For years, federal and state public health officials have told us that the evidence of raw milk’s susceptibility to contamination by pathogens is irrefutable. For example, here is what a Maryland public health report on the states dairy industry from 2009 states in an appendix: The State of Maryland and other federal and state health agencies have documented a long history of the risks to human health associated with the consumption of raw milk.
Ive always wondered, what documentation are they talking about? What studies are they referring to? Is there a list somewhere?
It turns out there is a list. An Australian-New Zealand government agency several years ago compiled a list of studies showing evidence of pathogens in raw milk. In an appendix to a study on raw milk safety risks, it listed more than 200 studies from around the world showing evidence of the presence of the four main pathogens in raw milksalmonella, listeria, E.coli O157:H7, and campylobacter.
There is only one problem: the studies appear to be primarily carried out on commercial dairies, suggesting problems with pre-pasteurized milk. Which makes sense, given that most dairies produce milk for pasteurization. There is no indication I could find of any study being carried out of a dairy committed to selling raw milk.
The studies appear to cover the period 1993-2006. Cows and milk were tested in well known dairy producing countries like the U.S., Canada, and Australia, as well as less prominent dairy countries like Turkey and Costa Rica.
One American study of the presence of E.coliO157:H7, in 2000, is described: Samples from 19 farms collected via rectal retrieval. Positive samples obtained from 7 out of 19 (36.8%) farms.
Another, from the U.S. in 2001, also of E.coli O157:H7, is described: Faecal samples were obtained from lactating Holstein dairy cattle on four commercial farms in the south-western US. Samples obtained via rectal palpation. The tests indicated a 7 1/2% presence of the pathogen.
The list of studies are appended as Annex 3 (beginning on p. 49) in a study, Microbiological Risk Assessment of Raw Cow Milk from Food Standards Australia/New Zealand.
Several Australians upset about their government’s recent crackdown on raw milk, growing out of several illnesses and one death, forwarded the link to the 2009 Australian study.
Not surprisingly, the study concludes that raw milk has been associated with foodborne illness internationally, and has been linked to illnesses in Australia.
The Australian regulators do acknowledge, Pathogen contamination of raw milk may be reduced by exercising enhanced hygienic control throughout the milk harvesting stage. Practices such as teat washing and dipping, foremilk stripping, and good milking hygiene will reduce the number of organisms (pathogenic and spoilage) that may enter the milk from environmental sources. For example, pre-milking udder washing with clean water and drying using hand towels reduces milk contamination by transient bacteria located on the exterior surfaces of the udder. Post-milking teat disinfection reduces the resident teat skin bacterial population, which is the main source of infection for the mammary gland.
But in the end, the Aussies are pessimistic. The modelling undertaken demonstrates that although the pathogen level may be very low in raw milk, there remains a risk of causing illness if consumed.
The science, after all, is irrefutable .even if it comes entirely from dairies committed to pasteurizing their milk, and not at all from dairies selling raw milk. I wonder: What are the chances of American or Canadian scientists studying a dairy member of the Raw Milk Institute, or other dairy committed to producing raw milk for consumption? Im taking bets, and not giving very good odds.
**
For those wondering about Canadian dairy farmer Michael Schmidt, and why he’s been so quiet for so long, he answers questions at The Bovine (posed by himself). He explains why he decided to take a break from speaking and traveling, and most encouraging, articulates his philosophy about food rights, and how the matter has clarified even further for him. An excellent read.
Thanks, David.
Come on seriously….the tests you are referring to above in your post are about rectal fecal samples and not raw milk samples. How in the world could any one with a straight face ever claim that fecal samples of fresh cow crap are in any way connected to the safety or prevalence of pathogens in fresh raw milk from a cow…I would be laughing if I was not so close to crying!!
If these were the kinds of assessments made to make claims of the high risk of raw milk…either the anti raw milk people think we are idiots for believing your studies…or no one bothered to look at the studies and ask the question.
Did no measure pathogens in Fresh Raw Cows Shit or in Fresh Raw Milk?? Something is missing here.
Someone is a fool here….either the raw milk movement never bothered to assess this data and object vehemently …or the political forces against raw milk got away with raw milk murder!!
