text:
Want Serious Discussion About Raw Milk Safety? Better Be Careful
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has had no hesitancy about spending taxpayer dollars to promote its viewpoint that raw milk is a mortal danger. A couple years back, I called the FDA on its practice, after it spent nearly $2,500 with a press release service to put out single warning on a slow-news weekend about possible illnesses at a private food club from raw milk, long after any possible threat had passed.
The hidden agenda behind the press release was clearly propaganda. It had nothing to do with safety or science.
The people in the academic community who feed off the FDA's largesse with grants and such understand what is going on in such cases, which is why it is vaguely amusing to see one of them genuflecting about "PR stunts" in connection with a press release issued about the work of researcher Nadine Ijaz, which actually encourages serious discussion about the risks associated with raw milk.
Ijaz made a well-received evidence review on unpasteurized milk at the British Columbia (Canada) Centre for Disease Control (BC CDC). Her research debunks raw milk health and safety claims across all sides of the debate. It was picked up by the Wall Street Journal thanks to a media release from the Weston A. Price Foundation. This kind of exposure represents a wonderful opportunity for sincere scientific debate based on actual evidence…or so Ijaz thought.
But, of course, discussion is the last thing some food safety professionals in the academic and government orbit seem to want. Anyone who advocates such a rational approach tends to be shot down, such as in this case, with terms like 'astrology' and 'conspiracy theories' and 'scientifically-sounding garble.' This arrogant academic said he decided to `leave it to others to comment on the uh, unique interpretations of risk assessment`. So much for scientific rigour.
Ijaz is an independent researcher with expertise and training in the transdisciplinary analysis of integrative health care issues. She has taught at professional schools in her field since 2001, including courses in scientific research methods. She was previously staff nutritionist at Canada's premiere integrative medical cancer care centre. Ijaz has pursued a scholarly interest in questions around unpasteurized milk and industrial dairying over the last fifteen years, and her current work represents a synthesis of this research. Her work on unpasteurized milk is currently under consideration for peer-review publication.
What follows is Ijaz's rebuttal to the academic's post, offering accurate detail on the contents of the BC CDC presentation.
By Nadine Ijaz
In my BC CDC Grand Rounds presentation of May 16, 2013 entitled Unpasteurized milk: myths and evidence, I reviewed a substantial number of peer-reviewed studies to deconstruct myths propagated on various sides of the raw milk debate. In that presentation, I employed evidence-based perspectives towards a balanced critique of raw milk consumer claims as well as those presented by North American public health bodies. My goal is to begin depoliticizing the raw milk debate and to bring a higher standard of scientific rigour to this long-controversial subject.
My evidence review concluded that while little evidence substantiates several common raw milk consumer claims, neither is raw milk as uniquely hazardous today as it was in the 1930s. While acknowledging the ongoing value of pasteurization as a public health intervention, I systematically deconstructed what appears to be a fundamental and unprecedented bias against unpasteurized milk in the scientific literature and by public health bodies. I also critically examined recent evidence around the proposed protective effects of raw farm milk on the development of atopic conditions in young children, as well as evidence pertaining to industrial milk processing`s possible health impacts.
I received the invitation from the BC Centre for Disease Control to present Grand Rounds, after Dr. Tom Kosatsky attended a previous lecture I gave on similar subjects.As I disclosed in my presentation to the BC CDC, my research is independent and unfunded; although I do personally advocate for regulatory reform on this issue in Canada. My advocacy on this issue is informed both by scientific evidence, as by my civil liberties concerns regarding Canada's absolute prohibition on raw milk access for non-farmers, unique across G-8 nations.
In my BC CDC presentation, I certainly did not use evidence to promote raw milk consumption per se as implied in a recent BarfBlog post; I regard this as a matter of personal choice. The only 'cause' I scientifically advocated in my presentation is evidence-informed public health policy, as should be clear to those who view the online Grand Rounds video from May 16th, 2013. The evidence I reviewed suggests that Canada's absolute prohibition on raw milk sales and distribution is no longer supported by a substantive body of recent, high-quality, peer-reviewed science. I did additionally cite a single non-peer-reviewed paper in the presentation – my own, very recent (2013) working paper analysing U.S. outbreak data for raw milk – for which I am currently awaiting consideration for peer-review publication.
The Barfblog post further reports that while the BC CDC found my talk to be 'fairly presented,' its policy on unpasteurized milk remains constant. Given how recently the agency has become aware of the evidence I presented, and how significantly this evidence challenges existing Canadian public health perspectives, one would not expect any rapid changes to policy.
Evidence-based public health policy recommendations must be carefully considered, scientifically consistent, and rigorously evidenced – and certainly not skewed towards an ideological bias. I sought to employ the highest standards of research and analysis in my recent evidence review. I sincerely invite those working across relevant fields to examine my work and the conclusions I draw, for errors, omissions and inconsistencies; and to bring these to the light of day so we might honestly discuss them in an environment of scientific integrity. I urge BarfBlog, and others – whether 'for' or 'against' raw milk being accessible for those who prefer it – to commit to a respectful, dignified tone for such future discussions.
I assure you that we share a common vision of a safe, healthy, accessible, delicious and sustainable food supply.
As long as we're discussing the nature of criticism being leveled on food rights, I'll take the opportunity to note a couple of reviews of my book.It's always strange, as an author, to see your book reviewed--it's your baby, after all. Even more difficult is to know whether or how to respond...but I'll give it a shot... These new reviews are in addition to those noted on the Amazon site from places like Kirkus and Publishers Weekly.
In my judgment, food rights lawyer Amy Salberg captures well the book's efforts at historical and political interpretation. She also raises the fundamental question, "Why is small food such a big threat?"
Another review, by food blogger and writer Jill Richardson, is critical about some of my choices about people to focus on (too many weirdos, in her judgment) and some of the things I say about them (like food safety lawyer Bill Marler). I disagree with her assessments on these and a few other things, but appreciate these are legitimate points of discussion. What bothers me is when reviewers are inaccurate--for example, the Publishers Weekly review quoted at the Amazon site says I didn't provide the food-safety side of the debate, when in fact I quoted at length from at least half a dozen food safety professionals, via their writings and testimony in various cases--that tells me the reviewer didn't read very carefully.
One of my goals with the book has been to get discussion and debate going on an issue that many in positions of power would just as soon ignore, keep secret. So, stellar or less than stellar, I'm glad to see the reviews happening. (And here's a tip: Chelsea Green has the book available right now at the lowest price I have seen anywhere.)
Just got my copy of your new book....can not wait to read it.
I was at Wholefoods last night and as I wondered by the dairy case thinking of the old days when raw milk dominated the coldest shelf space and sold like hot cakes, I heard a young mom say...."the sign says, no more organic almond milk until October 2013" then she said..."that is our favorite organic brand, what will we do now?".
As a dairyman and as an almond grower...the my mental gears went into over drive. Almonds happen in the northern hemisphere and there is only one crop and 80% of this crop comes from California. The almond bulk tank is empty ( all sold out for 2013 and prices are high ) and the next almond milking happens in September ( the next crop )???!!!
The dairy case has been taken over by a tree...the cow is being pushed aside!!! Last year alone in CA, 105 dairies left the market. Many of those dairies bull dozed their pens & parlours, beefed their cows and planted almonds. Wow...this was a revelation to me. Plant organic almonds and raw milk is here to stay!!
David....because of the effect of consumer choice and dollar voting the FDA had better watch its verbage. Pretty soon they will have little pasteurized fluid milk to reign over. The NCIMS processors will be shipping almond milk on their trucks. The USDA reigns over almonds not the FDA.
The FDA is an errogant, pompous, uniformed, well armed branch of government. If they fail to start listening to their NIH scientists, they will pretty soon find themselves with out any friends not even the NCIMS or pasteurized fluid milk processors. There will be no PMO activity for fluid milk...it will all be yogurt or cheese and all fluid milk will be raw regulated by the states.
"My goal is to begin depoliticizing the raw milk debate..."
Why would anyone want to try to do something so impossible and undesirable? Raw milk, and food freedom in general, will stand or fall as a political movement, and in no other way.
But clearly there's no lack of elitist technocrat types, even among those skeptical of some aspects of the system, who want to keep things in the hands of "experts" where they belong.
As we see with the response to this, and as everyone who tries to do real scientific work on GMOs finds out, or any kind of anti-system dissident, there's no point trying to talk to the corporate media or the academic establishment. These will always have the same response - ignoring you, ridiculing you, slandering you, or representing you as a colorful weirdo. They'll do this no matter what the substance of the message.
That's why as a rule the only thing worth doing is talking directly to the people.
Russ, I agree. Most people don't seem to realise we are fighting a 5 billion dollar cheese industry and a 85 billion dollar medical industry. That's twice the size of the military. Now I hear the medical industry may be up to 140 billion.
Great advice...in fact it is exactly what we believe at OPDC. Feed the people and build the markets. The truth will flow from that process and evolution. The FDA will follow years later. I fact, history tells us that this is the model that the FDA has followed many times. Jack in the Box ecoli hamburger ecoli pathogen tolerance standards came from industry not the FDA. The FDA embraced industry standards years later.
So...feed and build those markets, teach those consumers. Be safe and do not let our weaknesses hurt us...instead make our weakness our strength. RAWMI LISTED farmers have done an excellent job of track record creation. A track record that scientists like Canadas Nadine can use to prove that our raw milk is just like the EU QMRA's claim...in the low risk or very low risk category.
"My evidence review concluded that while little evidence substantiates several common raw milk consumer claims, neither is raw milk as uniquely hazardous today as it was in the 1930s. While acknowledging the ongoing value of pasteurization as a public health intervention" I hope this is just her disclaimer. Common raw milk consumer claims are not substantiated by medical journals, daa. What is the ongoing value of pasteurization? By the 1930's raw milk was certified. It was the pasteurized swill milk that was causing rickets and wide spread infant mortality. Doctors already knew this in 1909. Check the New York Times. From 1900 to 1950 mothers had no viable alternative to breast-milk.
