Header graphic for print

Food Safety News

Breaking news for everyone's consumption

Publisher’s Platform: ‘Dead’ Milk vs. ‘Magic’ Milk

Opinion

“Dead Milk” 23, “Magic Milk” 202

So, who is winning?

I was asked to talk with Sally Fallon Morrell on the Kojo Nnamdi show on WAMU Public Radio in D.C. last week in what the host determined to be the “Raw Milk Wars.”  The producer who called me said that she had tried to find someone, anyone, in public health to go on the show, but everyone refused. So, she was left with me.

Sally, who has become famous for her pronouncement that raw milk is “magic” was pleasant enough, as were the host and the callers — even my friend Harry. Some of the comments on the WAMU were a bit harsh, but after two decades of being a lawyer, I am more than used to that. I especially warm to the comments by members of the “Teat Party.”

I was struck by a number of things Sally said during the show.  One assertion she said made me think I need to do the experiment she suggested of putting Campylobacter in raw milk, leaving it in the fridge for two days with the bottle cap off and, like magic, the Campylobacter disappears.

I was not at all surprised that she mentioned that between 3% of people in the U.S. consume raw milk — recent CDC’s FoodNet data supports that.  In comparison, 78.5% of people in the survey reported drinking pasteurized milk.  That is about 26 times more people drinking pasteurized milk than raw milk, so wouldn’t you expect most illnesses to be from pasteurized milk since so few people actually drink raw milk? This gets me back to the “Dead Milk” 23, “Magic Milk” 202 score — who is winning?

I have been keeping track of “Outbreaks, Illnesses and Recalls Linked to Raw (Unpasteurized) and Pasteurized Dairy Products, United States since January 1, 2010 – July 30, 2011.”  Here is the breakdown:

Outbreaks

-18 raw dairy outbreaks with 202 illnesses, 24 hospitalizations, and no deaths (16 fluid raw milk, 2 aged raw milk cheese)

– pasteurized dairy outbreak with 23 illnesses, 2 hospitalizations, and no deaths

– queso fresco Mexican-style cheese outbreak with 5 illnesses and hospitalizations, no deaths

– sporadic illnesses and hospitalizations from illegal Mexican-style cheese, no deaths

Recalls (no illnesses reported)

– 1 raw dairy (5 fluid raw milk, 6 aged raw milk cheese)

– queso fresco Mexican-style cheese

– chocolate milk due to inadequate pasteurization

– imported Italian cheese made from pasteurized milk

I know, I know David, some of the raw milk outbreaks and recalls are from raw milk that is intended to be pasteurized, but someone simply could not wait and drank the milk raw.  However, many of the above outbreaks and recalls involved raw milk truly intended to be consumed that way, and the outbreaks and recalls still happened.  Some have also suggested to me that if the cows or goats had been fed grass only, they would be free of pathogens.  This is clearly untrue because most of the “real milk” outbreaks came from grassfed animals on pasture on small, family farms.  Given the amount of pasteurized milk and cheese consumed in the U.S. yearly versus the amount of raw milk and cheese consumed, 23 illnesses (although unacceptable) from heat-treated milk sure seems like the winning side when the raw milk side is sickening 202.

I am sure that David, Young Bill or Sally might well dispute the numbers above or claim the outbreaks did not happen, or the recalls were not necessary, or there is simply a grand conspiracy to try and pry the glass of raw milk or slice of cheese out of their cold dead hands. That is a debate public health should be engaged in.

There was one assertion — well, lie — that Sally made that I cannot let pass.  She flatly said that the 2006 E. coli O157:H7 outbreak that sickened two of my clients severely was not linked to Organic Pastures Dairy raw milk — Sally, it was.  Here are the facts — not the “magic:”

On Sept. 18, 2006, the California Department of Health Services (CDHS) opened an investigation into a possible outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 infections after receiving reports of two patients who had been hospitalized with HUS. One was culture-confirmed as infected with E. coli O157:H7. Interviews revealed that both patients had consumed unpasteurized cow milk sold by Organic Pastures in the week prior to the onset of illness.

