dr. Cat Berge DVM PhD from UC Davis ( serving as a core and founding board member of RAWMI ). More recently, Dr. Michele Russell has volunteered to share and teach her expertice in Campylobacter at a RAWMI webinar date to be announced soon ( probably March 2014 ). Her PHD is focused on the tricky and elusive campy bug.

The pioneering path is becoming less lonely as we are joined with more and more PhDs that see our vision and listen to reasonable consumers and their anecdotal testimonials.....not to mention the tons of EU research.

rawmilkmike's picture

if this is how Campy works, isn't it possible we're looking in the wrong places here in America? How can you possibly blame a couple of cases on raw milk when the world is in the midst of a real pandemic. And when I say pandemic I don't mean three unconfirmed cases.
Fly Transmission of Campylobacter
Gordon L. Nichols
Journal List Emerg Infect Disv.11(3); Mar 2005 PMC3298251

Mary McGonigle-Martin's picture

The problem is that in 1999 Sally Fallon and the WAPF jumped on the pro raw milk wagon and basically said raw milk was safe if the cows were fed grass and you knew your farmer, as well as making statements that raw milk had the capacity to kill pathogens. I call these the three urban myths of the raw milk movement. This is why people thought anyone could just produce raw milk and all would be well. You've left Tim Wightman off your list of people who early on tried to teach safety standards.

Shawna Barr's picture

You're right Mary.

And WAPF isn't completely wrong. Nor are they completely right. Which makes these statements misleading to both producers and consumers.

Studies do support low stocking density and high-forage feeding in reducing pathogenic ecoli shedding. But is does not eliminate it, as Dr. Berge has stated even on this blog.

As for raw milk killing pathogens on contact...I'd love that to be true! Would make my job so much easier!

And YES, consumers need to know their farmers. They need to know that their farmers have good information and are implementing it.

But how do they find that information...both farmers and producers, if all they have are the "myths" you state on one side, and public health saying "don't drink it, don't consume it" on the other?

Mary McGonigle-Martin's picture

I think the first place to start is with the WAPF. Sally Fallon can choose at anytime to correct the misinformation. But she doesn't. Why is that?

Mary McGonigle-Martin's picture

Sally Fallon is on the executive Advisory Council of RAWMI. WAPF has quarterly news letters that go out to all the WAPF chapters in the US. Why wouldn't she want to highlight some of the raw milk safety myths and replace this false information with what RAWMI is discovering? Wouldn't this be the responsible thing to do?

Shawna Barr's picture

Your questions sound more like statements. You will have to direct them to Ms. Fallon if you really want to know the answers. The fact is that she and WAPF are willing participants in the work of RAWMI. We are all learning.

Mary McGonigle-Martin's picture

Shawna, don't you wonder why Sally doesn't correct the misinformation that was spread by her organization in the early days of the WAPF? Raw milk drinkers still believe the three myths. Sally has all the power. Actions speak louder than words. I'm waiting see action from Sally. She needs to start educating her members about raw milk safety standards. One article in the quarterly newsletter would clear up all the confusion. How many thousands of members does she have? Raw milk drinkers won't listen to public health, but they will listen to Sally.

rawmilkmike's picture

Mary, why do you use the word “basically” as in “basically said raw milk was safe if the cows were fed grass and you knew your farmer, as well as making statements that raw milk had the capacity to kill pathogens”? Is it possibly because no one ever said any of that? Your statement is the real “urban myth ”. The truth is raw milk is a low risk food whether you know your farmer or not and whether it is grass feed or not and raw milk's anti microbial properties are well documented.

“Raw milk myths and evidence by Nadine Ijaz pdf”

Ken Conrad's picture

Shawna and Mary

“Milk killing pathogens on contact”?
That’s a new one!

I recall on numerous occasions having discussions on this blog with respect to a known and valid process that occurs in the world of microbes and raw milk known as competitive exclusion?!

If there ever was a “myth” fostered it’s this persistent notion that microbes can be “eliminated”.


D. Smith's picture

The even bigger myth is that they SHOULD be eliminated.