The American Academy of Pediatrics and WHO recommend that infants be fed raw breast milk over formula. Pasteurized milk is not recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics for children under 1 year old because it does not contain enough nutrients, vitamins and minerals to adequately and properly sustain an infant's growth. Raw breast milk isn't legal if I'm reading the Wisconsin statute correctly?
Governor Walker will veto the raw milk bill because it does not have "safeguards to protect public health and the integrity of the dairy industry".
Bildo, David Meany mentioned common law without me bringing it up.
And someone used the term spurious goods just like on the DATCP history page. The dairy and medical industry are both selling spurious goods. They have changed the original Hippocratic oath and the definition of fresh milk.
"The American Academy of Pediatrics and WHO recommend..."
Do you have a citation for this?
Well, I kind of assumed everyone knew this. Let's see, this is a good link. http://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/faq/index.htm
cite: "Pasteurized milk is not recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics for children under 1 year old because it does not contain enough nutrients, vitamins and minerals to adequately and properly sustain an infant's growth."
I looked at their website and all the links you offered and could not find this. To the contrary of what you're promoting, the Academy is against the consumption of raw milk.
What I'm trying to do is use their own words against them. Yes, the Academy is against the consumption of raw milk but that is they say because it is more likely than pasteurised to contain bacteria that may cause minor diarrhoea in some people some of the time. They never say that raw milk isn't healthier than pasteurised.
That's why I bring up breast milk. When ever someone tries to say why cows milk should never be feed to infants they can only speculate because you and I know it's really only because it's pasteurized. And did you see some of what they say about breast milk? http://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/faq/index.htm and http://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/recommendations/other_mothers_milk.htm
What can happen if someone else's breast milk is given to another child?
The risk of infection from a single bottle of breast milk, even if the mother is HIV positive, is extremely small. For women who do not have HIV or other serious infectious diseases, there is little risk to the child who receives her breast milk.
Chemicals present in breast milk act, together with time and cold temperatures, to destroy the HIV present in expressed breast milk
Transmission of HIV from single breast milk exposure has never been documented
Raw Milk Mike,
I had a very long and productive talk with Nadine when I was in Canada. She is very much a raw milk advocate, but she is also very politically astute. She knows that no one in the scientific arena will listen to a person that makes unfounded medical claims and over the top pronouncements about the glory of raw milk.
Thats my job and I do it all the time. Cause its true. The research, the QMRA's, the 80,000 consumers of raw milk in CA all support the glory of raw milk as one of the best immune system foods on earth!! Nadine would get no where if she followed this path.
Instead Nadine has taken a slower and more methodical road to progress and we need her doing this. We haev Sally Fallon and WAP fighting their educational battles and teaching moms and saving kids, their is OPDC and other dairymen building commercial markets and creating a change thorn in the FDA's side, there are cow shares feeding local communities, David is writing books, Kristen Kanty is making movies, we have FTCLDF sueing the bastards and protecting farmers. This battle rages on all fronts and every front requires its own strategy and tactics. Nadines strategy is sound and will help build bridges especially when her strategy is combined with all the rest.
I agree Mark.
I think eventually we will have to convince the foot soldiers of the medical industry just how important food is to their families and that food freedom is in their own best interest because these people are not their friends and there is no honor amongst thieves. I don't think there's any way we can take on an organization that is three times the size of this nations military head on.
Maybe we could get a few more farmers on our side. They've got to know they've been cut out of the equation. DATCP doesn't even consider them part of the 26 billion dollar Wisconsin dairy industry. Most of them have less than 100 cows. Which means anyone of them could go direct farm sales almost overnight. Even farmers that do not sell raw milk benefit from it's sale because raw milk sales raise the price of milk. That's why the cheese companies hate it. I think we have all found that there are a lot of silent raw milk supporter and a lot of people who don't like an oppressive government. Has anyone notice that a lot of people turn us off because they are lactose intolerant and think raw milk is the same as pasteurised. You do know that's 60% of American adults?
Mark, I'd like to point out that the true cornerstone of this entire food freedom discussion is, generating enough educated public support to take down the corporatist governmental regulatory scheme and it's various disguises and propaganda in the justice system. It worked for Vernon, and now can be the reinforcement for others to organize, stand up for truth and honesty in food production. Long live freedom of choice and good ethics.
As you say and I like to repeat, teach teach teach, and also learn learn learn. Thanks for your contributions and long may you prosper. Unfortunately I don't have any goats or cows anymore but my chickens say hi and happy composting. Organic heritage veggies are right up there with raw milk for good health. Share.
"Stand up for truth and honesty in food production"
This is exactly the crux of the matter. We get the government we deserve and it will be much much harder to break free of the chains of oppression if raw milk producers do not stand for truth.
Unfortunately there are far too many craven marketers in the local food movement who don't truly believe in what they're selling, market around their deficiencies, or generally lie to their consumers about what their selling and how its produced.
Dr. Oz just criticized the FDA on his show today. "The Zero Trans Fats Myth" By Eric Brandt, BS, 4th Year Medical Student at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Medical Researcher, The Dr. Oz Show... As I read more about the topic of trans fats on nutrition labels, I was astonished by what I found. I learned that there could be enough trans fats hiding in our food to exceed the suggested daily limit, which is 1 to 2 grams per day, increasing the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and even some cancers. Specifically, I found out that if there is less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving, the food company could label it as having 0 grams of trans fat per serving. This means that there could be up to 0.49 grams in one serving of food and it can say 0 grams on the label. Knowing this, one can easily see how a few servings could cause you to exceed the daily suggested limit of industrial trans fat. Decoding Nutrition Labels; So, where are these trans fats? They are hiding in the fine print of the ingredients label as "partially hydrogenated" and "hydrogenated" oils. These oils are commonly found in foods that companies make to have a long shelf life. This includes many cookies, crackers, and ready-made meals. Hopefully, this could be a change made by the FDA, … http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/truth-labeling-trans-fats
I heard, I believe it was Sally Fallon Morell at the Skirball Center in Los Angeles a few years ago, say that the trans fats came in tri-, di-, and mono- forms (3's, 2's, and 1's) and that the labeling law was configured on the definition of transfats to mean the tri- form only. Apparently it is a "piece of cake" to split one tri- into one di- plus one mono-. When that splitting is accomplished and the tri- forms are all converted the labeling can say "no transfats." Did I get that right?
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
Dave, I was reading Jill Richardson's review of your new book. It seems the reviewer came away without realizing the bigger issue, that being; is raw milk really illegal and would the state have the authority to make it so. What is the stated purpose of government regulation and is banning a food really regulation? It seems to me that cow shares are really the states idea and are designed to confuse the issue and make us sound like the idiots trying to get around the law when it is really them trying to get around the law. They have us on the defensive when it should really be them. And who is it that we are fighting. Who is the anti-raw milk lobby?
She says "First of all, why the hell is the government so intensely focused on a small minority of citizens who want to drink raw milk from farmers they know personally and often from farms they've visited themselves?
Second, why do citizens need to go through such stupid legal gymnastics just to attempt to obtain healthful food?
As we all know, there are real, big, widespread problems in our food supply. There are any number of foods - mostly ones that can be obtained through a drive-thru or a vending machine - that make you sick 100% of the time, even when they aren't contaminated with pathogens.
Perhaps the weirdos come into the story because they are the only ones willing to take on the system so brazenly. (And Vonderplanitz in particular generally thinks that he's got a better understanding of the law than most lawyers, so he's got no fear in, well... he doesn't see it as breaking the law.)" Doesn't this make Jill one of the weirdos herself? I guess your right if you make too much sense you start sounding like a weirdo.
And she says, "The idea of food freedom is important, and it extends beyond raw milk. Other foods mentioned in the book include kombucha, kefir, sauerkraut, and raw milk cheeses, to name a few. In my own experience, I've met a local artisanal salumi company (now out of business) that was operating under USDA inspections but continually harassed for refusing to use nitrates in their meat. They told me they would present the evidence again and again to the government, proving scientifically how they used moisture levels and salt content to prevent microbial growth without nitrates. The government would take the information, and then come back insisting once again that they use nitrates." (artisanal salumi) basically raw meat, she's sounding like a weirdo again.
Yes: "Gumpert shies away from explaining why these contraband foods are safe, healthy, and should be legal. In this book, he sticks to focusing on whether or not we have a right to eat what we want, period. Nevermind how and why. I think the how and why are important and worth delving into to help people understand why it is that the government's being unjust."
Yes: "Want to know why unwashed eggs don't need to be refrigerated? There's a good explanation for that. And it makes the government look all the more stupid for insisting that eggs for sale must be washed and refrigerated. Especially if the eggs come from a small farm raising pastured chickens, selling to a small group of people who know the farmer personally."
What!!! "My other quibble with this book was its profiling of Bill Marler, a well-known food safety lawyer. (Full disclosure: I have written for Marler and been paid for my work.) I've met Marler and I like him. I think he's acting in good faith. I don't think many of the regulators are acting in good faith, but I think Marler is. In his job as a food safety lawyer, he sees an awful lot of devastated families and victims of food poisoning. I believe he genuinely cares about them."
And then she says: "Marler and I disagree about raw milk, but we can rationally debate it. Not so with many regulators. (If you look through the government's database of foodborne illness cases, you'll see that one food only is listed in all caps - RAW MILK. You'll also see that most food poisoning cases are never resolved, and some are only linked generally to something like "tacos" without discovering whether it was the meat, the cheese, the salsa, or the lettuce that made the person ill. Their obsession with pointing the finger at raw milk seems paranoid and totalitarian.)" ...weirdo... and I don't think Marler has ever sued the government.