In the following days, four additional cases of E. coli O157:H7 were identified. All of the additional cases had consumed raw milk or raw cow product sold by Organic Pastures. Isolates of the E. coli O157:H7 cultured from the five culture-positive patients had indistinguishable “genetic fingerprints,” as determined by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) testing. These PFGE patterns were new to the national PulseNet database. In other words, the pattern associated with all of these children was unique, and had not been seen before in conjunction with any other outbreaks of E. coli O157:H7. In addition, the PFGE pattern differed markedly from the patterns associated with the outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 associated with Dole fresh-bagged baby spinach that had peaked a few weeks prior to these illnesses.

CDHS conducted an epidemiological and environmental investigation of the cluster of illnesses. A review of 50 consecutive E. coli O157:H7 cases reported to CDHS from October 2004 to June 2006 revealed that 46 of 47 cases asked about raw milk consumption reported no raw milk consumption. In contrast, five of the six patients in the cluster being investigated reported definite consumption of Organic Pastures raw dairy products. The sixth denied consuming the raw milk, but his family routinely consumed Organic Pastures raw milk during the suspected time frame. Two of the children (one that was stool culture negative for E. coli O157:H7) developed hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS).

The California Department of Food and Agriculture conducted an environmental investigation. As part of the investigation, fecal samples were collected from dairy cows at Organic Pastures. E. coli O157:H7 was isolated from five of the samples, although the PFGE patterns differed from the pattern associated with the outbreak. Testing of Organic Pastures product revealed abnormally high aerobic plate counts and fecal coliform counts. CDHS ultimately concluded: “the source of infection for these children was likely raw milk products produced by the dairy.”  The CDC published this report in 2008.

And, if you want to dig deeper into that outbreak, see this post: “Organic Pastures Dairy E. coli O157:H7 Raw Milk Product Outbreak 2006.”  Download the documents, read them and realize that the defendant had no response — no facts and no experts to support Sally’s contention that the illnesses were caused by spinach.  Given that all of the six consumed Organic Pastures raw milk and not all of the six consumed spinach and none of them consumed Dole spinach, it is time for Sally to stop the big lie.

It is past time for the raw milk industry — yes, you are an industry — to embrace the facts and embrace the truth about raw milk outbreaks.  It is time to put the conspiracy theories away and learn from mistakes.  Learning is the only way to avoid being on the losing side of outbreaks and that is something we all can agree is worth it.

For more information about raw milk, visit www.realrawmilkfacts.com or see our poster, which  we are presenting at IAFP.

© Food Safety News
  • sbemis

    Bill, I thought the opportunity for you and Sally to speak publicly in the same forum was an important step in the evolving raw milk dialogue. This kind of head-to-head exchange, conducted with restraint by both parties, can only help.

  • Cindy Meredith

    I’m glad you were able to speak with Sally Fallon in a public venue. While I am a proponent of much of her dietary guidelines, and do occasionally consume raw dairy, I’m still very interested in the science and the on-going debate.

  • Doc Mudd

    You may be right, Bemis. We may be gradually moving closer to the truth, at last.
    The radio dialogue and Bill Marler’s further elaboration on the 2006 OPDC e.coli outbreak reminds us that truth, like innocent food consumers, need protection from charlatans.
    OPDC is irrefutably part of food poisoning history (not exactly a proud accomplishment, not something one would write home to mother about).
    Sally’s preposterous denial of that proven fact convincingly suggests that OPDC, with its literally millions of $$$$ in annual profits is, perhaps, an influential financial supporter of WAPF. Imagine a symbiosis, of sorts; WAPF disseminates deliberately deceptive advertising of false medical claims…and OPDC (carefully maintaining the illusion of an arms-length association with WAPF) profits handsomely from resulting sales without FTC/FDA interference over unproven health and safety claims for the product.
    And, make no mistake, there are $$$millions$$$ on the table:
    http://www.marlerblog.com/legal-cases/two-raw-milks—one-for-the-pasteurizer-and-one-in-the-raw/
    Turns out there’s a heck of a lot of money at stake in this raw milk business (roughly $7.3 million per year flowing into OPDC, alone!). And a lot of it is cash business – no bothersome customer records kept, as we learned from the recent Tucker Adkins food poisoning outbreak:
    http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/07/tests-negative-at-sc-raw-milk-dairy-linked-to-outbreak/
    That certainly explains all the desperate zany antics by raw milkies to woo the states and keep the feds out of their hair. Hell, it’s no different from any other commercial industry, after all. All that ‘struggling small farmers bottling love and magic in a milk jug’ nonsense is all a big, elaborate, dangerous con to separate fools from their money.
    Samuel Hopkins Adams must be spinning in his grave.
    http://www.museumofquackery.com/ephemera/oct7-01.htm

