So, David, it is a strong value of yours that accurate information should be reported by journalists?
Thank you, Mary McGonigle Martin, for that question. I presume, from the tone and the personal way it is phrased (it is a strong value of yours), it is meant to suggest that I have some kind of individual obsession with accurate information.
But whatever the intent, it is a question that gets to the heart of why I wrote my new book, The Raw Milk Answer Book, and so I am glad to answer it, regardless of its intent.
That accurate information should be reported by journalists is a fundamental standard of the profession. It is something hammered into you at journalism school, and hammered in further if you work for a reputable publication. Editors at newspapers and fact checkers at magazines are there in large measure to ensure accuracy (as well as grammatical correctness and reader appeal). They press reporters for the names of their sources on facts and figures, and get them to double and triple check to ensure accuracy.
I was fortunate to work for The Wall Street Journal right out of Columbia Journalism School, and the paper confirmed my training by placing a huge amount of pressure on reporters to be accurate. Even the slightest screwup in facts in an article could warrant a subsequent printed correction and I saw reporters get fired for having too many corrections published.
There was more to the accuracy thing than simply getting the facts straight. The WSJ demanded we report any data in a standard format (still does), so the data can be easily compared, one period to another. Thus, a corporations first-quarter 2015 revenues and earnings are compared to first-quarter 2014 revenues and earnings. Historical comparisons are similarly done, using comparable periods.
The same standard applies to other data reported. It just wouldnt be acceptable to report in an article, as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control does, that there were 979 illnesses and 73 hospitalizations from 2007-2012. The reporter would be expected to press the CDChow does that six-year period compare to the previous six-year period? How does the six-year period break down year by year? What has been the trend year to year?
As it turns out, scientists are similarly expected to adhere to certain standards of accuracy and consistency in reporting and interpreting research. Part of the purpose of the Ph.D. thesis that prospective scientists labor over for years is to train scientists in conducting primary research and then reporting data. They are held to strict standards about such things as footnoting and constructing tables. They are subject to a grilling by their teachers and advisers about the veracity of their data.
I am sure school guidance counselors are similarly held to certain professional standards in how they write their reports on interviews and observations of students. There are rules about privacy, communication with parents, how to handle student and parent questions, and so forth. Counselors who violate standards and cross boundaries can not only get in serious trouble, but hurt the credibility of their colleagues.
The Internet is putting huge pressure on journalists to play fast and loose with such basic professional standards as confirming facts and story accounts. Just yesterday, Columbia Journalism School issued a report on the now-discredited report of a gang rape at the University of Virginia. The report says in part, Rolling Stone‘s repudiation of the main narrative in “A Rape on Campus” is a story of journalistic failure that was avoidable. The failure encompassed reporting, editing, editorial supervision and fact-checking. The magazine set aside or rationalized as unnecessary essential practices of reporting that, if pursued, would likely have led the magazine’s editors to reconsider publishing Jackie’s narrative so prominently, if at all The story’s blowup comes as another shock to journalism’s credibility amid head-swiveling change in the media industry. The particulars of Rolling Stone‘s failure make clear the need for a revitalized consensus in newsrooms old and new about what best journalistic practices entail, at an operating-manual-level of detail.
Rolling Stone wanted so badly to be the firstamong so many competitorswith such a gripping and provocative story that it ignored basic journalistic standards. In the processs, Rolling Stone did a terrible disservice to the growing number of women who have been seriously abused as part of real campus rapes, by creating an image that many of the accusations are simply made up by hysterical and unstable women.
Generally, the repercussions of ignoring professional standards isnt as dramatic as in the Rolling Stone case. Certainly that is the case with all the inaccurate reporting by the media and science-medical communities about raw milk.
But the repercussions are there, nonetheless, and just as insidious. Id say the CDCs credibility among a small but growing segment of Americans has been seriously undermined by its repeated release of questionable data about raw milk. So, you might ask, what difference does that make? A few wackos who didnt believe the CDC anyway are now more cynical. Who cares?
Well, supposing there is some kind of serious and widespread public health problem posed by raw milk in the future, a situation in which people in a certain region should refrain from consumption for a period. But because raw milk drinkers have become so cynical about government pronouncements, they ignore the problem, and many become ill. That would be primarily the CDCs responsibility, because it made the decision long ago that the end justifies the meansthat because its decided that we need to rid the U.S. of raw milk sales, any lie or distortion of the data is acceptable.
I should add that there have been distortions and misstatements from the pro-raw-milk side. One has been the frequent claim that pathogens cant grow in grass-fed milk. Another has been that raw milk is lower risk for illness from pathogens than pasteurized milk. Such assertions do a disservice by discouraging raw milk drinkers to check out the facts and their suppliers as carefully as they might otherwise.
And that gets back to why I decided to write The Raw Milk Answer Book. I concluded that there was just so much misinformation out thereall in the interests of the end justifying the meansthat there needed to be at least one source providing a measure of truth.
If this type of deceit was to be ranked by profession, the allopaths might be in the No. 2 spot, ever vying for that pinnacle of deception.
When the public discourse is corrupted, the body politic becomes proportionately diseased.