Mark, the data on actual illnesses from raw milk are contained in the previous appendix (Annex 2). It contains illnesses identified in various studies, with some clearly from commercial dairies, some from raw dairies, and some not clear. Notably, the Australian/NZ study was produced in 2009, and the most recent illness noted from a study is 2003. The appendix notes: “Data has been compiled since 1995 with no outbreaks attributed to raw cow milk post 2003.” Doesn’t seem to help make the case stated in the conclusions about raw milk’s inherent danger.
But I do believe they are claiming a connection between pathogens in manure and illnesses. They devote many pages of the study to listing these 200-plus studies. Cause and effect definitely in question here.
I agree, Shawna, farmers who produce milk to be sold raw do care, a great deal. It’s the public health community that doesn’t seem to care or, to put it another way, doesn’t seem to want to know the facts. As we’ve discussed, once you have it in your mind that raw milk in inherently dangerous, what else is there to know?
Of course its connected to the safety considering raw milk, if contaminated, is most likely to be contaminated by pathogens from cow manure. How can you claim otherwise?
No you can’t cite pathogens in the manure and claim raw milk is thereby unsafe. But if we were to do as David suggests and actually study this issue, this would be a very important data point.
We’re talking about risk and risk reduction here. The background level of pathogens in the environment will have an affect on the rate of pathogens being found in the milk. That will of course be modulated by the sanitary practices of the dairy and its influence on the rate of contamination.
Indeed and you cant site perceived pathogens in the soil, water and air and claim raw milk is thereby unsafe, or any food for that matter.
When it comes to the presence of microbes in our ecosystem all is relevant. They are there for a reason and we need to damn well understand why and make adjustments accordingly, rather then address the problem from a narrow and shallow approach that singles out and declares war on it.
I am just finishing off a book entitled, Dissolving Illussions, by Suzanne Humphries MD and Roman Bystrianyk. It is well worth taking the time to read.
I have read several books on the history of illness and disease and this one is excellent and very well researched.
Ken
We would have no food in any store if pathogen tests from locations near food sources dictated whether food was safe or not. For the life of me I do not know how this data about fecal samples ever passed peer review to become an assessment of raw milk safety.
Question….does a fecal swab of the back end of a cow become the verification that her meat is somehow unclean on a slaughter line? Great care is taken during slaughter to assure that feces do not come in contact with meat. The USDA inspects to assure that these precautions are in place!!!
The same thing goes for collection of raw milk. It is beyond infuriating to beat our heads against this food safety stone wall. They do not get it because their paycheck depends on them not getting it. We as a movement must become much better at exposing these great deceptions and clearly explaining the truth and the facts. Step one….show up to the fight. Step two….stand up!! Step three….speak up intelligently. These anti raw milk forces get away with this kind of crap because we simply fail to show up and fight!! They would not be so cocky if they were met at their meetings with a bunch of cool headed raw milk producers and a huge crowd of moms and their healthy kids that demanded an apology for misleading the public and telling lies. Measure milk for safety….not the manure. Measurement of manure is a very low level conditions assessment that has practically nothing to do with food safety.
When you arrive at your conclusion in advance, then it’s just a matter of seeking out every conceivable data point to support the conclusion. But, above all, you don’t study the subjects of your conclusion. It’s not unlike the FDA’s study of soft cheeses a couple years back, when it concluded that raw milk cheeses were up to 160 times more dangerous than pasteurized ones, despite the absence of any documented cases in the U.S., and the fact the FDA researchers didn’t visit a single raw cheese producer. When you articulate your conclusion in advance, you absolutely don’t want to risk the data not coming out the way you have concluded it should come out. So you simply go about getting your evidence from everywhere except the subjects of your study (in this case, producers of raw milk).
Of course, there are pathogens all around our food, in manure, in the soil, even on the food. The best example is chicken, which everyone acknowledges is actually sold with the understanding that half or more is contaminated with salmonella or campylobacter, and buyer beware. That is an ongoing study in food safety, and even though commercial chicken is one of our most risky foods, the conclusion is that the chicken producers are good guys (maybe because of all the money they give to politicians) that they should be able to sell their product no matter how tainted the product is.