  • Please do complete your campylobacter experimentation and fill us in. I’m intrigued!

  • Jarvis

    Hi,
    Your article reads with a child-like bias, and your rhetoric is fully of logical holes which even a cursory read will reveal:
    “I know, I know David, some of the raw milk outbreaks and recalls are from raw milk that is intended to be pasteurized, but someone simply could not wait and drank the milk raw.”
    -How MANY of the outbreaks were due to such sources? You would not expect raw milk intended to be pasteurized to come from grass-fed cows. Not only that, but no one should ever drink it and suggesting Sally is advocating that is wrong.
    “However, many of the above outbreaks and recalls involved raw milk truly intended to be consumed that way, and the outbreaks and recalls still happened.”
    -Huh. How many? You don’t supply that data, so your credibility suffers.
    “ome have also suggested to me that if the cows or goats had been fed grass only, they would be free of pathogens. This is clearly untrue because most of the “real milk” outbreaks came from grassfed animals on pasture on small, family farms.”
    -Again, you fail to provide the data showing that most of the outbreaks came from grass-fed operations who never intended to pasteurize their milk.
    Even then, your argument doesn’t succeed. Anybody can get a cow and sell its milk raw. We already know that raw milk takes more effort to get right than pasteurized milk. There is no fair comparison with the raw numbers because of incompetent raw milk dairies, which exist just the same as incompetent operations in any field.
    Lastly,
    “The California Department of Food and Agriculture conducted an environmental investigation. As part of the investigation, fecal samples were collected from dairy cows at Organic Pastures. E. coli O157:H7 was isolated from five of the samples, although the PFGE patterns differed from the pattern associated with the outbreak.”
    -You should have said, “Even the California Department of Food and Agriculture couldn’t prove that the outbreak was caused by Organic Pastures’ cows’ milk.” First of all, they tested the cow’s FECES, not its milk. People aren’t eating the feces, they are drinking the milk. To prove that the milk caused the disease you need to find the bacteria in the milk. It turns out that the distinctive bacteria which you go to great lengths to describe in the paragraph above, wasn’t found in the feces either. This means you’ve demonstrated nothing about this case.
    The fact is that you and everyone else appear afraid to test Sally’s hypothesis: the proof is in the clabber. Put your pasteurized milk out on a shelf for a week and then come back to me and tell me it’s all right to drink and won’t make you sick.
    Get a life.

  • mmconiglemartin

    Jarvis,
    The two children in the 2006 OPDC outbreak drank the raw milk over Labor Day Weekend? That year Labor Day was September 4th. The CDHS investigation began on September 18th—14 days later. The milk at the dairy and on the shelves that was tested was two weeks after the fact. Also, they didn’t start testing the cows at the diary until almost 2 months after the fact. If you read the documents you can find all of these dates.
    So, they didn’t find that matching blueprint in the milk or on the farm, but 6 children, some living hundreds of miles from each other, all became ill and the only thing that had in common was consuming OPDC raw milk products. Do the math on that coincidence?