The creator rules his creation, never doubt that.
Have a glyphosate free spring in the Northern Hemisphere!
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
n.b. Bust-up, Round-up and the seed fascists!
This brings to mind a statement by Mark Twain who attributed its words to the 19th-century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (18041881): “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
It appears to be an ongoing problem, this temptation to get the upper hand and be in control.
Ken
http://www.ktvq.com/story/28732384/breast-milk-sold-online-often-contaminated-by-cows-milk
If the cows milk were pasteurized then the use of the word contaminated would have been justified. If the cows milk were raw then adulterated would have sufficed.
They probably wouldnt be impressed with the raw milk formula I concocted for the twins who were one month premature.
Diluted.
Do you remember the ratios and the exact procedure?
The results were satisfactory, you said.
Ingvar
Ken
So I would assume that you would hold to these same standards when you write a book. So on page 50 of your book when your write” there have been a handful of instances in which children contracted hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS)”…. and then on page 99 you write, “But raw milk can, and has, made a handful of young children very ill since 2006. All the children experienced complications from E.coli 0157:H7–a condition known as hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS).
Where is your data to back up the claim that there have only been a handful of children who have developed HUS after drinking raw milk contaminated with E.coli 0157:H7? Do you have an actually number? Is a handful 5, 4, 6? Do you even know the actual number of children who have become ill with HUS from contaminated raw milk since 2005–the Dee Creek Outbreak?
Would you be surprised to know that of the 16 raw milk outbreaks contaminated with E.coli 0157:H7 or a Shiga toxin E.coli since 2005, that 3 were retail, 6 were on farm/or retail. That is 9 out of 16 that had state permits. Colorado’s Billy Goat Farm has a state permit, but is not regulated by the government. They do self-regulation. So I count that as 10 out of 16 that had permits. That means 63% of the farms who had E.coli outbreaks since 2005 had state permits. The last 3 outbreaks, 2012-2014 were herdshares/buyer club, but are not considered illegal in these states. They fall in that nowhere land. They are not legal, but they are not illegal.
I think it is important that when you write a book, you should cite where you get your data from. My data is coming from the actual state reports.
Interesting questions, Mary. I don’t have an actual number of children who developed HUS after drinking raw milk. As I describe in the book, I struggled with how to present data about a number of aspects of food-borne illness (like children who developed HUS from raw milk). Part of the problem is the same as I describe in the blog post–to simply throw out numbers without some kind of context isn’t necessarily useful. For instance, the CDC publishes various figures on the percentage of children sickened by raw milk, but doesn’t publish similar figures for children sickened by other foods. So it’s impossible to say whether the figures for raw milk are higher or lower than other foods. It’s very difficult for a journalist, or anyone else, to obtain that data, because the information within the food-borne illness database must be manually inspected for the most part, and even then, often doesn’t include information on the ages of people who became ill from tainted food. So even careful journalists are sometimes reduced to using terms like “handful” or “several” or “a few.”
If you have comparative data on children who developed HUS from raw milk, over time, and compared with other foods, I’d be curious to see it. I’ll expect I’ll be updating the book.
Didn’t know this was going to turn into a presidential press conference. When you are done with all your questions, let me know and I’ll try to respond.
The Real Raw Milk Facts Website documents all the E.coli raw milk outbreaks. You could have easily gone through all the fluid raw milk outbreaks listed to get a count and to know what states were involved. http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com/PDFs/Raw-Dairy-Outbreak-Table.pdf
By the way, since 2005 there have been 16 raw milk outbreaks involving the pathogen E.coli 0157:H7 or a Shiga toxin producing E.coli. Knowing that the state of Washington data is “loose data”, I have come up with 121 E.coli illness, 48 hospitalized, 33 with HUS (32 under the age of 18) with the majority of children with HUS being under the age of 10. 26% of the children developed HUS.
I’m just holding you to this standard.
I must add that I do NOT agree that raw milk is more risky or dangerous than pasteurized milk. I do not think that we have the data or facts to make that assessment. The CDC certainly does not have the data…the data has not been classified properly and some is all mixed up and or missing. For instance the CDC did not have a record of 49 deaths from pasteurized cheeses at Jalisco Cheese plant in 1985.
I have an idea, how about we look at the dramatic gifts that raw milk brings to children. The LMU Dr. Loss and Dr. Erica Von Mutuis studies published in 2014 said that raw milk reduced colds by at least 30% and that this benefit would substantially improve health and reduce hospital visits and health complications. 30% of all colds to massive!!! Truly massive. Add asthma reductions and relief from 9 deaths per day. Sensationally incredibly awesome!!
Perhaps the most agregrious fault with all of this raw milk data thrashing and bashing is this…..where are the deaths from raw milk or raw cheeses???? A big fat zero!!!!
Pasteurized dairy products have a fatal flaw….they kill people and that includes kids and unborn kids ( misscarrages). Why are we not moved by the pasteurized dairy product link to death and listeria??? 80 deaths can not be ignored.
This reminds me of the magician and his sexy assistant. While the assistant flashes arround half naked…the magician makes his slight of hand. We are fooled!!