OPDC was a featured product at this years “CookieCon” convention in Los Angeles. The convention was all about cookies….but what goes best with cookies? The ultimate paring….raw milk of course. More than 2000 opdc branded six ounce samples were given out in just six hours. We ran out and had to have a supply from our delivery truck. Consumers went gaga over raw organic milk….totally ape nuts!! The discovery that they had nothing wrong with them after thinking they were lactose intolerant! Now they know better, they are just sensitive to processing. The real deal is just fine….! This self discovery makes people feel so much better. No more diagnosis of something deficient in their bodies!! They feel normal after drinking delicious fresh organic raw milk!!
Cookies and raw milk….what a match! Now I know exactly why processors are terrified of raw milk, it liberates farmers, and awakens consumers. Two very bad things for processors.
Likewise with milk, there is known pathogen risk and the adopted management plan has been a heat kill-step. However, this need not be the only acceptable managmenet plan, in every circumstance. Can raw milk, produced under a certain set of risk management protocols, be as statistically safe as pasteurized, by avoiding pathogen contamination in the first place? The assumption is that we cannot. But as far as I know, that research has never been done. In fact, I have never read a report about any raw milk outbreak anywhere that has taken into account the specific conditions under which that milk was produced.
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/vaccine-illusion-how-vaccination-compromises-our-natural-immunity-and-what-we-can
Yes indeed, and thinking within the box, only reinforces the notion of, (a kill step, i.e. pasteurization, radiation, toxic manipulation etc.), and cannot provide any other solution to the problem of (illness) and disease.
Ken
This caught my eye while doing some research about chickens earlier today, because the latest claim by Perdue is that their chicken MUST be better than all the rest of them because it’s “raised in America”. Is that supposed to be reassuring?? I can tell you from my own POV, it’s not. Not in the least. They are still a CAFO chicken raising operation and if they are using antibiotics or steroids and God knows what else, I sure don’t depend on some uSDA employee to “assure” me that they aren’t, or of that chicken meat’s safety. Not in this lifetime. I simply do not buy grocery store chicken. We try to find “Mary’s” or a couple of other more natural choices rather than buy Perdue or Sanderson Farms, etc., junk. At any rate, this article is from 2011 when we were supposed to believe the UsDA fairy was going to help with this problem: http://www.thatsjustme.com/2011/02/dont-fall-for-perdue-chickens-bogus-usda-process-verification/
I’m with you, D. I not only avoid buying the mass-produced chicken, but avoid ordering it when I go out to eat. Besides all the stuff you mention (antibiotics, steroids, CAFO filth), there is the matter of GMO feed, laced with glyphosate (better known as Roundup from Monsanto). To avoid glyphosate, you have to be buying chickens raised organically, and you can be certain that is not a concern of the USDA inspectors.
This is our culture and our way of life here in the good ol USA.
As Anericans we are also a bunch of rebels and like to sometimes revel in being little different or even taking a little risk, especially when it is forbidden by the FDA. OPDC has just embarked on a mission to develop a world class high tech….Green Light program. By using very advanced recently approved AOAC Rapid pathogen tests coupled with highly sensative and highly accurate milk filters testing, all products can be cleared prior to delivery to any consumer in less than 18 hours. This “Green Light” allows an extremely high level of confidence that Zero Pathogens are present!! Filters are much more sensative to pathogen detection than any finished product test. This filter testing, coupled with a full blown RAMP program and other coliform testing brings on a whole new level of low risk potential for raw milk. All of this data done two times per day and all performed prior to product delivery or release for sale. In fact, unless a “Green Light” comes up on the OPDC delivery hand scanner….the product can not be invoiced and or sold !!! This allows opdc product to flow down the delivery system flow while tests are running. No time is lost. With recent AOCA approvals for new technologies to quickly detect pathogens and by using milk filters which are much more sensative to pathogen collection than finished products or bulk tanks….this becomes equivalent to a new Critical Control Point and or a Kill Step!!