"I know David Gumpert took care in writing the section on Marler, but I still felt like it made him come off a bit too much like an ambulance chaser who is after a paycheck. And while Marler's a master of using the internet and various other gimmicks to get his point across (like sending T-shirts to the entire U.S. Senate advocating passage of a food safety bill), I think his goal is justice for the victims he represents and a safer food system. I think he doesn't want to see another family lose a loved one to tainted food." Is there any way we could explain how ridiculous she sounds without sounding like one of her weirdos?
"I've always felt that the raw milk issue can be split into two parts: the right of citizens to eat what they want, and the right of citizens to be protected from fraudulent business people who are potentially selling dangerous products. Should you have the right to drink raw milk? Absolutely! Should I have the right to operate a filthy dairy with 50,000 cows up to their udders in manure and distribute their milk across the country under the guise that it is safe and sanitary and even healthful? Nope. " starting to make too much sense again.
"Why is the government acting like this? GRAIN has a piece called the Great Milk Robbery about a move around the world to promote the capture of more of the dairy market by large conglomerates.
A small farmer selling raw milk, collecting 100% of the retail dollar for that raw milk, denies a megacorporation like Dean Foods the opportunity to profit off of that milk. For the most part, individual small farmers do not have their own dairy processing plants and they cannot legally sell fluid milk or any other "value added" dairy products like yogurt, cheese, or ice cream. They sell their milk to a processor for a pittance and the processor and the rest of the distribution chain cash in on most of the retail price paid for the milk or other dairy products." She evidently doesn't know about the 85 billion dollar medical industry, raw milk's biggest competitor.
I have to agree: "The demand for raw milk and other value added dairy products not sold in mainstream supermarkets or other channels definitely shows the failure of the market to meet consumer demand.".
So much elitism in the movement, which is part of why we're having such a hard time:
"Vonderplanitz in particular generally thinks that he's got a better understanding of the law than most lawyers, so he's got no fear in, well... he doesn't see it as breaking the law"
Lawyers, of course, do nothing but endlessly and fiercely argue about what the law means, so it would seem no one understands it less than they do. In fact they understand well that "the law" is a might-makes-right farce, and all their disputing is meant to impress gullible laymen into disbelieving in their own reason and common sense. And of course for the lawyers' own wealth and power interest.
"Gumpert shies away from explaining why these contraband foods are safe, healthy, and should be legal. In this book, he sticks to focusing on whether or not we have a right to eat what we want, period. Nevermind how and why. I think the how and why are important and worth delving into to help people understand why it is that the government's being unjust."
I agree that we need to explain how and why the government's being unjust, but not in order to beg that same government for Better Laws, but rather to wean people off their misguided faith in the legitimacy of governments, corporations, and "laws" where it comes to our food. We should start and end with the insistence that we have the imperative and right to produce and eat our own food, and that anything which stands in the way of our Food Sovereignty, as democratic producers and eaters, is illegitimate and must be abolished.
"I've met Marler and I like him."
Well that settles that! I guess we were wrong about him.
Bill Marler was given a bit of a free ticket in Davids book. I have experienced Bill in all of his glory and it is not good or ethical.
When he had his own staff create a video showing a kid in the ICU on a respirator, and created an artificial time sequence which missled the viewer and showed date stamps that were off and told a lie....that was not being lawyerly or ethical. How do I know this? I threatend a law suit and Bill hired a lawyer to protect himself and he took down the video!!
It is my belief that Bill sees himself as above the law and above ethics. He creates evidence and champions the promotion and influence of public opinion. he sees himselve as wearing a Suit of Armor and riding a Great White Horse protected by high flying FDA Drone Aircraft. He can do no wrong becuase he is so good and so right...After all he has been paid the better part of a billion dollars as this Great White Horse Rider and protector of innocent immunity depressed children.
What he fails to see and appreciate is that all this FDA protected legal activity has caused further immune depression and bacterial paranoia which in turn has caused the deaths of literally hundreds if not thousands of children. Yes...Bills activities are directly associated with the lack of access to clean safe raw milk for children with asthma. Asthma kills 4000 kids per year. Clearly raw milk improves health and saves lives see. PARSIFAL, GABRIELA, KOALA, ALEX, PASTURE studies, UC Davis Splash News Letters, and EU QMRA's.
These deaths lay at the feet of the FDA and their Great White Horse Rider.
Come on Mark. You know this is BS about the video. Years ago (5) on this blog David corrected this information. He had a copy of the video tape with all the dates. Nothing was edited. The dates are all correct.
Why do you have to keep telling lies?
Mark, great stuff on Bill Marler. David, great reviews of your new book on Amazon.
Dave, what advice can I give my 7, 16, 18, & 20 year old on what to do when they grow up?
Three small points.
1. FDA (sadly) does not fund much food safety research.
2. Most food safety researchers get federal grants from USDA, but not the part that regulates meat and poultry safety.
3. Anyone that knows Doug, knows that he genuflects to no one, be they industry, regulators or academics. Doug speaks his mind. That's why people love him or hate him.
Thank you for this clarification. It's good to keep it accurate. - Nadine
If you are talking about this report: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForFederalStateandLocalOfficials/Meetings/U..., I don't see the word "university" mentioned anywhere in the document.
I don't know if this is the report David meant, but it only took scanning till page 6 to find the word "academia".
The quote is telling:
"Provide a forum for all the stakeholders of the food protection system—regulatory
agencies, academia, industry, consumers, state legislators, boards of health and
agriculture, and other interested parties;"
Note the elitism. Human beings appear only in the guise of "consumers", i.e. cash-spending atoms. As self-actualizing food producers, as eaters who have bodies that need physical health, as would-be citizens of a democracy and participants in a human economy, human beings don't exist from the corporatist point of view, only elite "stakeholders", including their "consumer representatives" (we can include sites like Barfblog within that category). The people are a resource mine and waste dump.
"Anyone that knows Doug, knows that he genuflects to no one, be they industry, regulators or academics. Doug speaks his mind. That's why people love him or hate him."
Is that why he writes technocratic cant like this:
"The scientific fringe craves the credibility – the impateur — of the scientific mainstream. It fuels conspiracy theories, drains public health resources, and unnecessarily worries a lot of folks; it's a recycled tactic often used in the politics of genetically engineered food."
(I'll assume that strange string of letters is supposed to be "imprimatur".)
If Powell's even minimally informed*, he's telling a premeditated lie about genetically engineered food, since he knows that such products were never safety tested before being commercialized, but were instead ideologically dogmatized to be "substantially equivalent" to real crops, and therefore didn't need such testing. This genuflection before the corporate ideology is the level of Doug Powell's version of "science", which is typical of scientistic hacks like him. And one need only skim the pieces on Barfblog to see its typical kick-down agenda on "food safety". One focuses, ah hoc tabloid-style, on individual examples, preferably among lone restaurants and such, precisely in order to misdirect attention from the massive, systematic poisoning of our food and ecosystems by corporate agriculture and food manufacture.
He's a good example of why what he circularly calls "the scientific mainstream", and his technocratic ideology in general, is so rapidly losing credibility with the people. The term is circular because it's those who are enshrined in the hierarchy who then call their hierarchy "the mainstream". But this is a lie. To go back to the commercialization of GMOs, the precautionary principle is a core scientific precept by any objective measure. To flout it is, by definition, to be aggressively anti-science. On the contrary, corporate technicians are "mainstream" only within the radical context of anti-scientific corporatism, a banality-of-evil context. By any historical or objective measure, they're extremists, and by any human measure, they're the "fringe".
*He may well not be even minimally informed. The vast majority of technicians are knowledgeable about their particular narrow specialty, but ignorant about every other subject including other branches of technical knowledge. Their ignorance is the same as that of any typical layman, but it's accompanied by the fraudulent mindset that "because I know something about one part of science, I must know about other parts as well". Here too we see that what passes for "science" today is, more often than not, the most irrational and faith-based nonsense on the part of technicians. That's why the term "scientism" was coined, to describe a pseudo-scientific version of the same old cult faith and arrogance of ignorance.
The broad support among technical types for this worthless and destructive product, GMOs, support based on utter ignorance, is perhaps the most extreme example yet of the cult of scientism, and the best example of the fraudulence of their pretensions to "science". For the real scientists, the real practitioners and experimenters whose results have to WORK because you can't lie to the soil or the weather, nor will the cheap oil last much longer, go look at the farmers of history, and especially at the marvelous work of today's agroecological and organic practitioners.
I'm not going to comment on GMO's as it's not my area of expertise.
Barfblog is about people getting sick from foodborne pathogens, whether they come from small restaurants or large corporations. Right now the main page has stories about a supermarket chain, the FDA screwing up, a berry outbreak, Australian restaurant grades, a street food festival, Lady Gaga's restaurant, BS claims by the Italian Food Safety authority, research on pathogens in lettuce, a Chicago restaurant, and a birthday message to his kid.
Next week it will be something different, as something else will be making people barf.
Are GMOs part of Doug Powell's "area of expertise"? He saw fit to comment on them, in a manner typically devoid of actual content, vacuous and supercilious, but clearly in support of corporate lies. One might think he was genuflecting...
That kind of comment he made on GMOs is always an indicator of one's real ideology, and one's general anti-science, pro-elite mindset.
Like I said, I saw the array of subject matter - ad hoc, isolated incidents, none of it touching the toxic structures of corporate food. If it's a food safety blog, where's the cumulative posts calling for the abolition of CAFOs and at least a moratorium on GMO commercialization until sufficiently systemative safety testing has been done? (As I said, such testing was NEVER done on a SINGLE GMO.)