This is not a magic trick….do not try and distract us with talk of illnesses from raw milk when the real story is death from pasteurized dairy products!!
Let’s all look at why raw milk has made a small number of people sick. Why is that ? It is because the CDC, FDA and states have failed to assist farmers to know and do better! Yes…they have failed to see the market interest, the EU studies etc. they have failed to set standards and teach. But RAWMI has not. RAWMI has taken this challenge by the horns and with Penn State, pioneering farmer innovators and helpful PHDs we have figured out how to reduce illness and dramatically reduce risks. Even the CDC agrees that some specilaized procedures reduce risks. We could have done it earlier and better if the CDC, FDA and others would have helped us to reduce risk…instead of sabotaging us!
A half truth is a whole lie.
Lets start looking fairly at the whole dairy story,..”.raw and processed” matched next to each other in fair comparison. Thank you David for writing about clarity, ethics and accuracy.
Based on all that I have read, if that means anything to anyone, I am inclined to think that HUS is a toxic aftermath that results due to medication with various drugs used to treat the illness and should not therefore be used as a food born illness statistic.
If it is to be used as a statistic, it should be classified as iatrogenic. That however, probably wouldnt sit well with the medical establishment who has made a habit of using food and microbes as an escape goat to detract attention away from drug and doctor induced complications.
M.J. Moroney who wrote the book Facts and Figurs states, A statistical analysis, properly conducted, is a delicate dissection of uncertainties, a surgery of suppositions.
Ken
I believe it shows great integrity, something that is lacking for most media forms and politicians.
accurate information should be reported by journalists
Some appear to do little to no research about what they are writing.
“Id say the CDCs credibility among a small but growing segment of Americans has been seriously undermined by its repeated release of questionable data about raw milk. ”
I couldn’t agree more and would include many other questionable data from the cdc.
It’s truly a matter of interpretation. 33 cases of HUS over 10 years is 3 per year on average. Does that qualify as “a handful”? To me it does. To you it is something else (“6 handfuls”). Guess I’d say that whatever you want to call it, it is too many, and producers should be focused on bringing it down. I’d reinforce Mark McAfee’s point that government could be helpful in this arena by encouraging education on safe raw milk production, rather than on denying such education.
Okay, you’ve got me there. I probably should have said something to effect, “the preponderance of the most serious recent cases have been associated with unregulated dairies….”
Remember, this is The Raw Milk Answer Book, not “Everything You Want to Know About Raw-Milk-Related E.coli O157:H7 Outbreaks in the U.S. Since 2005”. That might be something for you to write, since you clearly have done a huge amount of research.
Articles at the WSJ (and other mainstream media) are only deemed inaccurate if someone complains about an inaccuracy, and can make the case that a correction is important. So take the article that said West Virginia enacted a new law on raw milk herd shares–the state’s governor certainly would have had a pretty good complaint about inaccuracy since he had actually vetoed the legislation.
If the Foundation Farm owner has a beef with my description, he/she is welcome to complain. I got my information from the regulator community. If it’s incorrect, I’m open to correcting it.
By the way, my book contains dozens of end notes to document information sources. I refrained from identifying sources in some cases where individuals didn’t want to be identified or the sources weren’t easily available online.
You may be right, Mary, no illnesses, just deaths. Three in 2007 from milk, three last year from cheese, and two this year from ice cream. Seriously, not sure what you are getting at.
I think you need to check your sources. There have been more than 450,000 illnesses related to pasteurized dairy products since 1972…all of this in the CDC databases. You will also need to add in the huge outbreaks that the CDC has missed and forgot to put into their databases. Add in the 49 deaths from Jalisco pasteurized Cheese in 1985. The CDC likes to forget that one. Also, there was one outbreak from pasteurized ice cream in 1993 that sickened 193,000 in one fell swoop. How about Whittier Farms in 2007…many sickened and three deaths from pasteurized milk. How about Cravens cheese and Roos cheese, ( both in the last 2 years ) they both killed a few depending on what news you look at it was either 3 or six dead. Then blue bell kills three last month.
Please report back how you got the zero illnesses and zero outbreaks data. In CA, 1500 were sickened from pasteurized milk in 2006 with 7 hospitalized !!!
Are you on planet earth….or planet FDA PMO CDC CAFO. Walk towards the light….you will find an exit.
Love Mark
Thanks for clarifying. That make sense. Post pasteurization incidents reflect the bacteria from the environment in which the contamination occurs. The post pasteurization environment is the CAFO PMO approved creamery and it is loaded with the killer bug LISTERIA Monocytogenes.
The raw milk environment tends to have exposures to coliform based bugs.
Lets just say this: in the 1800’s it was declared that there as a “Milk Problem” and a solution was needed to stop the deaths from dirty distillery dairies and extremely poor water quality and sanitation issues of the day. Cooking ( parboiling ) milk was the answer. As a favorite PhD from UC Davis has said….”pasteurization is an 18th century solution to an 18th century problem….we can do much better”.
I say this….”we have a 21st century “Milk Problem” and the 18th century solution is the problem”. With an integration of the best modern technologies, on farm RAMP management and green and clean practices…there is no need for pasteurization.