RAMP systems are getting better and better! Science is getting better and better. You notice that I do not keep these secrets quiet. These OPDC secrets are being shared openly and will be published on our RAWMI website.
It is interesting to note that the “real secret sauce for raw milk is the human touch”. We have heard that San Martin Dairy Farm ( near San Jose CA ), the newest CDFA approved raw milk brand in CA, is for sale, after 6 months, because….the dairyman did not realize that people would want farm tours and want him to answer a million questions about raw milk…and the dairyman did not want to deal with marketing, education or consumers….he is a dairyman that has several other large dairies and just wants to milk cows, not deal with people, marketing or teaching etc.
This is fascinating. What a niche!! Just goes to prove that raw milk production takes a very special combination of people skills, team work, food safety acumen, ethics,…..it is not for everyone, for sure.
So FICOs would be versus what? Free Range Intellectual Activity? Open Intellectual Inquiry? Free Open Organic Uncorrupted . . . ??? Jacob Marley could start something purporting to be intellectually honest, he could call it PRAVDA. Isnt that just about where we are in some respects? Unfortunately.
Have a glyphosate free day everybody!
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
I dont rely any more on the Canadian food inspection system then you do your American.
In Canada its a joint effort between the ministries of Agriculture and Food, Natural Resources, Environment, Conservation Authorities, and the CFIA (Canadian Food inspection Agency). All of these bureaucracies are represented at both the federal and provincial levels. It is a friggin nightmare! The system is notoriously biased and has been manipulated and corrupted to the core.
The only thing these government agencies are concerned with is dreaming up ways in order to exercise control via their ever-changing regulations, the costs, much of which farmers and abattoir owners have had to absorb while continuing to meet the expectations of the nations cheap so-called safe food policies. This has resulted in a drastic decline in the number of small family farms and small local abattoirs.
Ken
I queried the Department of Health Services for CA for any data or record of illness or death related to raw butter. The date range included the last 40 years. Guess what? Their answer just in… No illnesses or deaths ever reported.A CDFA FOIA reported the same thing for California. Nada….nothing. Even for the years when Alta Dena was supposedly making every one sick with salmonella and raw milk.
What does this all mean? When the interstate commerce of raw milk was banned in 1987 under CFR 1240.61, raw butter was included in the ban. So far, there is no evidence that raw butter had any illnesses or deaths connected to it in CA or Alta Dena products which included raw butter.
This is evidence of an “over broad taking” by the FDA when the FDA swept up raw butter ( a class 4 manufacturing product ) into its class one fluid raw milk ban!!!
Even in the December 31st 1986 federal judges decision, raw butter was never mentioned..not once.
There is no record of any illnesses or deaths caused by “commercially produced” raw butter anywhere in America for any date range in any database! None.
There are two FOIA still outstanding, one with CDC and one with the FDA HHS. We will see what they can find, if they respond at all. Those FOIA requests are now over a month old and not a word yet. Quite possible that the HHS and FDA will simply ignor the FOIA and not respond. That’s about their speed given their track record of their failure to follow the laws regarding being responsive to public.
Mark, there are actually very specific appeal procedures related to FOIA requests. If you don’t get what you asked for within a certain time period (I believe within a month, unless they inform you they need an extension), then you can file a written appeal. I did this a couple of times when I received what I knew were inadequate responses to requests from the FDA, and I actually received phone calls from the FOIA people at FDA. They seemed to be quite separate from the regulators, very professional, and they wanted to please. The next step would have been a court appeal, and they clearly didn’t want that to happen. I wound up getting the info I was looking for.
Interesting to note that I have been blocked from posting at Food Safety News. I guess, the folks over there do not like me citing official data and verfiable official statistics. It is very inconvenient to their little disinformation party.
I would be somewhat leery of this maneuver by Chinese investors to purchase a certified raw milk dairy in your state, considering they just struck up a deal with Dairy Farmers of America in late 2014 to invest 30,000,000 dollars to set up a milk-powder factory in Kansas.