That's always how we can tell when someone's a fraud, and when someone's really concerned not with food safety (the overall health and well-being of the people and the environment) but with "food safety", the safety of the profit and power of the system.
Here's a good piece on the subversion of peer review.
It makes the especially important point that there's been a complete ethical collapse among "scientist" types, as far as demanding that the precautionary principle be exercised in policy, demanding objectivity in discourse, disclosing conflicts of interest, etc. Since technicians refuse to police themselves, the people shall have to rescind our confidence in them, and we're doing so.
Oh my gosh, you are not going to believe what I just read in this report...or perhaps you will believe it!!! Anyways, read this for yourself at this site: http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2013/06/18/student-guest-post-a-push-f...
What got my blood boiling was the claim that she " was coerced into believing the inaccurate "facts" given to her by the farm she purchased raw milk from". She never bought the raw milk from the farm, she bought it from her local natural foods store!!! Now this is more evidence of how they change, manipulate, exaggerate and even out right lie about the facts!!!
OPDC has a website. Since 2006, Mark changed information. Pro raw milk people who blog here encouraged him to do so. They felt some of the information was misleading. I commend Mark for making the change.
I agree. Coerced is a strong word. I used the word lulled into a false sense of safety.
Mary, how long was your son on raw milk before he got sick and how much did he drink per day. How long has he been off raw milk and how often does he get diarrhoea now. How healthy are you and your son without raw milk. Are you juicing and taking supplements instead?
1. He drank raw milk for 2 1/2 weeks.
2. He drank about 1/2 to a cup a day. I bought quart each week and it he finished a bottle in a week.
3. September of this year, it will be 7 years since he has consumed raw milk.
4. The last time he had diarrhea was when he was in the hospital 7 years ago. Prior to becoming ill, he never had any bowel issues.
5. We were healthy before raw milk and healthy after raw milk.
6. We have always taken supplements, including probiotics.
7. I have juiced on and off my whole life. Chris will not eat vegetables. He has always been a very picky eater. We started juicing for him about 4 or 5 years ago.
8. We eat a very healthy diet of whole, unprocessed food. We consume no diary in our diets.
9. Health does not boil down to the single variable of consuming raw milk.
Mary, thank you for your response. My seven year old son has drank a quart a day his whole life. He wastes more than a quart a week. Why weren't you drinking the milk? Did you try it first before you gave it to your son? I did. What about the debilitating health issues he is suppose to have for the rest of his life? I'm glad to hear you and your son are so healthy. The average American gets diarrhea three times a year, between you and your son that would be forty two cases in seven years. What makes you so sure it was the milk that gave him diarrhea? What do you think made his diarrhea so severe he had to go to the doctor? I've heard norovirus can send some people to the hospital. What do you think made his diarrhea turn to HUS. Was he given antibiotics? I read that HUS is not normally serious, was his? Sorry for the third degree. You've got to expect an argument from rawmilkmike. I am a very picky eater. For me "Health does boil down to the single variable of consuming raw milk."
1. I didn't drink the milk because I was on a cleansing diet. I do this every summer when I'm on summer break from work. Even if I wasn't on a cleanse, I don't consume dairy.
2. His diarrhea was so severe because he had an E.coli 0157:H7 infection. The first day of diarrhea he went 19 times by the time my husband picked him up from my in-laws. A few hours later he had blood in his stool. We took him to the emergency room and he was later admitted to the hospital. He returned home 2 months later.
3. HUS is always considered serious whether a child's kidneys completely fail or not. 50% of children who get HUS need kidney dialysis. Even if a child doesn't end up on dialysis, he/she will most likely need at least a blood transfusion.
4. I think his E.coli 0157:H7 infection turned to HUS because the milk had a high pathogen count and he drank the contaminated milk over a period of 2 days. Amount of consumption is related to the seriousness of the E.coli infection. Once hospitalized, within the first 3 days he had all the signs of pre-HUS--rectal prolapse, suspected appendicitis, and issues with his pancreas.
5. Yes he was given antibiotics because they were so concerned about his colon. E.coli infections can cause serious colon issues. Some or all of the colon my need to be removed and in the worst cases children die.
6. The other little girl in the hospital with Chris (who also drank the same brand of milk) was not given antibiotics and she still developed HUS. She has permanent kidney damage (stage 1 kidney disease). BTW, Chris and Lauren consumed the raw milk on the same day, developed diarrhea 12 hours from each other, and were diagnosed with HUS on the same day.
7. His debilitating health issues you refer to are his kidneys. Due to the damage done during his illness, he has the kidneys of a person much older than 14. There is no way of knowing how many filters were damaged. The filters are not made to compensate. Over time they will begin to expand like a water balloon and then one day he will have stage one kidney disease. We don't have a crystal ball to know how old he will be when that happens.
8. Each year for the rest of his life he has to have his kidneys checked. Right now are very high risk years due to his growth and weight escalating at a greater rate. Studies show that children who have suffered HUS can present with normal kidney function and then hit their teen years and enter into stage one kidney disease. Tomorrow we have Chris' annual visit to the nephrologist.
8. I'm sure it was the milk because it was the only new thing I added to his diet during that timeframe. He doesn't eat fast food. He only eats the things I cook him. Also, he was part of an outbreak. 5 others also became ill.
Mary, you say you "consume no diary" why? Don't you believe the people you are supporting. Juicing, probiotics, no dairy, whole unprocessed food, sounds a lot like alternative medicine to me. Even if I believe everything you say about raw milk that only makes it the second safest food in America after pasteurised dairy. The stuff you knew to be poison even before your raw milk experiment. I wonder. is that why you were so easily convinced raw milk caused your son's diarrhoea?
For your information Mike, I drank raw milk and consumed raw milk cheese for about a year in my early 20's. If you would read my piece posted on FSN, you would have the answers to all of your questions. http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/04/is-the-foundation-of-good-health-f...
In my mid 40's, I developed an intolerance to dairy. No big deal, so I just don't consume it. Chris can't eat dairy or gluten, so we eat like him.
I personally think the best way to consume dairy would be to buy raw milk from a local farmer and then boil it at home.
And yes, I'm all about alternative medicine.
Here's another perspective:
How can a person be "coerced" into believing anything? Does she have a learning disability? Guess that person just didn't do their own due diligence and has a need to blame whomever is convenient. Perhaps it is her own self guilt eating at her? Manipulating the facts only makes their lies more prominent and they loose what little credibility they had.
You are absolutely correct, Sylvia. I can't tell you how sick to my stomach I was when I read that. The word 'coerced' means that the person was forced against their will to do something. Now Mary comes on here and states that she used the word 'lulled'. But, the damage has already been done, this report will be read by lots of people who will take it at face value. This report also gives the false impression that the raw milk was bought at the farm when it in fact was purchased at the local natural food store far away from the dairy. Again, giving inaccurate information out to the public at large. I am sure this report had been shared with Mary prior to it being released...how could she in good conscious allow the author to use such statements that are very much false. I am sorry, but she now has lost ALL credibility in my eyes. What a shame!
Deborah, you really made some huge assumptions. Go back to the article and read the 1st paragraph again. See where my name is highlighted blue, click on it. This is where the person that wrote the article got her information. I have never spoken to her and did not know about the article until I read it like you did. Everyone interprets information differently. She interpreted what I wrote as coerced. David is experiencing that right now with his book and what he wrote about Bill Marler. People read it and come away with different interpretations.
No Mary - I did not make "some huge assumptions", there you go again exaggerating the issue. Clicking on your name in that article is immaterial and has nothing to do with what the author of that paper wrote...the author clearly wrote "Mary was coerced into believing the inaccurate "facts" given to her by the farm she purchased raw milk from"...this is the statement that I have a major problem with on so many levels! You claim that you never spoke with the author of the report, yet in one on your posts here you said that you used the word "lulled"...what does that mean? Do you mean that you did speak with the author and used the word "lulled" to the author or are you saying that the author got her information only from the article that is linked to your name? And, by the way, no where in that article linked to your name is there any such wording that remotely comes close to the author's statement. So the question naturally comes to mind on where did this author get this information? If the author truly did not, at any time what-so-ever, talk to you, then there is a serious problem here where the author is reporting false information, because not only does the author claim that you were coerced (which by the way, means forced against one's will), but the author claims that you had bought the raw milk from the farm. And we both know that that is totally untrue. My question to you is....after you read this report, did you at any time contact the author and/or administrators of that website to have them write at retraction and correction to that statement? If not, why not? I am getting the impression that this author is a young person, if that is so, then this is very serious to just ignore this. This will only perpetuate our young people into thinking that it is okay to use false information, altered information, deception, untruths, etc. This does not help in teaching integrity and honor to our young people. Your comment of "Everyone interprets information differently" is so totally off base here...the author's statement is nothing remotely similar to an "interpretation" as you claim. To read the article that your name is linked to and then to come up with the word "coerced"....then there is something terribly wrong here! I highly doubt that the author came up with that word all on her own, not to mention, come up with idea that you had conversations with the farm and purchased the raw milk at the farm. Since this article singles you out, the least that you can do is to correct the misinformation. Let's see if you will do so.
This is what she wrote, "Nothing could be worse than watching your seven-year-old lying in a hospital bed fighting for his life after being diagnosed with hemolytic uremic syndrome. Unfortunately, Mary McGonigle-Martin experienced it first hand as her son, Chris, fought for his life after being poisoned by E. coli 0157:H7 found in contaminated raw milk. Like many mothers, Mary was coerced into believing the inaccurate "facts" given to her by the farm she purchased raw milk from. Too often across the US, parents are given incorrect information about the safety of the milk they drink and unfortunately, it is often children that pay the price."