Oh how the pendulum swings.
There is hope for the next generation!! This High School student was inspired by David’s new Raw Milk book. He sent me an email thanking me for our inspiring work at OPDC and RAWMI. With this kind of speech….we are in good hands for the future!!
The 1800s were the 18th century in my book. That is when the Milk Problem took place and was first named. It was during the 1900s that pasteurization took over the market place. Parboiling was first attempted in 1893 with Straus. That same year, Dr. Coit established the AAMMC for certified raw milk.
I must apologize….you are 100% right. The 18th century began in 1700 and lasted until 1800. I am off a century….but who is counting.
Please change my references to reflect that the “Milk Problem” was a 19th century problem and it has been solved in the 21st century!! In spite of FDA dogma that lingers from the 20th century.
Living conditions in the cities were atrocious and disease/illness was rampant throughout the industrial revolution (1570-1914).
Read Suzanne Humphries, Dissolving Illusions Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History.
In fact after conditions were not mucht better in Europe prior to the industrial revolution.
Ken
I must be going insane even my correction is wrong.
The last sentence should read, “In fact conditions were not a whole lot better in Europe prior to the industrial revolution”.
1. Raw cows milk does kill: _______________________.
2. Raw cows milk does not kill: E.coli 0157:H7. (i.e. Mary McGonigle is correct.)
Topic 2
Quoting Ken (above):
when dealing with a secondary condition such as HUS one has to question whether the microbe is indeed at fault.
Based on all that I have read, I am inclined to think that HUS is a toxic aftermath that results due to medication with various drugs used to treat the illness and should not therefore be used as a food born illness statistic.
If it is to be used as a statistic, it should be classified as iatrogenic. the medical establishment has made a habit of using food and microbes as a scapegoat to detract attention away from drug and doctor induced complications. (small edits by Ingvar)
Comment: My recollection of previous discussions at TCP is that Ken is on the right track here. Furthermore, the lowest common denominator principle should not be adopted into law in these matters because LCDP foments a downward spiral of decreasing immune system robustness in the population. What individual, in consideration of their own familys health, would favor the law forcing them into ever poorer health? I am thinking of the PMO world. But also of the RAWMI world, or, at least, a possible RAWMI-influenced world.
In the words of Arthur Ash start where you are, use what you have, and do what you can. So the present starting point for population immune robustness is low. A way to provide the benefits of raw milk without putting unnecessary demands on a (young) persons immune system is to do what RAWMI is doing. (This recent comment of Marks is excellent and should be borne in mind (in re. to the enthusiastic customer of a raw milk dairy, a dairy that Mark had first-hand knowledge of):
All cows bought at cull cow auctions, raw milk keeping times of two or three days and applicant was unwilling to alter operations because sales were so good and they did not want to lose any cows.
This is trust? Trust of what?)
I remember reading here, how progressive Gordon is in his operations.
Kid Creek Pastures is plowing ahead.
Obviously Dairy Duchess has got her act together and brain in gear.
Why roadblock any of this type of activity with the law?
Topic 3
The PMO world is one of utter madness. The PMO world is one whose regulations dictate the ruining of milk so that it is safe. Now witness the mad dash to re-introduce the good stuff into the listeria-friendly base material (the pasteurized milk). You see the working out of the truth of the science of SPC- that the system will diverge, i.e. blow apart, when ignorant tweaking is your marching order. That the tweaking is scientific is subordinate to system realities. The science in the tweaking cannot change those realities. The system so tweaked will blow apart. Not a place to invest money and expect a positive return unless you control the legislatures, the courts, and the executive.
Topic 4
In California, the current SB 277 Completely eliminates personal beliefs exemption to required vaccinations for school attendance, according to the HSLDA. (http://www.hslda.org/elert/archive/elertarchive.aspx?7469).
Have a wonderful day,
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2015/02/study-e-coli-vaccines-are-effective-but-economic-incentive-needed/#.VSSZkP10xD8
Once again, I’ll disagree with you. I do point out that E.coliO157 is the most serious pathogen affecting raw milk, the pathogen causing the biggest problem. I don’t “dismiss” the cases–quite the opposite. I discuss some of the most serious illnesses in some detail. I even quote you and describe your campaign against raw milk legislation you consider inadequate. I doubt I could have said enough on this subject or with the right tone to satisfy you, which is why I suggested you write a book on the subject. You probably know more than anyone on the planet.
The words of my friend and 2004 presidential candidate Mike Badnarick come to mind….”you bring your needles and I will bring my .45 and we will see which one makes a bigger hole”. That’s is how deep the emotion of forced vaccinations goes. I will be there not because I am an anti-vaxer….I will be there because vaccines of today are not the single well spaced vaccines of our forefathers. We are now asked to have our children shot up with as many as eight vaccines in one visit. Most hospitals give vaccinations before the baby reaches moms breast.
This is madness.
I will speak as a retired EMS Paramedic and critical care emergency medicine educator, a farmer and a raw milk producer that has seen what alternative pathways to strong immunity can do for children. Vaccinations must be reengineered, re formulated, reduced in number and spaced out over time. If parents are intended to ever trust any one of them.