MMMcG = Most interesting to see how well-versed you are on how the Weston A Price Foundation operates ... seeing how you're it's arch~enemy Gee, whatever would motivate you to nurse your grudge for -what? - going on a decade?
As for you kvetching that the assertions = 'raw milk is safe if the cows are grass-fed + if you know your farmer', are urban myths ... Ron Duffel thought so too, but he was only the director of Food safety for the BC Ministry of Health. On my website, see his letter to me wherein he put those ideas on official govt. stationery, in 2003 when he exempted our cowshare from the law which required milk in commerce to be Pasteur-ized. If you have evidence OTHERWISE let's some peer-reviewed studies ... what's that? .... you say there are none?!
As for : raw milk killing pathogens = now that I have the little impengo-toy hooked up to my iPhone, I can do the research on that theory, right here on the homestead. Myself, I believe it. Suggested by Dr Bernard Jensen's observation that raw milk has an electical component
Even critics have a purpose in the ecology of politics, but I doubt if you have the integrity to do what you're demanding of Sally Fallon = admit your error, when the snapshots from the impengo / the hard data confirm good bacteria in REAL MILK do outcompete any bad 'uns.
As the Campaign for REAL MILK surges ahead, you're wallowing in its wake. You lost the overall contest, so you've unleashed your claws against our champion ... a lady who's done monumental work, helping and healing countless people. Wilhelm Reich had your type figured-out ... see his work on "the emotional plague"

Shawna Barr's picture

Mark...many of us are grateful to be riding your coattails up that steep learning curve! Hopefully we are helping to put energy into the ascent.

Mary....Perhaps raw milk needs to designated “Raw milk produced under high standards specifically for raw milk” and “All other raw milk.”

We all know about those illness outbreaks from raw milk that was intended for human consumption. I think about them all the time, especially those that happened on little farms like mine. I think, what didn’t that farmer know? Would he or she have done better if they knew better?

When we began to consider producing milk for the community, we needed information...information that was hard to come by. Fortunately for us, we began our education not long after RAWMI began its farmer outreach, and they came alongside us. Thanks to that partnership, here is just a sampling of what we have learned about low-risk raw milk production:

How to properly prepare an udder that is dry and sanitized
How to monitor SCC and what that means
What cattle diseases to screen for
Why quick cooling is important to milk quality
How to avoid cross contamination on a diversified farm
Why its important to keep milk cool in transport
How to test my milk for coliform and SPC, and what those results mean
How pasture feeding and low-stocking density reduce but doesn’t eliminate pathogen shedding
Basic epidemiology of major pathogens

Not all raw milk producers who are producing for human consumption have the benefit of information.

My argument is that generally we do better when we know better. Looking forward to learning more about campylobacter from Michele.

Rawmilkmike....tune into the webcast and maybe it will answer your questions.

rawmilkmike's picture

Shawna, what webcast and what questions?

mark mcafee's picture

Coat tails are a matter of perspective. I do not see it that way. I see you as a brave soul that is helping to create a true track record of excellence and share the political load so it is lighter on any one of us. All of our RAWMI LISTED dairymen are tenacious students dedicated to trying our very best to serve our consumers. The thanks go to you!! You teach, mentor and share all you know with others unselfishly. You are why America is great!

rawmilkmike's picture

The way we are using the terms “outbreak” and “pathogen” here is very problematic. We use the term “pathogen” as though we are referring to all proven toxins when in fact the only ones we are really talking about are a hand full of unproven toxins. Our use of the word “outbreak” brings to mind a movie version we assume to be a documentary when in fact it is a work of pure fiction.

Here's a little copy paste on the subject of “The elusive pathogen”.