This is what I wrote in the story posted on FSN, "I was finally convinced after visiting the Organic Pastures website. I found pleasing claims describing their cows, how they were fed, how their milk was regularly tested and how they had never found a pathogen in all the years they had been in business. Their website also stated that if cows consumed grass they wouldn't harbor pathogens. OPDC cows were advertised as being 100 percent pasture fed. They even posted all of their test results on their website and based upon this information I believed that the milk they produced would be safe for my son to consume. In mid-August, 2006, I purchased a quart of raw milk. I wondered if Chris would like it."
If she listened to the video that our family made, that is where I said I was lulled into a false sense of safety.
She summarized her thoughts into a paragraph. I don't read it as if I purchased the milk straight from the farm. That is the way you read it. Maybe better words to use probably would have been dairy and lulled. "Like many mothers, Mary was lulled into believing the inaccurate "facts" given to her by the dairy she purchased raw milk from."
It really doesn't matter what she summarized in the paragraph. Anyone really interested in knowing more about my son's illness can simply read the article I posted on FSN. I clearly state that I read OPDC website for information about the dairy.
Again, I've never spoken to Tara Smith the author of this article.
I know exactly what she wrote, Mary....if I am capable of reading many medical research reports on a daily basis, I think that I am very much capable of reading a short report such as this one! You are totally dismissing the ONE statement that I stated that was very much disturbing. And again, you did not buy the raw milk from a dairy, you bought it from the natural food store (and probably the same chain where I get mine and I don't refer to it as a dairy)! Now you are making a claim that "she listened to the video"...it appears to me that you have no clue where she got her information from. Doesn't that concern you? If you want people to take you seriously then you need to step up to the plate and assist in correcting inaccuracies and misinformation that are being reported. From your response, I get the feeling that you will do nothing about contacting them and request a correction to the that one statement. I am not dismissing your son's horrible experience or your documentations of those days, what I am questioning you about is your integrity with regards to a VERY misleading statement made in that report that will be read by many people and which will further distribute misleading information. This the last that I will speak of this...either you will have a conscious and realize that there is something that you can do about it or you wont! Either way, we will see for ourselves.
Deborah, I already gave you my opinion. And no, I'm not going to contact them. It is ridiculous. She is giving her opinion of the information she read out there in internet world on Chris illness. I read the paragraph and am not disturbed at all. The milk is produced at a farm and not in a grocery store. Everyone knows that. I got the information off the website, that is as good as hearing it from the person who owns the farm. I find it strange you are so fixed about two words. Like I said, anyone can click on my name and get all the facts. If you are so disturbed, make a comment. You can read my FSN article, watch Chris' video, read the outbreak report and then set her straight about the facts the way you interpret them.
Mary, you sad, "This is what she wrote, "Nothing could be worse than watching your seven-year-old lying in a hospital bed fighting for his life after being diagnosed with hemolytic uremic syndrome. (No deaths sense 1972.) Unfortunately, Mary McGonigle-Martin experienced it first hand as her son, Chris, fought for his life after being poisoned by E. coli 0157:H7(Said by competitors to sometimes cause miner diarrhea in the immune depressed.) found in contaminated raw milk(Was it found in the milk?). Like many mothers, Mary was coerced(I'd like to see that commercial.) into believing the inaccurate "facts"(How can facts be inaccurate?)(If you are talking about lies what lies?)(If they said grass fed cows never get sick I think that would be a lie. Is that what they said?) given to her by the farm she purchased raw milk from. Too often across the US, parents are given incorrect information about the safety of the milk(By who?) they drink(If they are already drinking it they don't need anyone to tell them how fantastic it is because they will already know for themselves.) and unfortunately, it is often children that pay the price.""(Children are going to get diarrhea.)(If you look at the CDC's data, it's obvious to me, raw milk is preventing diarrhea. I know I just pasted into the hyperbole zone again Pete.)
The article says that ecoli was found in the raw milk!!
Correction.....Ecoli was ever found in any of our raw milk since forever....not one test has ever found an ecoli 0157H7 pathogen in any of our fluid raw milk products!! Secondly...ecoli 0157H7 was never found in Chris Martin either. Lastly...the product was bought from a store and not the farm. The farmer never spoke to the Martines prior to them purchasing the raw milk.
Totally missleading bunch of biased yellow journalism.
This article is nothing short of food bio-terrorism and internet libel. The safety of raw milk has been shown in EU QMRAs and retail approved raw milk standards. It is among the low risk or very low risk categories of foods. Why not talk about killer cantaloup??? 34 dead people should be something to talk about!!
Instead the FDA instigates FOOD INC yellow speech to gain points when they are loosing on all fronts against raw milk. What a crock of crap!!
I think people ought to comment on the website where that article appeared. At a minimum, we need to counter the false facts. I did.
Yeah?! Good luck on that, you will find that they refuse to post any comments that are not in line with that report nor have a differing opinion than the report.
If you can't post opposing comments or question what they say then they control all information, obviously not a fair and balanced site.
That's my point exactly, Sylvia. I and 2 others that I know, including a scientist friend of mine submitted comments raising questions regarding the info that was included in the report. We read each others posting (we each saved a copy of the comment to a Word document for reference keeping) and none of the comments contained "abusive language or are personally insulting", as Mary is trying to accuse, but each comment was rejected. My scientist friend's comment was science based & not pro-raw milk based, but questioned the validity of some of the questionable science based statements that were in the report. Luckily, he didn't feel insulted as he says that is not worth arguing with such closed minded people.
I just looked at the 4 comments posted after the article. 3 of the 4 from pro raw milk people. When I posted on the Bovine yesterday at 6:00 p.m. it took until sometime today for the comment to show up. Give it until tomorrow and see if it is there.
Mary, you said "1. I didn't drink the milk because I was on a cleansing diet. I do this every summer when I'm on summer break from work. Even if I wasn't on a cleanse, I don't consume dairy." but then you said "I saw a poster that would change our lives forever. Organic Pasture Dairy Company was advertising raw milk, suggesting relief from lactose intolerance, digestive disorders and asthma. I remembered reading (30 years ago) that raw milk was somehow healthier than pasteurized milk." If you believed them why didn't you then try the milk yourself? Then you said "I drank raw milk and consumed raw milk cheese for about a year in my early 20's." Did you drink it or did you just hear about it? Which is it?
Deborah, why don't you give it a try and see what happens. Usually only people who use abusive language or are personally insulting to other are blocked from making comments.
I commented 5 hours ago and my short comment hasn't shown up. The notice that my comment was awaiting moderation is no longer there. I was not abusive or personally insulting.
"Science Blogs" is "editorially controlled" by National Geographic but belongs to Scienceblogs LLC which is a project of Seed Media Group LLC. All authors there are "invited." There is no peer review of material, no balance, no verification that anything is 'fact.' If Science Blogs won't publish responses, maybe contact Scienceblogs LLC and complain about the libellous, inflamatory, and inaccurate material they allowed to be published: http://scienceblogs.com/about -- maybe also National Geographic? (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/community/email/)
I was able to comment here. Not that that is of much use.
Pete, it looks like a lot of websites quote the AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS(AAP) as saying you should never give cows milk to infants but each website seems to give it's own explanation for why you should never give cows milk to infants. I appreciate you calling me on this hyperbole.
When I look at the AAP anti-raw milk stuff I find that it is nothing like their other information. It is often contradictory and gives no names or references of any kind, you know like: "A
2001 meta-analysis of 12 prospective studies that met
pre-established criteria found that...".
I did find some other good stuff though.
Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk
Vol. 115 No. 2 February 1, 2005
Extensive research using improved epidemiologic methods and modern laboratory techniques documents diverse and compelling advantages for infants, mothers, families, and society from breastfeeding and use of human milk for infant feeding. These advantages include health, nutritional, immunologic, developmental, psychologic, social, economic, and environmental benefits.
Child Health Benefits
Human milk is species-specific, and all substitute feeding preparations differ markedly from it, making human milk uniquely superior for infant feeding. Exclusive breastfeeding is the reference or normative model against which all alternative feeding methods must be measured with regard to growth, health, development, and all other short- and long-term outcomes. In addition, human milk-fed premature infants receive significant benefits with respect to host protection and improved developmental outcomes compared with formula-fed premature infants. From studies in preterm and term infants, the following outcomes have been documented.
Infectious Diseases
Research in developed and developing countries of the world, including middle-class populations in developed countries, provides strong evidence that human milk feeding decreases the incidence and/or severity of a wide range of infectious diseases including bacterial meningitis, bacteremia, diarrhea, respiratory tract infection, necrotizing enterocolitis, otitis media, urinary tract infection, and late-onset sepsis in preterm infants. In addition, postneonatal infant mortality rates in the United States are reduced by 21% in breastfed infants.
Other Health Outcomes
Some studies suggest decreased rates of sudden infant death syndrome in the first year of life and reduction in incidence of insulin-dependent (type 1) and non–insulin-dependent (type 2) diabetes mellitus, lymphoma, leukemia, and Hodgkin disease, overweight and obesity, hypercholesterolemia, and asthma in older children and adults who were breastfed, compared with individuals who were not breastfed. Additional research in this area is warranted.
Breastfeeding has been associated with slightly enhanced performance on tests of cognitive development. Breastfeeding during a painful procedure such as a heel-stick for newborn screening provides analgesia to infants.
Supplements (water, glucose water, formula, and other fluids) should not be given to breastfeeding newborn infants unless ordered by a physician when a medical indication exists.
Pacifier use is best avoided during the initiation of breastfeeding and used only after breastfeeding is well established.