Until then….build your child’s immune system using gut biodiversity nutrition, and keep those needles away from my body and my children’s bodies and grand children’s bodies. The ingredients found in common modern day vaccines are not even allowed in food or other consumption: Formaldehyde, aluminum, thimersol mercury, protein from eggs, protein from aborted fetuses etc etc etc most of these are all classified as toxic!!
That list makes me think about Mikes quote more and more and I am a non violent kind of guy. What an FDA pharma scam.
Not to nitpick here, but your comment of “The Brucella vaccine is required for all female cows…” may not be true in every state. First of all, I was always told it was to be given to *calves* (not cows) from 4-7 months of age. That number fluctuated for some reason, and it went to 4-10 months of age. I used to have my heifer calves vaccinated for Brucellosis, and one year when I requested it from my vet, he said, “Why are you still doing this? We don’t have a problem with it anymore”. I haven’t done it since.
Can you please tell me what is wrong with “…grassfed, pastured, non-CAFO herds.”? Is it just the *raw* milk from these farms, those kinds of farms in general, or the combination of both? Even though I’m on the other side of the raw milk debate, my farm still falls under grassfed, pastured, non-CAFO herd.
Safe as humanly possible? I don’t know if there is such a thing, IMHO. Life itself is a risk, and with me being accident prone, I know this better than anyone. As Murphy’s Law knows, “Anything that can happen, will”. I’m living proof of that. I just try to balance my risks with the things I can most likely do something about, because what ends up happening is, I get caught by something I don’t expect, like an accident for instance, where I get hurt physically. I can’t always prevent those, try as I may though.
I guess if David doesn’t think it’s appropriate, I’m sure he’ll remove the link. I posted it because, I wanted anyone interested in reading it, to see what is being attacked besides the person who the article is about.
http://gawker.com/the-food-babe-blogger-is-full-of-shit-1694902226
This interesting new book on the subject of genetic engineering discusses the “Malfunction of the American Media”
May be there is a similarity here with respect to raw milk and media/policy.
Dr. Heckman, reference material you referred to in your post, too. Wonderful, in fact.
Both he and the Food Babe are entitled to their opinions. Let us hopes that tptb governing science dont adopt an attitude such as his and develop a closed mind to her challenges.
Ken
Ds reference to the documentary Trace Amounts is a case in point.
I met and spent time with Food Babe last year at the Shiftcon bloggers conference in LA. She is not full of crap…she is passionate and filled with heart. She has a following because 99% of what she says is grounded in our mutual experience and also science.
The ” science babes” of the world are actually….pre diabetic, frustrated types that have never ventured outside of their FDA edited textbooks to wonder why: this generation is obese, diabetic, autistic, autoimmune reactive, asthmatic, food allergic suffering Crohns etc….etc…this is he same kind of training that is given to today’s medical students when they are taught that nutrition has nothing to do with asthma, immunity, auto immune disorders, Crohns, etc…
By the way….Food Babe is totally gorgeous on the outside and even more on the inside and that includes her thinking gut.
Consider this Science Babe crap to be FDA dogma mascarding as a frustrated Internet trol. Ignor it like all the rest of the background noise as we celebrate our health and nutritionally reinforced immunity.
I hope David doesnt mind if I rewrite my last post above.
————————————————————————
The author is certainly not up on her science, and choosing to refer to toxin exposure in the extreme sense in order to develop an argument against the Food Babe fails to address the subtle destructive and cumulative effects such toxins have on our metabolism and immune system when exposed in smaller amounts.
Both she and the Food Babe are entitled to their opinions. Let us hopes that tptb governing science dont adopt an attitude such as hers and lkewise develop a closed mind to the Food Babes challenges.
Ken
Mary, one final thought about my book: It is targeted at people who know a little about raw milk, but are intrigued by all the publicity it has received, and want to know more. So it is an introduction of sorts. It really isn’t targeted at you, or many of the readers on this blog, who know a great deal about the nuances of the raw milk debate (though obviously, many will find it interesting, because they want to know how the subject is being presented). So in the case of E.coli O157:H7, and many other topics, I was trying to provide the most essential information in helping people assess risk and make their own personal decisions, without getting so bogged down in detail that readers would lose interest.
http://swroc.cfans.umn.edu/prod/groups/cfans/@pub/@cfans/@swroc/documents/asset/cfans_asset_234016.pdf
http://swroc.cfans.umn.edu/prod/groups/cfans/@pub/@cfans/@swroc/documents/asset/cfans_asset_234016.pdf
This comes to mind….this is not a cleanliness issue. I would suggest that one of the cows has Campy mastitis. We learned this lesson the hard way with Edwin’s experience years ago and we were all helped by the brilliant work done at Penn State when they discovered one hot cow that was shedding campy into the otherwise very clean raw milk.
So…get a DHIA test and segregate your herd into high and low SCC count cows and retest for Campy from the collective milk that each group produces. The low count cows should be negative and the group of high cows should have the campy. Mastitis is nearly always associated with high SCC counts. Then identify the cow by testing each cow or group of cows until she is found and then call the cull truck.