They say “Salmonella, Escherichia coli O157, and Campylobacter” can be found in raw milk.
E. coli O157:H7,
Some people who are infected with the bacteria do not notice any symptoms. Symptoms of E. coli infection usually end in about a week with no further problems.
Salmonella infections can have a broad range of illness, from no symptoms to severe illness. People with salmonellosis usually recover without treatment within 3 to 7 days.
The illness typically lasts about one week. Some infected persons do not have any symptoms. Most human illness is caused by one species, called Campylobacter jejuni, which grows best at 37°C to 42°C, the approximate body temperature of a bird (41°C to 42°C), and seems to be well adapted to birds, who carry it without becoming ill. These bacteria are fragile. They cannot tolerate drying and can be killed by oxygen. They grow only in places with less oxygen than the amount in the atmosphere.
2000 - There were 19 confirmed cases, 19 likely cases, and 49 suspected cases of E. coli O157:H7 in Oregon in August. The cases were linked to a Wendy's restaurant, and although beef was the suspected vector of transmission, such a link was not conclusively shown.
2006 - E. coli O157:H7 from Taco Bell. 39 people in central New Jersey and on Long Island were sickened and suffered from hemolytic uremic syndrome. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at first believed the E. coli O157:H7 to be in the green onions. The FDA on December 13, 2006 said it could not confirm that scallions were the cause of the problem, as previously suspected, and that it was not ruling out any food as a possible culprit. It was later suspected that infected lettuce was the cause.
2006 - E. coli O157:H7 in bagged spinach packaged by Natural Selection Foods and most likely supplied by Earthbound Farm. 3 dead, and 198 people reported sickened
As of August 28, 2008, from April 10, 2008, the rare Saintpaul serotype of Salmonella enterica caused at least 1442 cases of salmonellosis food poisoning in 43 states. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration suspects that the contaminated food product is a common ingredient in fresh salsa, such as raw tomato, fresh jalapeño pepper, fresh serrano pepper, and fresh cilantro.
2009 - the FDA reported there was a possibility that the E. coli O157:H7 outbreak, which sickened at least 66 people in 28 states, MIGHT be a result of raw cookie dough consumption.
2011 - Contaminated papaya appears to be the cause of an outbreak of Salmonella food poisoning (salmonellosis) in 23 states. The FDA says papayas distributed by Agromod Produce Inc. is likely the source of 97 cases of Salmonella Agona.

Regarding the salmonella-contaminated papaya, there have been several cases of viral transgene-based GMOs being more susceptible to bacterial infection than the true crop.

Sasu MA, Ferrari MJ, Du D, Winsor JA, Stephenson AG. Indirect costs of a nontarget pathogen mitigate the direct benefits of a virus-resistant transgene in wild Cucurbita. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. Nov 10 2009; 106(45): 19067-19071.

Ken Conrad's picture

The regulator’s narrow focus on perceived pathogens will undoubtedly enable them isolate and identify such microbes.
What needs to be asked however is it indeed these so-called pathogens that are causing illness or is it the tinkering with microbial competitive exclusion via the chemicals being used in an attempt to deactivate their presence in food that alters human gut bacteria?
By focusing on and attempting to eliminate so-called pathogens doctors, regulators and scientists are barking up the wrong tree.


rawmilkmike's picture

Why isn't anyone asking “How has the CDC and FDA associated these illnesses with these foods?” and “How has the CDC and FDA associated these illnesses with these bacteria?”. Doesn't anyone hear the terms “suspects that”, “most likely”, “is likely the source”, “might be a result of ”, “suspected vector”, “at first believed ”, previously suspected“appears to be the cause”, “possibility that”, and the use of “linked to” or “associated with” rather than “cause by”?

mark mcafee's picture

I learned and experienced long ago that the raw milk battle is lopsided and completely unfair. In a war, deception, cheating, lying, bias are all tools... Michael Schmidt said long ago.....raw milk is WAR. He was and is right. Some of you prefer more gentile labels. I have been attacked brutally and unfairly in the past and know that this has been war at least in the past and in many places it is still an unconventional battle and war against raw milk.

In a war...nothing is fair. That is why the First Lady can recommend more fruits and vegetables and those vegetables can be one of the most risky foods of all and that is ok..

Find one so-called pathogen anywhere near raw milk and the regulatory media missiles are launched against raw milk regardless of even having no illnesses.

That is precisely why RAWMI was created. All of us in the raw milk movement can not win in their war....but we can win the hearts, minds, souls, trust and guts of our consumers and dollar vote to a huge win. That is why we must use THEIR definitions, their structures, their regulations and their labels of pathogens as we make our point, create our irrefutable track record of excellence.