Pediatricians and parents should be aware that exclusive breastfeeding is sufficient to support optimal growth and development for approximately the first 6 months of life‡ and provides continuing protection against diarrhea and respiratory tract infection. Breastfeeding should be continued for at least the first year of life and beyond for as long as mutually desired by mother and child.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/75/1/182.abstract?sid=569b... Vol. 75 No. 1 January 1, 1985 pp. 182 -186
Article : Is Bovine Milk a Health Hazard? By Frank A. Oski From the Department of Pediatrics, State University of New York, Upstate Medial Center, Syracuse
Whole bovine milk should not be fed to infants during the first year of life because of its association with occult gastrointestinal bleeding, iron deficiency anemia, and cow's milk allergy. The consumption of whole milk after the first year of life should be discouraged because of its potential role in a variety of disorders including atherosclerosis, recurrent abdominal pain of childhood, cataracts, milk-borne infections, and juvenile delinquency.
Lactose, Calcium Absorption, and Bone Mineral Content
Recent evidence indicates that dietary lactose enhances
calcium absorption and, conversely, that lactose-free diets result in lower calcium absorption. Thus, lactose
intolerance (and lactose-free diets) theoretically may
predispose to inadequate bone mineralization, a problem
now recognized in many other disorders affecting pediatric patients.
2001 meta-analysis of 12 prospective studies that met
preestablished criteria found that exclusive breastfeeding
for at least 3 months was protective against the development of asthma between 2 and 5 years of age (OR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.60 – 0.81).34 The effect of breastfeeding
was even stronger when the analysis was limited to
children from families with a history of atopic disease
Hey, thanks mike for the information and for your humbleness. Its appreciated.
It is rather interesting how the authorities view human raw milk as good and safe and necessary but raw cows milk as a dangerous evil straight from the pit of hell.
When Mary Martin shows up in the Nevada legislature to assist the FDA in killing Nevada raw milk legislation so Nevada moms can feed their families and not drive 400 miles to get raw milk over state lines....you know what is going on here. It is sick and it is pathetic. Most of all it shows a lack of ability to let it go. Just like all paychecks....you do not ever let go if you continue to get paid for it!!
It has been seven years Mary...let it go. Tens of thousands of people have discovered that clean safe raw milk is on a shelf down the street in a CA store and it makes their asthma and excema get better and their Crohns resolve. Raw Milk improves and saves lives!!! There are no other pharma treatments that do this!! All others have huge side effects including death and lots of death.
Raw milk CDC score still zero deaths since 1972.
Pasteurized milk CDC deaths at least 70 since 1972.
Pasteurized milk is the MOST ALLERGENIC food in America with at least 8 dead kids since 1998.
Yes, it has been 7 years since Chris became ill. Since that time there have been 18 more children who have developed HUS after drinking contaminated raw milk. This is not about Chris, but you haven't figured that out yet. It is about all the parents who are told raw milk is healthy and not a risk for children to drink. It is BS. I guess you really don't care that your milk has caused 5 children kidney damage?
Here's the thing Mark, all the people who have children with milk issues, they can just have their children stop drinking milk altogether and give them a reliable brand of probiotics. The majority of children in the world do not consume cow's milk.
And I'm laughing about the payment part. Who do you think is paying me? It is ludicrous. I have never received any money from anyone to speak out against giving children raw milk.
Mary, is there a more reliable pro-biotic than raw milk? How do you explain this: These numbers come directly from a resent CDC report on a cucumbers, salmonella outbreak. It is a typical example of what the CDC passes off as a so call out break of foodborne illness.
1. Illness; diarrhea and not cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, lactose intolerance etc. Aren't these what the public would naturally assume the state is referring to when they say illness?
2. Food; only agricultural commodities and not canned food, cakes, cookies, candy, soda, chocolate milk etc. They are totally ignoring the really toxic foods that make up the majority of our diet. They actually have us afraid of spinach and sprouts, two of the healthiest foods on the planet.
3. Outbreak; 73 cases in 3 months, while the nearly 300 million other cases of diarrhea in this country are not even acknowledged. The average American gets diarrhea 3 times a year.
4. Association; cucumbers, because 67% of the 45 ill interviewed ate cucumbers while only 44% of the well people surveyed ate cucumbers and not because of any actual Salmonella contamination found.
5. Blame; 2 Mexican producers because 6 of the 45 ill interviewed eat their cucumbers and not because of any actual Salmonella contamination found.
I wish everyone could see how absurd this is? DATCP has redefined adulteration and misbranding(it now means the exact opposite of what the consumer would assume). They have redefined milk(It no longer means fresh.) They have redefined the dairy industry(Which no longer includes the dairy farmer.) They have redefined themselves and they have redefined the term food safety.
1. I didn't drink the milk because I was on a cleansing diet. I do this every summer when I'm on summer break from work. Even if I wasn't on a cleanse, I don't consume dairy. (I saw a poster that would change our lives forever. Organic Pasture Dairy Company was advertising raw milk, suggesting relief from lactose intolerance, digestive disorders and asthma. I remembered reading (30 years ago) that raw milk was somehow healthier than pasteurized milk.)(I drank raw milk and consumed raw milk cheese for about a year in my early 20's.)
Yah....you should never give raw cows milk to children....tell that to the Hundus.
Does anyone know who said DATCP had given exemptions from regulation to other businesses in the past so why couldn't they exempt Vernon Hershberger?
I tried to post a response on the biased article....do not see it yet.
I was filtered. It is obviously an article with an agenda. Just another FDA hit job.
The markets tell the truth and the real trends. Pasteurized milk is so great that it is dying at 2 % per year....regardless of the millions brilliantly spent to promote it...now that is a true measure of success!!!
We can talk and talk....but we should all watch the consumer dollar voting data. This data reflects exactly what the consumers own gut experience & personal experiments reveal. Raw milk is digestible and non allergenic. You can not fake real.
I feel we need a bigger presence online. Folks, publish your rebuttals in as many places online as you can, to get the real information out, linking back to that story by title so the trackbacks will show up. In general, there are so few pro-raw-milk related websites out there, compared to the number of anti-raw-milk ones. Set up a free blog, buy a domain name (optional, but they only cost ~$10/yr), and/or set up a website (you can get a good package that lets you host several websites at once, at $50/yr and less, often including a domain name and also content management software to create your own website w/o having to learn HTML). Lots of free advice online about optimizing sites for search engines. We must network and get the word out!
Similarly on Twitter -- there is a determined effort by anti-raw-milk activists to constantly flood twitter with their posts, including repeatedley tweeting things like "Another #rawmilk outbreak in [location] sickens [random number]" several times a day when the actual (raw milk related or not) "outbreak" occurred years ago -- they know that people will read their tweet and believe that the outbreak is happening right now. So they keep the level of public paranoia up about raw milk by this constant barrage. Twitter has a lot of street-cred these days - news agencies, universities, researchers, etc. are now all using it as a primary source of communication. Here is the CDC's own page for instructing its staff on how to use Twitter: http://www.cdc.gov/socialmedia/tools/guidelines/pdf/microblogging.pdf .
Mark here uses Twitter very well, but are the rest of us "in there too" using the hashtags #rawmilk #freshmilk #publichealth #foodsafety #cdc #foodfreedom etc. to get the word out? You can even tweet directly to the CDC by putting their twitter name "@CDCgov" in your post (similarly messaging state governments and politicians which have twitter accounts too). This is very new to many, but you can dash off a tweet from your computer or a smart-phone in seconds, so it's often a very quick way to get your message "out there."
"I just looked at the 4 comments posted after the article. 3 of the 4 from pro raw milk people." Yes, but their CONTENT is broad, and of no specific substance. BTW all, my comment wasn't posted either on that web-site. So there is no doubt that it is being filtered big time!
I just tried to post two more short benign comments...."no joy" as we pilots say.
I get the impression that the Science Blog system moderator has blocked all new comments and it has gone cold. Why open the truth gates to all of us Raw Milk educators and increase teaching traffic???
The science blog wouldn't take any of my comments either, no surprise.
The person who appears to be sponsoring the students who post is Tara C. Smith. She is supposedly an instructor. The web site doesn't state what school these supposed students are enrolled at and the web site states in partnership with National Geographic. I did google her name, if it is the same person, she is a prof at the univ of Iowa.
I do recall when I was in college, if you wrote a paper that was not what the instructor believed/liked, you'd get a low grade. I had 2 professors like that.
Since the 19th was the last post in regards to the students paper, I would assume they closed further posts as the 3 of the 4 posts were pro raw milk. Tsk tsk they went against the school/ instructor. No discussions allowed!
Mary, please do tell us where your money comes from and how you make a living. You don't have to or plead the 5th, but It would greatly help us understand you better. You do have cost of life bills to pay like the rest of us right?
I could answer the question, but then I'd have to snap your neck like a twig. You know how the CIA operates. LOL For the last 20 years, my cover job has been a school counselor.
I actually planted the E.coli pathogen at OPDC....twice.
Mary McGonigle, you said "1. I didn't drink the milk because I was on a cleansing diet. I do this every summer when I'm on summer break from work. Even if I wasn't on a cleanse, I don't consume dairy." but then you said "I saw a poster that would change our lives forever. Organic Pasture Dairy Company was advertising raw milk, suggesting relief from lactose intolerance, digestive disorders and asthma. I remembered reading (30 years ago) that raw milk was somehow healthier than pasteurized milk." If you believed them why didn't you then try the milk yourself? Then you said "I drank raw milk and consumed raw milk cheese for about a year in my early 20's." Did you drink it or did you just hear about it 30 years ago when you were in your 20's? Which is it? How long was your cleansing diet? Couldn't you have put it off for a few weeks? Didn't you Googled raw milk?
Mary, I love the family picture of you and your son. It's beautiful. Of course the hospital pictures bring to mind some of my own unpleasant run-ins with our medical system.
One in seven to one in three admissions are injured by preventable medical mistakes.
Before I say anything else I must address your selfishness. By advocating the banning of raw milk you are attempting to deprive others, without your resources and knowledge of nutrition, of Americas cheapest simplest and most complete health-food for their families. Are you familiar with the statistic, "the average American gets diarrhea three times a year"? Doesn't that work out to like 313 million cases every 4 months? Do you really think 12 case should be called an outbreak?