Why am I sharing this here?….because we tried to reach out to Claravale three weeks ago to help but they are not responding and we want them to recover quickly and rejoin the market.
[quote]
Health Care: Section 205.238 requires that organic livestock producers must establish
preventative livestock health care practices, including:
(1) Selection of species and types of livestock that are suitable for site-specific
conditions and resistant to prevalent diseases and parasites;
(2) Provision of a feed ration sufficient to meet nutritional requirements, including
vitamins, minerals, protein and/or amino acids, fatty acids, energy sources, and fiber (for
ruminants).
(3) Establishment of appropriate housing, pasture conditions, and sanitation practices to
minimize the occurrence and spread of diseases and parasites;
(4) Conditions which allow for exercise, freedom of movement, and reduction of stress
appropriate to the species, (no caged laying hens, for example);
(5) Performance of physical alterations as needed to promote the animals welfare and in
a manner that minimizes pain and stress; and
(6) Administration of vaccines and other veterinary biologics.ix
[end quote]
#6 would indicate that anything goes in the medicine department. How crazy. And then there’s this, also from your link:
[quote]
Appendix A of this paper contains the entire Section 205.603 of the National List, as
published in the Federal Register on December 12, 2007. Examples of allowed synthetic
substances include: ethanol and isopropanol as disinfectants; aspirin; atropine;
butorphanal; flunixin; furosemide; magnesium hydroxide; vaccines and biologics;
poloxalene; tolazoline; xylazine; chlorhexidine for surgical procedures and as a teat dip;
chlorine materials and peroxyacetic/peracetic acid as sanitizers; electrolytes; glucose;
glycerine in teat dips; hydrogen peroxide; iodine; magnesium sulfate; oxytocin for
emergency therapeutic use; ivermectin; phosphoric acid to clean equipment; copper
sulfate; lidocaine; hydrated lime; mineral oil; procaine; excipients in livestock drugs; and
EPA List 4 inert ingredients.
[end quote]
How “organic” can anything possibly be when allowed this type of latitude? I mean some of those are ok but some are pretty iffy to be allowed in “organic” regs.
And finally, this little gem:
[quote]
Medical treatment cannot be withheld from sick animals to maintain the animals organic status.
[end quote]
Well sure. But once they’re treated in whatever way, they’re no longer organic and should not be considered as such. They should then be culled into a different part of the herd (the non-organics) or sold off to a purchaser as non-organic. Vaccines qualify as a non-organic item of concern, or at least they should. Actually, IMPHO, organic animals should be a *survival of the fittest operation*, not an animal who was medicated to make them presentable for some agency or veterinarian inspection. Pretty soon we won’t be able to distinguish the difference between the two sectors of classification guidelines because those guidelines are pretty similar between organic and non-organic animals. It’s hard to know what to believe anymore.
D. Smith. and Sylvia–Livestock husbandry is complex. I would suggest taking your questions to an actual organic dairy farmer. But don’t expect simple answers. Vaccinating livestock in some cases (in my opinion) is a matter of humane treatment. In others, the cull-approach is appropriate, as you state. Organic dairy farmers, and particularly raw milk producers have a lot to consider and keep in balance, and there are many variables that effect our production methods. We balance livestock health, human health and safety, planet health, humane treatment, legal and finacial viability….all while trying to provide quality milk to customers who sometimes think they know more about farming than the farmer because they read a Joel Salatin interview in Mother Earth News while getting their hair done. If I had a dollar for every raw milk consumer who thinks they have a better way for me to clean my milking equipment naturally (Have you ever considered Kombucha as a sanitizer?) or a better way to worm our cows (Had someone last month offer to use crystals to balance energy on the farm to neutralize parasites)…. All that said, I love to dialogue with farm members about these issues, when they are willing to engage with open minds. We are all learning, and I think the most important thing is to have a relationship with your farmer where questions can be asked.
Mary–I agree the E Coli vaccine is promising for some raw milk applications. We began using the vaccine more than a year ago, not as a substitute for a high level of santitation, but as another hurdle appropriate for the unique circumstances on our farm. As a diverse community farm, our herdshare members enjoy a lot of direct livestock contact and time on the farm. If our farm kids come into direct contact with manure, it will more likely be on a picnic in the pasture, or petting a cow, than from drinking milk. We also grow other farm products including leafy greens, which we fertilize with composted manure, and have a lot of surface water on our land. All reasons that we are keen to decrease the prevelance of 0157 shedding any way that we can. Thanks for offering positive suggestions towards making raw milk as safe as possible!
For some reason, the owners at Claravale seem to have withdrawn completely from any public dialog. I noticed this when they had their previous outbreak a couple years ago, there wasn’t a word of public outreach. In fact, if you look at their web site, the last news posting is from 2010. At one time, Ron Garthwaite and Collette Cassidy were right out there, speaking their mind, communicating with the community. Now, radio silence. When you withdraw into your own world that way, it doesn’t usually portend good things. You’re just not open to the help your community might be able to offer, as Edwin Shank found out when he did remain open during his crisis.