Time and patience....we must be beyond reproach. We have few tools to fight their war, so we should not and can not. But we can fight and win ours....and we are.

rawmilkmike's picture

Is it true that “E.coli (STEC)”is the only “foodborne” “pathogen” that causes the dreaded HUS? Because “E.coli (STEC)” only accounts for “4%” of the “domestically acquired foodborne illnesses resulting in hospitalization”? “E.coli (STEC)” is not even in the “Top five pathogens contributing to domestically acquired foodborne illnesses” and neither is “E.coli (STEC)” in the “Top five pathogens contributing to domestically acquired foodborne illnesses resulting in death”.

rawmilkmike's picture

Norovirus is a very contagious virus. You can get norovirus from an infected person, contaminated food or water, or by touching contaminated surfaces. The virus causes your stomach or intestines or both to get inflamed (acute gastroenteritis). This leads you to have stomach pain, nausea, and diarrhea and to throw up.
Anyone can be infected with norovirus and get sick. Also, you can have norovirus illness many times in your life. Norovirus illness can be serious, especially for young children and older adults.
Norovirus is the most common cause of acute gastroenteritis in the United States, though it is rarely diagnosed, because the laboratory test is not widely available. Each year, it causes 19-21 million illnesses and contributes to 56,000-71,000 hospitalizations and 570-800 deaths. Norovirus is also the most common cause of foodborne-disease outbreaks in the United States and accounts for “58% of all domestically acquired foodborne illnesses”.
The best way to help prevent norovirus is to practice proper hand washing and general cleanliness.

D. Smith's picture

Now the "authorities" want us to believe that Vitamin D is not important.

Really? If it's not important, why is it added to pasteurized milk? A synthetic Vitamin D like what's used in pasteurized milk isn't used efficiently by the body anyway, so I really don't know why they bother - other than for the propaganda angle. It makes people think they're doing something good by drinking the junk.

D. Smith's picture
rawmilkmike's picture

D, This really says it all:
“This study could be used to justify recent claims that vitamin supplements have no positive medicinal effect.
The multi-vitamin study was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), BASF , Pfizer and the DSM Nutritional Products .
Several scientists came together to contribute to a paper entitled, “Enough Is Enough: Stop Wasting Money on Vitamin and Mineral Supplements” which outlines “that most mineral and vitamin supplements have no clear benefit, might even be harmful in well-nourished adults, and should not be used for chronic disease prevention.”
An interesting conclusion was that “doses of vitamins may be too low” for effectiveness.”
This is all part of the anti-raw food movement. In some countries vitamins are already illegal. It has already started here. It may only be a matter of time.

D. Smith's picture

Yeah, well, of course they'd say vitamin supplements have no "medicinal" value. They're not supposed to have "medicinal" value. They're supposed to have nutritional value - and that's exactly what they have. Nutritional value can help keep us healthy. Our country rejects the idea of medicinal food. Many have posted links to such articles just recently.

High dose IV Vitamin C could possibly be considered medicinal, although few hospitals recognize it as a viable treatment and it is forbidden at many hospitals, even though the alternative practitioners know it can treat tumors and lots of other serious medical conditions.

We really should be getting those vitamins and minerals from our foods however that is next to impossible now that most food isn't real anymore and the soil is beyond depleted. Which is exactly why a study like this would come to light right about now. The bigfoodguys want the ignorant population to believe that the stuff they sell in those boxes and cans on the grocery store shelves are "nutritious" enough to sustain us. Wow, I'd hate to try to exist and be healthy on that junk. Plastic and other toxic stuff in poultry and chicken nuggets, pink slime and meat glue in the meats available in the supermarkets and at fast food joints . . . it's enough to gag a maggot. So of course they're gonna tell us that supplements aren't useful. Our bodies become fodder for the medical/pharma industry - and that IS their intention.

Their multi-vitamin study might actually have some merit. Nutritionists do not recommend multi-vitamins in any form. Also, if you supplement at all, do not purchase vitamins from a drugstore (like centrum or one-a-day) because those really ARE worthless - and dangerous. They are synthetic crap our bodies don't have the first idea what to do with. You'd be better off eating the cotton wad that comes in the bottle. :) Seek out whole food vitamins (like Garden of Life, Standard Process, etc). If you aren't going to indulge in quality vitamins, there's no point. Also, most of the cheap vitamins have fillers which include soy. It's actually hard to find certain vitamins anymore which don't contain soy in some form. I avoid them like the plague.

Ora Moose's picture

D, you are a hoot " . . it's enough to gag a maggot" and "You'd be better off eating the cotton wad that comes in the bottle. :) " just made my day. This place occasionally needs a little more levity, maybe we should splurge on some balloons? It was great that David took it upon himself to pull a hilarious skit to highlight that point, although it's no laughing matter for those being oppressed in the real world by gov reg youlaters. Stand by your farmer, as Tammy Wy sang back in the 60s.