Next, I'd like to skip ahead to gluten intolerance. Have you heard about the new semi-dwarf high yield wheat developed thirty years ago. It is actually an early form of genetic modification. All wheat products now contain this new gene. It is addictive and very toxic. Have you tried spelt or any of the other old wheats.
You know Mary, in Wisconsin there is no organic pastures and there is no advertising and the state says raw milk is illegal yet the CDC says there are just as many raw milk consumers here as in California where raw milk is said to be legal. In Wisconsin we don't base our decision whether or not to try raw milk on a shiny add campaign or on contradictory unfounded accusations from competitors with a major conflict of interest like the CDC, FDA, DATCP, and the cheese and medical industries. Ours is based on first hand information and creditable Internet information. Of course once we try raw milk the decision to continue it's consumption is based on our own personal confirmation of may of the claimed benefits of raw milk plus many of our own observations. I didn't grow up on raw milk so I know the difference.
While I'm thinking about it. Have you given any thought to the possibility that for the most part obesity and ADD may be imaginary disorders? Have you ever questioned your motives when labeling one of your students as having ADD especially considering the possibility they could be medicated? Have you experienced or heard of any of the health issues associated with weight loss?
Oh, and by the way, what's your point about cow manure? Cow manure used as a wound dressing saved my fathers leg twice. Once as a child on the farm and once in Korea.
Mary, I love the family picture of you and your son. It's beautiful. Of course the hospital pictures bring to mind some of my own unpleasant run-ins with our medical system.
One in seven to one in three admissions are injured by preventable medical mistakes.
Before I say anything else I must address your selfishness. By advocating the banning of raw milk you are attempting to deprive others, without your resources and knowledge of nutrition, of Americas cheapest simplest and most complete health-food for their families. The question of bacterial contamination is completely moot since the average American gets diarrhea three times a year and none of our food regulations have ever or will ever address that.
Next, I'd like to skip ahead to gluten intolerance. Have you heard about the new semi-dwarf high yield wheat developed thirty years ago. It is actually an early form of genetic modification. All wheat products now contain this new gene. It is addictive and very toxic. Have you tried spelt or any of the other old wheats.
You know Mary, in Wisconsin there is no organic pastures and there is no advertising and the state says raw milk is illegal yet the CDC says there are just as many raw milk consumers here as in California where raw milk is said to be legal. In Wisconsin we don't base our decision whether or not to try raw milk on a shiny add campaign or on contradictory unfounded accusations from competitors with a major conflict of interest like the CDC, FDA, DATCP, and the cheese and medical industries. Ours is based on first hand information and creditable Internet information. Of course once we try raw milk the decision to continue it's consumption is based on our own personal confirmation of may of the claimed benefits of raw milk plus many of our own observations. I didn't grow up on raw milk so I know the difference.
While I'm thinking about it. Have you given any thought to the possibility that for the most part obesity and ADD may be imaginary disorders? Have you ever questioned your motives when labeling one of your students as having ADD especially considering the possibility they could be medicated? Have you experienced or heard of any of the health issues associated with weight loss?
Oh, and by the way healthy cows have healthy manure. Cow manure used as a wound dressing saved my fathers leg twice. Once as a child on the farm and once in Korea.
If you are not familiar with this youngster, then you are in for a real treat! Check him out here: http://www.birkeonthefarm.com/about-birke-baehr.html This young man will go far and is a great example of how a young person can advocate for real food!
Thanks for the link to Berke Baehr on the farm.
On another topic:
Science, Medicine
1. Uffe Ravnskov M.D. Ph.D., authored "The Cholesterol Myths" exposing mistakes, overweening ineptitude and follow-on avarice, both continuing and on a grand scale at that. But. Ravnskov is M.D. and Ph.D. There is a reason for the saying "don't throw the baby out with the bath water." Science is beautiful. Blind acceptance of every statement of someone wearing a white lab coat and sporting a stethoscope is unwise even if you have been thoroughly conditioned that way.
2. Joel Wallach, D.V.M., N.D. points out in a 24 min interview segment with Benjamin Fuchs that failing livers will rebuild themselves completely without medical intervention if they are supplied properly through nutrition, the principal, but not the only necessary nutrient, being selenium. There is a lot to think about. I found this interview segment here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cml_LRZgOHM
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
Lol. Very funny.....kinda...
I dream of someday sitting down with Mary and showing her our book of bacteria tests and the RAWMilk bible we have that contains thousands of thank you letters and testimonials praising OP products for saving or improving lives....Asthma, crohns, GI illness, bone density, dental improvements, excema, all better or gone....then I wake up in a cold sweat and realize it was just a dream....but I can hope!
The passion of anti raw milk fervor carried by Mary would serve our mission so well if it was only on our side. I do respect Mary's passion....and tenacious biting at our ankles. It has made me do things like found RAWMI and submit 500 page Citizens Petitions to the FDA, present more than 400 "Share the Secret" in person raw milk presentations all over CA, the US and Canada since 2007. Her persistence has been a motivating and driving force of good....to make me a better Raw Milk Dairyman. Lemons to organic lemonade is by karmal theory.
Thank you Mary....now if I can just get those pesky ankle bites to heal.
Mark, do you think the number of members in a cow share that provides direct farm sales effects the pathogen count on the farm? If so is this something you have addressed?
Different points of view… Yes.
Balanced information…No.
TPTB care little about informed choice, it is either their way or the highway.
Those who have experienced the benefits of drinking raw milk far outweigh those who claim they have been harmed by it.
who: rawmilkmike | when: Fri, 06/21/2013 – 15:56 - real questions
who: Mary McGonigle | when: Fri, 06/21/2013 – 22:29 - Mary's CIA joke(I'm assuming)
Amen Ken,
There is some evidence that suggests that TB can be carried by humans and transmitted to cows...but you need to be very intimate with a cow to make this human bovine transfer....kissing cows is not my thing!
I have no information that suggests that the number of members of a cow share is related to pathogens found in that cow shares milk. That being said, if all the members of a cow share share in the milking of the cows....this definitely is related to the difficulty of consistent milking practices. When twenty people milk a cow the practices can be quite different than one or two people that follow the same exact routine. I have seen this repeatedly. I have not however seen a positive pathogen test that is correlated with this issue. I have seen gross variance in coliform numbers when many people milk a cow and use different practices...confuses the heck out of the cow as well.
Nevada ACLU Backing Suit Against 'Patient Dumping'
By KEN RITTER Associated Press
LAS VEGAS June 12, 2013 (AP)
A psychiatric patient has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in Nevada accusing state officials of giving him a one-way bus ticket to Northern California, where he arrived, scared and disoriented, without money and identification in a city where he didn't know anyone and had never been.
Does anyone have any idea how Vernon Hershberger managed to get a jury trial? David said it was the charge of violating the hold order that required a jury trial. Am I understanding this correctly? DATCP was smart enough not to charge Vernon with selling raw milk. Wouldn't they have known that charging Vernon on the hold order violation would put them behind the eight ball? Was it, arrogance, ignorance, a desirer to spend a week in the Dells(famous Wisconsin vacation spot down the road from the Baraboo courthouse) or do we have an inside man on our side. I'm really confused.
Today's Modern Food: It's not what you think, from 2011, good information to share.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhhnHA8c_Y0 Part 1 @20 minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R1ixshimfM Part 2 @ 13 minutes
Check out this video. It's hilarious. Siamese twins joined at the wallet. Statistical contortionism.
I am connected to the intelligence services??? What the heck are you saying? RAWMI has LISTED three micro dairies. Does that sound like an enemy to small producers? Just because some Cow Shares want complete secrecy and RAWMI and OPDC believe in total transparency and total engagement in our effort to change current regulations and laws, does not mean that somehow I am an enemy to Cow Shares. Perhaps my greatest disappointments in the raw milk community is the division and lack of unity practiced by some.
I believe in total engagement....I believe in total transparency. That means, showing up, standing up and speaking up....proudly. No hiding , no secrecy.
The hiders are shameful in my book of karma
Mark - I think you mean Pete & not Ken....it was Pete that wrote the derogatory post about you. All I have to say to him is, thank goodness to you I am able to benefit from the hard work that you, your family & your workers do!! There's no one here in San Diego that are willing and/or able to provide me with nutritious raw milk & raw milk products that I need for my health!
There are old pilots and there are bold pilots but there are no old bold pilots.
Look, a non-denial denial.
I said you were hostile to small independents. And even in your denial of that you can't but help denigrate and despise them. It really goads you that they won't fall in line doesn't it?
I do not know the extent or non-extent of Mark's present connections to the intelligence community. But it is there and its documented in the archives of this blog. I don't have time to look it up. It goes back to his father. I'm just saying its plausible. Especially in light of his push for the cow shares to submit to state regulation.
Its not that they want complete secrecy. They rightly do not seek the limelight for fear of persecution. And they are just in their stand to not bend the knee to government and submit to government regulation. Regulation by the same government who would shut them down if they could. Like Vernon Hershberger they stand on their natural rights.
You however, push subjugation to the authorities.
OPDC interested in total transparency. Thats a laugh. I've been on this blog long enough to see how thats played out over the years.
"division and lack of unity" translation: they won't fall in lock step behind our attempts to guide and control the movement.
BC, I agree, grass fed A2 raw milk produced using best practices is best but I think the only way to make raw milk dangerous is to feed the cows ethanol swill, to add chemicals to it, or to pasteurize it.
"Why is it that Europe can do it and we can't?" Maybe in Europe dairy isn't as big a threat to these people so they started with the vitamin supplement industry instead.