Why do this? Well, in my opinion, it justifies their need/want/desire for Obamacare. Why else would there be a reason to *force* everyone to buy health insurance? Do they believe everyone is eventually going to need some sort of medical care? If people are able to heal themselves, they won’t need to seek professional, medical help (limiting the expense of it, plus the cost of insurance). Maybe that would end the argument of: “Well, if you get sick or hurt, and need expensive treatment, you’ll have insurance to cover it”. Not if we can take care of it ourselves.
Maybe someone can phrase this better than I can. I had these thoughts earlier in the day, but got sidetracked with other issues, and by the time I came back to it, most of my ideas were gone.
Thank you.
Would you post the link to your forum again please.
The answer Cost.
Apart from having to administer multiple injections of the vaccine at 5 dollars per injection, based on a 2012 estimate, in order to maintain the animals ability to resist shedding there is the obvious labor and incremental cost as well. In Canada there are an estimated 12.5 million cows and based on the cost of one injection alone the industry is looking at a cost of 62.5 million dollars. Indeed, and the consumer wants cheap food? Again it appears that the vaccine manufactures are the ones with the most to gain here.
The one issue you rarely hear mentioned with respect to using vaccines on livestock is stress. Animals do not like being treated as pincushions! Indeed, they (the herd) develop a keen sense of knowing when they are about to be injected and as a result exhibit an overall nervousness and tension. Observe their ears! In fact it is a good idea to have adrenalin on hand when subjecting these animals to such toxins and resulting stress. On more then one occasion I have seen animals drop to the floor like a ton of bricks. When all is said and done however, assaulting animals with toxic immune disruptive vaccines has the potential to effect their production for several days and may result in subclinical mastitis in some cases. And, if one considers the fact that these animals are also likely to be administered via injection on a routine basis, vitamins, hormones and antiparasitics etc. the problem of stress and resulting immune malfunction is amplified.
The e-coli vaccine used on livestock contains a mercury based preservative (thiomersal) and antibiotics (polymyxin B sulphate, neomycin sulphate). Are they not concerned with nurturing new strains of antibiotic microbes? Perhaps this is why MDS Laboratories in the first paragraph of an article about their Tailor-Made® Bovine Vaccines that, The rapidly-changing livestock industry has created unique disease and management challenges. With the continual emergence of new diseases and variability of existing organisms (antigenic drift), veterinarians and producers are faced with challenges of how best to address these issues. The persistence of diversity within bacterial populations is an important way that microbes typically adapt to their environment and evade immune responses. As herd conditions change, the health program must also adapt and change. Yeah right! That is just another way of them saying that they have us coming and going!
The e-coli vaccine also only deals with what appears to be one or two strains of the pathogen. Contrary to popular belief the notion that it is a simple solution for e-coli contamination in food is neither true nor realistic. There is a lot of perhaps, maybes and could-bes when reading literature describing the e-coli vaccines effectiveness at controlling and reducing the incidence of infection in livestock and even more so with respect to its ability to reduce contamination in food.
The introduction of a vaccine such as e-coli into a best practices protocol is counterproductive and unnatural. Any food products generated in this way should not be considered organic.
I would be happy to look at your test results and have our RAWMI team look at them as well. We will keep the results confidential and give you an interpretation privately.
If you choose to do so, send to http://www.mark@organicpastures.com I would be happy to help. Good job on testing. It is very revealing and really makes a huge difference. Knowledge is true power. If you would rather share verbally, you can call and share the numbers etc instead of emailing data. 5598469732 and ask for Mark
Thanks, and yes, I will contact you. I’ll probably do both, but won’t be able to right now-someone is on their way here from out of state, and I need to take them to somebody’s farm.
The testing is required to be reported to the state, but there are results (such as coliform) that I don’t know how to interpret because they weren’t run when I was still shipping conventionally. Nevertheless, I’d still like to know what kind of job I’m doing should raw milk sales ever become legal in my state. At least I’ll know if I’m on the right track. Thanks again.
Whatever is required to be reported to the state. Coliform is one that wasn’t run when I was shipping conventionally, and then of course, there’s SPC. I don’t have the file open right now, but some are a number times 100, and then a number times 1000. What I don’t understand is, SPC (or whichever test it was) shows it under the two different columns. That’s what I don’t get. I don’t know how else to explain it, sorry.
http://www.albertafarmexpress.ca/2015/03/20/e-coli-vaccine-not-effective-in-feedlot-cattle/
The study was conducted with cattle from two commercial feedlots to evaluate to see if the vaccine would reduce the number of E. coli 0157 shed in cattle feces. If the cattle carried E. coli 0157 that had the stx2 toxin gene (which is linked to increased risk of human disease), the vaccine didnt reduce the level of E. coli 0157 detected on hides or in feces of the animals at any time.
All of the other articles, and there are a lot of them, are pro e-coli vaccine, and all of them so far use language based on a feeling, a guess or intuition rather known facts to justify the use of the vaccine.
😉
2006–7
2008–5
2010–3 (maybe 4)
2011–5
2012–5
2013–3
2014–4
Let me also say that Shawna and many of the other RAWMI Listed producers have become world class (yet very humble) raw milk production experts. That’s what continual search for information and persistent learning will do. We are all very humble for fear that nature will expose our weaknesses and we will have yet another teaching learning moment. None of us know it all….but the best of us try our best to learn and listen and apply our lessons.