  • Doc Mudd

    Raw milk: just in case you don’t already have enough stupid, risky ideas.
    Cut through the profiteering voodoo crap and get the medical facts at:
    http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com

  • Jervis – here is the piece that I wrote about the two milks:
    http://www.marlerblog.com/legal-cases/two-raw-milks—one-for-the-pasteurizer-and-one-in-the-raw/
    If you would take the time to look at the list of recalls and outbreaks, you will see that I did a pretty fair job outlining the type of dairy involved:
    http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2010-to-2011-Dairy-Table-July-30.pdf
    Re the OP 2006 E. coli outbreak. Take the time to see this post and download all the links:
    http://www.marlerblog.com/lawyer-oped/organic-pastures-dairy-e-coli-o157h7-raw-milk-product-outbreak-2006/
    Then call up Mark and Sally and see if they have really any evidence to refute any of it. They don’t.

  • Steve Bemis

    Bill, I thought the opportunity for you and Sally to speak publicly in the same forum was an important step in the evolving raw milk dialogue. This kind of head-to-head exchange, conducted with restraint by both parties, can only help.

  • bachcole

    Bill Marler, you are not counting the people who got better from drinking raw milk and the people who got or remained sick from drinking pasteurized milk. Any raw milk advocate who is not stupid knows that confinement dairy milk SHOULD be pasteurized.
    Furthermore, it barely matters. We demand that government respect our right to drink whatever milk we want, since it is a God-given right, and if they don’t we will vote them out of power. Don’t tread on us.

  • Mary McGonigle-Martin

    Jarvis,
    The two children in the 2006 OPDC outbreak drank the raw milk over Labor Day Weekend? That year Labor Day was September 4th. The CDHS investigation began on September 18th—14 days later. The milk at the dairy and on the shelves that was tested was two weeks after the fact. Also, they didn’t start testing the cows at the diary until almost 2 months after the fact. If you read the documents you can find all of these dates.
    So, they didn’t find that matching blueprint in the milk or on the farm, but 6 children, some living hundreds of miles from each other, all became ill and the only thing that had in common was consuming OPDC raw milk products. Do the math on that coincidence?

  • Jonesy

    Now Mr. Mudd is talking about deception and profiteering and calling for the food police. Is it the same person? wow!
    More to the issue, France and Germany regulate, monitor, label and test the heck of raw milk products. Sure, there are more deaths but society and consumers are well aware of the dangers and seem willing to risk it mostly because of taste.
    For a developed country it seems peculiarly american that some US consumers want to produce and drink the raw stuff willy-nilly but want little controls. Is the insistence on drinking without protection perhaps partly due to a puritan, rebellious streak?

  • I read both the post and the dialogue with interest. But it is easy to become focused on the rather emotional fluid milk issue, whereas most recalls and illnesses from raw dairy in North America are actually associated with raw milk cheese.
    I looked at ten recalls of raw milk cheese in the last ten months of 2010 (my blog post of 12/22/10: “Is Cheese our Most Dangerous Food?”). And, as Bill Marler points out, there have been more since then – including several in cheese that had been aged for 60 days according to current regulations. True, some of the bacteria may have entered in the cheese-making facility. But many were there already, in that nice “pure” milk, including from grass-fed cattle.
    I have to admit that I took the issue rather lightly, until I had a very healthy and athletic acquaintance die from consuming raw milk cheese.

  • So answer me this raw milk proponents, if there are such curative properties and it has such benefits that it outweighs the risks why did we start pasteurizing in the first place? Surely all my colleagues in the public health field would have discovered this wonder drug and have been preaching its value for the last 30 years?
    I can cure some people with just placebo’s also, that doesn’t prove that placebo’s are a cure. There have been NO, let me repeat that, NO scientifically verified studies that prove your hypothesis that raw milk can cure certain diseases. So stop the snake oil sales pitch.
    Stop feeding raw milk to those that can’t make an informed choice, children. And stop making this out to be a matter of freedom of choice it’s not. If milk was banned then it would be but saying that if you can’t drink “raw milk” your right to choose is violated is just a red herring because there are no added benefits to raw milk. But you go ahead and keep believing that there are and the tooth fairy is real.