Mark, I love your pro-raw milk stuff but you have to expect resistance to RAWMI and to OPDC selling raw milk outside California. How is RAWMI going to help change the law? Raw milk is a threat to Big Cheese and to Big Pharma because it's too safe and too beneficial to your health not because it needs any kind of improvement. It's hard to get much more transparent than direct farm sales.
Often it it hard to know when to trust and when to be paranoid.
The very good and hungry people of Arizona want raw milk. Sprouts stores all over Arizona want to carry OPDC raw milk just like the Sprouts stores in CA that carry raw milk. But the FDA refuses to allow interstate commerce of raw milk. So...the people of Arizona starve.
There are no producers in Arizona willing to place their raw milk into stores so people can buy.
The producers in Arizona sell off the farm and few if any sell in any stores. Refriguerated trucks could care less if they drive from Fresno to San Diego or Fresno to Phoenix. There is about a two hour difference.
As far as pilots are concerned...it is better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than in the air wishing that you were on the ground. Been there....that is one of the reasons that there are few old bold pilots and many more old pilots that learned from others.
Let me say this once again. RAWMI is LISTING several CA Cow Share operations in the next 60 days and even a small raw dairy operation in New Mexico. We feed all and serve all producers. There are no raw milk producers that we consider competition. A good raw milk producer is a teacher and that makes us all brothers in a single effort....nourishing and feeding people. This effort expands markets....there is no competition, only nutritional heroism in the face of detractors and Food Inc greed and jealousy.
I will let our actions speak louder than any words.
The idea that raw milk producers, no matter how small, can stay hidden and off-radar is a myth. We were about as off-radar as one can be...with 2 cows and 7 co-owners, all very close family friends who milked the cows with us. We never adverstised, did not operate for profit, did not have a web page, didn't blog, didn't Facebook....and a dairy inspector showed up un-announced at my door saying that we were suspected of running an unlicensed dairy.
No raw milk producer is obligated to work with RAWMI. And herdshares and family-cow owners can certainly try to maintain their privacy. I'm just not convinced that the regulators are going to respect it. Apparantly, our practices were already "transparent" to the regulators. And if TPTB already know where we are and think they know what we are doing, I would prefer that they get their facts straight. I want to be the one to tell them exactly what we are doing and how great it is, rather than allowed them to speculate about what were are doing. I'm not sure we have much to lose by intentional transparency.
Shawna, who said anything about "off-radar"? But since you want to use aeronautical terms. You want them to turn on there transponders and squawk 1-800-rawmilk. How about a legal term, "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." or "signed confession".
"No raw milk producer is obligated to work with RAWMI." A Freudian slip?
Shawna, you say "I'm not sure" well neither are the rest of us. I think Mark's tone speaks volumes.
Sorry Mark. Like I said before I really love hearing you speak about raw milk.
If "regulators" cared about California - RAWMI they would have adopted them themselves. Why would they want us doing their job? Yes they "know what we are doing" selling raw milk. They don't care how. We all know this. Don't we? Of course they know "how great it is" thats why they have been ordered to eliminate it at all costs. http://youtu.be/h0CQrL5nzwo
Great post, Shawna, and you are so right. Makes you wonder at how it is that these inspectors just so happen to show up out of the blue, no matter how low these small producers attempt to stay. You bring up a very valid point...if they are going to find you then it does stand to reason to make sure "that they get their facts straight". By anticipating the inspectors' intentions and beating them to the 'punch' with straight out facts and info, the small producer can ultimately 'turn' the tables on them.
"And if TPTB already know where we are and think they know what we are doing, I would prefer that they get their facts straight. I want to be the one to tell them exactly what we are doing and how great it is, rather than allowed them to speculate about what were are doing. I'm not sure we have much to lose by intentional transparency."
You can't appease fascism, including today's corporatist variety. No matter what one tells them, they'll continue to "speculate", i.e. invent, anything they like. As you say, probably correctly, you were fully transparent to them in the first place, and it made no difference.
I agree that this movement needs intentional transparency. Indeed this transparency is one of the core premises of Community Food which renders it vastly more healthy in every way than the corporate food system. Trying to hide in a hole will not work, and is unworthy of human beings.
But this transparency is for the people, not for the government. It's for eaters and the public, not for the corporatist thugs.
In the end, the people must decide whether the corporate food system, including the false notion that a central government has any practical or sovereign basis for regulating food (a sector which is naturally local/regional) is "legitimate" or not. So far everyone's action is to implicitly concede the legitimacy of this thing which, so far as I can see, has nothing but tyrannical intent and the practical effect of creating a massive bottleneck for the force and innovation of the rising Community Food sector.
Welcome to the surveillance state. But Mark's idea that we can't hide and therefore aught to submit to government regulation is nonsensical and defeatist. It does not follow.
Do you have a right to produce milk and provide it direct to consumers? Do consumers have a right to procure the foods of their choosing?
To submit to government licensing and regulation is to answer 'no' and affirm that these things are only government privileges. But if you think 'yes' then its none of the governments business.
Transparency with customers is good but does not equal submission to the government. Mark may push the latter but he's repeatedly fallen flat on his face with regards to the former with his own dairy.
Pete said "Transparency with customers is good but does not equal submission to the government" Which is true but depends on the context.
A small local only farm should not be subjected to the same licensing and regulation requirements as a large scale operation that has an extended distribution system and multi thousands of customers. It's all about the money, and the little guys can't afford it.
Safety in food is not guaranteed by regulation. It is not guaranteed, period. Sanitation and proper handling are paramount, but cannot be implemented except by anyone but the people who own it and/or in charge, which is why we in general tend to favor supporting small local business where we can visit the farm and know who we are dealing with and how they operate.
Why the government goes after the small local guys instead of the large scale "Marketeers" is hard to comprehend, maybe Mary or Mark can explain it since they're part of the process. And the CIA.
Why is it hard to comprehend? Corporate/industrial food and Community Food are two separate economic sectors, but the latter is a direct challenge to the former. Therefore thugs in the emply of the former, including in government, media, and academia, act to suppress the latter.
Also, politically speaking, the centralization of food production and distribution is a potent tool and weapon of system control and domination, while we the people producing and distributing our own food among ourselves is inherently anti-authoritarian and pro-democracy. So government and corporations also have that political motive.
Getting back to transparency as an ideal, it's a measure of how deep the system conformism goes that even so many people who are interested in this movement have a knee-jerk authoritarian view of transparency: That "transparency" primarily means being transparent upwards for the benefit of the government, rather than being horizontal for other producers, the customers, prospective customers, and the public.
"Why is it hard to comprehend? Corporate/industrial food and Community Food are two separate economic sectors, but the latter is a direct challenge to the former. "
Russ, maybe I used the wrong word. I think most of us here do understand and comprehend the basics but, how can the people involved in the government oppression justify their actions and live at peace with themselves? Transparency is only for people with nothing to hide.
Just wait, pretty soon it will also become illegal to harvest your own rainwater because well, if it hasn't been tested then it is not safe for consumption or sharing or giving to children - same as milk. Never mind that the corporate interests that would like to control that too, and are the ones poisoning it.
In various places like Colorado (where the law may have been changed, I forget), it has been illegal to harvest rainwater. Not for "safety" reasons, but because rainwater was called "property" that was already spoken for before it fell.
Meanwhile, the Food Control Act and the FDA regime which is slated to follow from it does indeed intend to impose onerous regulations on the watering of produce, for "safety" reasons. It may not criminalize harvesting rainwater, but they intend to make it as legally difficult as possible to use it for irrigation.
I agree Ora. But the relevant point here is that what CDFA and Mark are trying to do is bring that regulation to the small local farm who doesn't need it. Governmental regulation is all consuming and ever spreading. It can't leave any sector alone. And when it can't take over overly it will do it covertly. Think RAWMI = Bar Association. Its not there yet but thats the groundwork being laid.
I agree, "Government regulation is all consuming and ever spreading". Their favorite tactic is Machiavellian in nature and whether overt or covert, is to give the impression that we actually have a say and play a part in the implementation of the various regulations they dream up. The process is otherwise known as lip service.
Go Shawna!! It is a mind set of excellence and service to your share drinkers.
Medical schools are against anything healthy. Drug companies are against alternative medicine. These guys have been trying for years and have nearly succeeded in banning vitamins all over the world. Veterinarian schools are against anything organic. Cheese companies are against higher raw milk prices. The state represents all of them and none of us. These organizations are not concerned with true food safety. These are the enemies of raw milk. These organization are the enemies of the people, all the people, even the ones that work for them, even the ones who own them. http://youtu.be/h0CQrL5nzwo
RMMike you make too much sense sometimes, thanks for your insights and commentary on here.
And then there's these special treats I just recently found for CIA Mary:
Enjoy what you wish and value = priceless.
I think this says it all since there are no "evidence-based opinions on current food safety issues" "related to food handling".
barfblog.com is where Drs. Powell, Chapman, Hubbell and assorted food safety friends offer evidence-based opinions on current food safety issues. Opinions must be evidence-based – with references – reliable and relevant. The barfblog authors edit each other, often viciously.
Breaking food safety news items that eventually appear in bites or barfblog are often posted on Twitter and Facebook for faster public notification.
Food safety infosheets are designed to influence food handler practices by utilizing four attributes culled from education, behavioral science and communication literature:
* surprising and compelling messages;
* putting actions and their consequence in context;
* generating discussion within the target audiences' environments; and
* using verbal narrative, or storytelling, as a message delivery device.
Food safety infosheets are based on stories about outbreaks of foodborne illness sourced from bites and barfblog and include the following: discussion of a foodborne illness outbreak; discussion of background knowledge of a pathogen (including symptoms, etiology and transmission); food handler control practices; and emerging food safety issues. Food safety infosheets also contain evidence-based prescriptive information to prevent or mitigate foodborne illness related to food handling.