D. Smith's picture

Hope you weren't drinking a cup of coffee or tea whilst reading those!

Stand by your farmer - - - that's pretty funny! One of your best. We should make signs, the heck with balloons.

I think David's skit idea was worthwhile as well as pretty darn funny. He accomplished much more than a lot of people realize just yet. Stay tuned.

Ken Conrad's picture

“It's enough to gag a maggot!”

You'd be better off eating the cotton wad that comes in the bottle. :)

Now that would be a sight for sore eyes! That is funny!! It sure helped clean the sleep out of my eyes when I read it at three in the morning.


rawmilkmike, looking further down the page from the CDC most common illnesses link you sent shows why they remain convinced milk is bad, it from Hundreds of cows! This is what the RAWMI and others are trying to change.
I have pasted the paragraph here;

What foods are most associated with foodborne illness?
•Raw foods of animal origin are the most likely to be contaminated; that is, raw meat and poultry, raw eggs, unpasteurized milk, and raw shellfish.
•Because filter-feeding shellfish strain microbes from the sea over many months, they are particularly likely to be contaminated if there are any pathogens in the seawater.
•Foods that mingle the products of many individual animals, such as bulk raw milk, pooled raw eggs, or ground beef, are particularly hazardous because a pathogen present in any one of the animals may contaminate the whole batch. ◦A single hamburger may contain meat from hundreds of animals.
◦A single restaurant omelet may contain eggs from hundreds of chickens.
◦A glass of raw milk may contain milk from hundreds of cows.
◦A broiler chicken carcass can be exposed to the drippings and juices of many thousands of other birds that went through the same cold water tank after slaughter.

•Fruits and vegetables consumed raw are a particular concern. Washing can decrease but not eliminate contamination, so the consumers can do little to protect themselves. ◦Recently, a number of outbreaks have been traced to fresh fruits and vegetables that were processed under less than sanitary conditions. These outbreaks show that the quality of the water used for washing and chilling the produce after it is harvested is critical. Using water that is not clean can contaminate many boxes of produce.
◦Fresh manure used to fertilize vegetables can also contaminate them. Alfalfa sprouts and other raw sprouts pose a particular challenge, as the conditions under which they are sprouted are ideal for growing microbes as well as sprouts, and because they are eaten without further cooking. That means that a few bacteria present on the seeds can grow to high numbers of pathogens on the sprouts.
◦Unpasteurized fruit juice can also be contaminated if there are pathogens in or on the fruit that is used to make it.

rawmilkmike's picture

We don't know the CDC is “convinced milk is bad ”. If they are, why do they use the term “are most associated with” rather than the word “cause”? They also use the term “the MOST LIKELY to be contaminated”. Most importantly if they are “likely to be contaminated” then a minimum infectious dose would have to be determined. Also notice they really are not talking about most of the foods consumed by the average American. So why does the average American get the CDC's scary foodborne illness(diarrhea) 3 times a year?

In my mind, keeping manure out of milk is vitally important, and that the milk filter is perhaps the best indicator currently available to quickly assess that. A visually clean filter won't necessarily guarantee freedom from contamination by microbes from fecal sources, but a dirty one should maybe ring some bells.
Also, I'm not sure the historic information about human illnesses thought to stem from milk is all that helpful, except for what can be learned from it. Rather, it should shape our thinking and strategies for the future:
To me, it seems we have at least 2 rather distinct human populations, those that are exposed to the microflora present in the manure of ruminant livestock as part of their daily lives (let's say dairy farm families/workers) and those that are unlikely ever to be exposed to the same microflora (let's say most families who live in towns and cities). Given that the important route of infection is the fecal-oral route, avoiding fecal contamination of one's GI tract via contaminated food, licking dirty fingers, inhaling manure-dust etc becomes important. For those farm families/workers, some fecal-oral contamination is likely unavoidable, and they appear to become somewhat resistant to infection (either through their exposure/priming of suitable immune response mechanisms, or because the microflora in their GI tracts adapt to neutralize them in some way). On the other hand, urban-dwelling people who live in isolation from such exposure, appear to be highly susceptible to any bovine fecal organisms with the potential to be pathogenic, either because their immune systems cannot react quickly enough, or because they lack the balance of enteric bacteria required to hinder the replication of these novel 'intruders'. (I prefer the naive immune system idea, actually).
This creates a situation where those exposed to these foreign fecal microbes, especially for the very first time, are very much at risk of developing disease (which may have catastophic consequences for a few individuals), if the contamination is (for them) excessive.
Therefore, I'd argue that prevention of fecal contamination (or neutralizing it prior to consumption) has to be a key aspect of providing safe food to the majority of the human population, whether it relate to the distribution of raw milk, sprouted seeds, prepared salads, spinach, cantaloupes, undercooked hamburger etc......because I think that fecal contamination was a large element in these reported cases of food-borne illnesses.