According to the second article below, China has been pursuing a rising number of overseas deals in the agribusiness and dairy sectors over the past five years Chinese companies invested $8.4 billion in 11 deals so far this year.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/01/09/china-dairy-idINL3N0UO1WG20150109
Jan 9 (Reuters) – Small dairy farmers in China are dumping milk and selling cows as demand from processors slows in a sharp turnaround from last year, when a scramble for supplies prompted a huge surge in milk powder imports.
Slower growth in milk product consumption, higher yields from modern dairy farms and the excess stocks of imported powders have combined to reduce demand for fresh milk in what has been one of the world’s fastest-growing dairy markets.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-yili-u-s-dairy-farmers-of-america-to-build-milk-powder-plant-1415852936
Chinas Inner Mongolia Yili Industrial Group Co. is setting up a milk-powder factory in Kansas with Dairy Farmers of America Inc., building out its year-old strategic alliance with the U.S. cooperative as part of a trend of Chinese dairies expanding abroad.
The plant will be able to produce 80,000 metric tons of milk powder a year, Yili said in a filing late Wednesday to the Shanghai Stock Exchange. The company didnt specify how much of the plants milk powder will be sold in China.
Under the terms of the deal, Yili will invest $30 million in the venture, and Dairy Farmers of America will invest $70 million, the Chinese company said in the filing. Yili is Chinas second-largest dairy producer by revenue after China Mengniu Dairy Co.
Ken
If you care about getting REAL MILK, then you’d better line-up your own source of supply right now, because the Reds have trillion$ of dollar$ in hand, obtained during America’s profligacy of 1965 to the present. Those I.O.Us are coming home to roost. The ‘image of food’ coming out of the CAFO system in N. America will still be cheap enough to placate the masses. But for foods with genuine nutritional value, the Reds will be able to outbid the locals. Already, this goes on behind the closed doors of the dairy processors, as incoming milk is fratcionalize, then stripped of the high-value fats, then reconstituted with cheap “milk protein concentrate”, from 3rd world sources, then mis-labelled “homo milk”
Jesus Christ prophesied = “in those days it will take a whole day’s wage to buy a loaf of bread”
That is how lost the Chinese are when it comes to gut knowledge. My comment to them was…your gut is not a shelf and it lasts a long time in your gut as well. I do not think the interpreter truly relayed the message. This delegation was from the highest interior minister of trade in Peking and the communist party guy was also with them.
The reason behind why the Chinese sent a high level delegation to investigate milk in CA was because they had set a national policy of increasing protein consumption and dairy was the target food to get that protein. Why more protein??? They said because they wanted to “be taller as a nation of people”. They no longer wanted to be short!! They actually said this to me….I had a hard time keeping a straight face.
That is the level of mentality we are dealing with in China. Not the sharpest tools in the shed…but for sure the shrewdest.
UHT milk is not going to build anything constructive and certainly not a taller-healthier-stronger-Chinaman. Now…take that Chinaman…move him to CA and watch him fall in love with raw milk. That’s what is happening!!
A paragraph just below it contradicts & confuses the per serving aspect, while the table itself puts raw milk equal with pasteurized.
When I was reading the first few pages I thought this document might be getting written with an open mind, but soon found the conclusions don’t match the data, at least the way I read it – without a patch over one eye!
Organic cows tested by Department of Health Services several years in a row cane up with zero samples out of hundreds of cows fecal samples… All negative during Ecoli season from August to October. Yes… We have found samples from calves that were positive but not milk cows. Why is that ? Why do organic and pasture grazed cows not test positive for fecal Ecoli pathogens like their CAFO sisters ?
I could venture all sorts of educated guesses… But why ?
My opinion….immune conditions, nutrition, pasture feeding, no antibiotics. Fewer stressors and less production expected. It is nice to know that official agencies and CA regulators did the tests and know these facts.
Mark, I believe that would have been fecal samples. There are two sets of tables–one for pathogens in milk, and one for fecal samples. You’ll see that some of the fecal sample testing done in the U.S. shows the percentage prevalence as high as 25%+.
http://www.revealnews.org/article/how-china-purchased-a-prime-cut-of-americas-pork-industry/
The part about climate change is a bunch of horse puckey, but the rest of this article (which is very long) is scarier than hell if you don’t like red.