Mary,
There is one very good thing about Ecoli pathogens….they are part of the larger family of coliforms and coliforms can be easily monitored, tested for,managed and controlled. Edwin has become the expert of rapid test Test&Hold for coliforms. This is indirectly a very effective risk reduction protocol for the practical elimination of the threat of ecoli pathogens.
The OPDC Test&Hold follows his same concept using Milk Filters and rapid 10 hour PCR BAX testing. Each of us has found our effective tools and measuring sticks to achieve low risk and the “Common Standards”.
The result of a failure to follow strict protocols is really ugly. I really feel for a fellow raw milk producer.
Today’s counts at OPDC were: milk filter negative for ecoli pathogens, less than 1 coliform ( thats lab speak for zero ) & 300 SPC,
We are allowed: ten coliforms, 15,000 SPC and no pathogens when tested once per month by the state.
We test 130 times per month. No producer can or should be surprised by an outside inspection test result! As a producer…you need to know your numbers today and be able to predict tomorrows numbers reliably. The very last thing you ever want to see is a bunch of guys with white lab coats wearing moon suits holding badges wanting to have a private conversation with you…holding official looking documents. Talk about a stomach ulcer or worse!! It is a disaster on so many levels.
God I love RAWMI and the community it has created and the track record of data. Just sayin.
That’s milking 557 cows at OPDC with pasture based systems and highly trained and motivated milking teams. Yes,..I am very proud of our team and how our RAMP plan creates these numbers.
Totally enjoying your new book….thanks so much for sending it signed and everything!!
I could not attend the SB 277 hearings in Sacramento yesterday. The news said it was a conflicted blood bath with the hearing being interrupted by loud cries made by attendees yelling out loud saying ” liars” when Dr. Pan a state senator pediatrician spoke up and claimed that the MMR had never caused a death.
Several attendees were expelled by security. All this is extremely contentious!!
SB 277, The forced vaccination bill passed the senate health committee with a 6 to 2 vote with 2 abstaining in a near melee of protesters.
I predict it dies on the floor and never gets to the governor. Vaccination issues are more contentious than raw milk. Why…because raw milk is a choice and forced vaccination eliminates choice.
I see SB277 being a watershed bill. It brings the FDA and big pharma directly face to face with their victims and bad outcomes. It brings believers in the FDA and those that have lost children from FDA drugs and vaccinations both to the arena in a massive clash between the FDA lies and CDC corruption verses the moms that will take it anymore. It’s going to get very very ugly….trust me on this one.
Thank you, Mark, for helping make The Raw Milk Answer Book possible, by being a strong supporter of my crowd-funding campaign.
As for SB277, it will be a very interesting test of the limits of State authority over individual personal rights; the State is clearly using the hysteria over the recent measles outbreak to take advantage of the opportunity it sees to extend its authority in a new and devious way….I see it just passed committee.
http://vaccineworldsummit.com/summit-experts/
A network news division president told me two weeks ago he would fire a newscaster or program host whose reporting or programming choice lost his station an advertising pharmaceutical company.
Journalists are reporting what the government tells them to think instead of doing basic reportorial investigation. The gatekeepers enforce this orthodoxy by avoiding science and facts and instead focus on vilifying and crucifying the heretics.
In 2005 , Dan Shulman wrote a scathing and somewhat bewildered critique of the airtight censorship among media organs of any debate over vaccine safety or CDC corruption. He said that many reporters considered covering this issue to be a potentially “career ending” hazard. Today that censorship extends not just to the mainstream media but also to the so-called “alternate media” like Salon, Slate, Huff Post and Mother Jones. There is simply no national forum for this debate. We have been forced from the public square.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/04/-rfk-jr-speaks-out-on-vaccine-mandates-safety-at-new-jersey-state-capital-in-trenton.html
The interviewer Anna Dachel states, Robert Kennedy, Jr focuses on the CDC, which he refers to as “a troubled agency, in fact, a cesspool of corruption.” How bad is the corruption? It’s “pervasive,” according to Kennedy. He cites the the years of studies that have exposed that the CDC is “hopelessly corrupt and dysfunctional.”
So much for integrity and honest, accurate reporting!
And as far as the CDC is concerned they are not to be trusted and taken seriously. Dare we trust the CDC to give us accurate info with respect to so-called raw milk illness? For those who wish to trust vaccines they might want to reconsider their options.
Kennedy suggests that we should be demanding that the CDC do a study to, compare non-vaccinated children to vaccinated children. Indeed if he is fortunate enough to convince TPTB to initiate such a study, (Im not about to hold my breath), then the question remains can we trust their database and the results?
Reading the complete interview is enough to make a person ill. I think Ill go and crack a raw egg, which I didnt wash or refrigerate, into a glass of raw milk and enjoy the moment!!!
” In 2012, there were 2 outbreak-associated HUS cases, both associated with person-to-person transmission in daycares.”
http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/idepc/newsletters/dcn/sum12/ecoli.html
That’s the way I see it.