To me. The key to the future should be 'know your enemy' . Manure is a major enemy.

And yes, I'm saddened that dairies might have such dirty filters as the one above (even if it might have been one filtering milk for 11 hours over a very large number of cows). The USA dairy industry largely undervalues those who do their milking, but that is another story for another place.


rawmilkmike's picture

MrJohn, do we know what the stuff in the filter is? And don't forget the state didn't find any pathogens in mark mcafee's cow manure. Your “naive immune system idea ” involves a lot of speculation that really doesn't work for anyone who knows anything about raw milk. Most raw milk consumers are not farmers. Anyone switching to raw milk knows it's health benefits within hours or days and knows within a few months that it prevents the very illness you are so concerned with.

“Raw milk myths and evidence by Nadine Ijaz pdf”

Ken Conrad's picture

Well Mr. John, I know my enemy and it isn’t cow manure. It’s the medical profession who are screwing up people’s immune systems with their toxic vaccines, antibiotics and other drugs.

If what you’re saying is correct about farmers and their acquired immunity then it stands to reason that if urban dwellers are exposed to minute amounts of the same bacteria in the milk that they drink, then they to will acquire a similar immunity providing they avoid the above invasive medical routine.

There were 34 nations that participated in the following study done in 2009.

The study states, “Linear regression analysis of unweighted mean IMRs (Infant Mortality Rates) showed a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates.”

In other words in the US and Canada where children receive by far, more vaccines doses per child then anywhere else in the world, at 26 and 24 doses respectively, have by far the highest infant mortality rate when compared to Sweden and Japan where children receive only 12 doses per child.

Infant mortality rate per 1000 in Sweden was 2.75, in Japan 2.79.
Infant mortality rate per 1000 in Canada was 5.04, in the US 6.22

The large number of vaccines given to patients is leading to an epidemic of chronic inflammation resulting in epidemics of autoimmune diseases and allergies according to Dr. Classen's research.


mark mcafee's picture

I have looked high and low and can not find that summarizes the number of people that are vaccinated and what percentage of them get the flu compared to those not vaccinated. If I was the CDC I would be proud of those numbers if their vaccination programs worked. Last week my brother in law who is healthy guy and has never gotten the flu shot.... Got his first flu shot. Behold... He got the flu in two days!!!

Anyone seen that data?? Does it exist ? Maybe not. If it does...It is an indictment of those that make the money on shots.

mark mcafee's picture

We prefer no manure in our milk or on our filters...however, not all manure is made the same. Conditions of the cows, use of antibiotics, amount of grain, sunshine, GMO's, hormones, stress changes the manure and it's risk potential. A RAMP program places many small hurdles in Front of all risks from Glass to Glass. Grade A PMO standards places one big high jump at the end of the race....the pasteurizer kill step.

D. Smith's picture

As much as David loves eucalyptus trees, I love snow. Since our October blizzard, we've had very little snow in the western half of the State - we've only been getting the horrible high winds - but the eastern half has had plenty of snow. This past weekend in my neck of the woods it was in the mid-60's. The plants and bushes and trees don't know what's coming off.

This is a good article about why snow is important for more than just skiing and snowshoeing!


I also remember my Dad and my Grampa Farm using a few of these lamentations. Just because they're now considered old-fashioned, doesn't mean there isn't some merit to them.


I've never understood why weather forecasters always talk about winter weather as if it were a curse. It's a necessary part of nature but those educated idiots who grew up in the big city wouldn't really understand that from a farmer's standpoint, I guess. Overcast, blustery, snowy days are my favorite.