  • comeback

    I’ve been reading FSN and Marler Blog for a while now and really appreciate the discussions about raw milk (and the lively comments!) I really appreciate the work Bill Marler takes on to help protect the consumer.
    I’ve posted some of the info below at FSN and Marler Blog recently, and would like to post here, because I know it represents the thoughts and feelings of MANY raw milk people.
    Living milk (RAW) heals, and promotes life and healing. It contains contains naturally ocurring PROBIOTICS (beneficial bacteria which destroy harmful bacteria). Dead (non-probiotic), diseased milk (PASTEURIZED) sickens, and promotes disease and physical degeneration. The important key is that to be safe, raw milk must come from properly pasture raised, grassfed (NOT GRAIN as this makes cows sick-with sick milk!)cows who are carefully taken care of. Naturaly, this costs a fair amount of money to produce. Greed must be kept out of the equation. This is usually a small farm whose main goals are safety, cleanliness and care of animal and milk and happy customers willing to pay what these things are and really worth (more money to fairly compensate the farmer for his time and energy). Big, greedy agricorporation CAFOs and mega-dairys cheat and skip on through safety, cleanliness, true care and even use controversial(disease causing) groth hormones (rBGH) in relentless pursuit of more,ill-gotten, easier dollars. This is GREED plain and simple, it is cheating by compromising quality for dollars. The only “milk” this system can produce is DISEASED, DEAD milk and it also creates the need to pasteurize this foul, diseased fluid which is the natural result of of this GREED. Like produces like.
    Many of us will not stand for this kind of wrong any longer. We are willing to educate people about truth. We are willing to stand up to the institutions who actively try to hide this truth and put dollars before health. Many of us are willing to fight the ignorance, deciet and greed. If you care about health, truth, helping people, animals and the environment, please join us!
    I don’t know or have any connection to the other commenters. I have no financial interest at stake (I don’t produce any dairy products). It’s just that I (and a LARGE group of area locals here) have to drink black market raw milk right now (because my State is confused about the truth- thank $big agra dollar$) and will fight for the RIGHT to legally access what I believe is the healthiest RAW MILK choice for my family without having to be made to feel like a criminal. And yes, I am slightly upset that our rights are being trampled by big dollar intere$ts, aren’t you? There are millions of us. *Industry insiders- please follow your conscience, do the right thing and stand with those trying to help.
    The simple truth is that properly handled (safe protocol) Raw, live milk is PROBIOTIC (contains LIVING beneficial bacteria which destroy harmful bacteria) Pastuerized milk is DEAD and unhealthy.
    Freedom to pay extra money for extra quality: Nobody is forcing us all to buy raw, organic, high quality, healthy milk. But plenty of powerful intere$ts are trying to force us to buy pasteurized, diseased milk while trying to demonize and outlaw living, raw milk. Who is being decietful? Who is greedy? Who is pushing in a warlike fasion? Is it the big agricorporations and those who allow them (and help them) to continue thier fraudulent, greedy practices, while poisoning the public. Is it the conscientious small organic farmer providing raw, healthy milk to the knowledgeble consumer? Is it the regulatory folks who are supposed to be protecting the public? Is it the knowledgeble and healthful consumer demanding a safe, traditional, raw, living food/drink?
    *Industry insiders- please follow your conscience, do the right thing and stand with those trying to help. Look around, there is a food revolution happening. I would urge you to do further research by going to http://www.realmilk.com and http://www.westonaprice.org

  • DNADOC

    In response to the comment: “One assertion she said made me think I need to do the experiment she suggested of putting Campylobacter in raw milk, leaving it in the fridge for two days with the bottle cap off and, like magic, the Campylobacter disappears.”
    That is not an experiment; it’s anecdotal. An experiment contains an hypothesis that one attempts to disprove by having multiple appropriate controls. Also, you would have to perform the well-written experiment in multiple laboratories under the same conditions at least 30 times for statistical accuracy. Suggest that the statement be disregarded.
    In response to the statement: “I was not at all surprised that she mentioned that between 3% of people in the U.S. consume raw milk — recent CDC’s FoodNet data supports that. In comparison, 78.5% of people in the survey reported drinking pasteurized milk.”
    There’s obviously some missing data here as the respondent pool does not equal 100%. My guess is that the ‘comparison’ was to drinking no milk in addition to raw milk? Please elaborate. Suggest that the statement be disregarded.
    In response to the comment “This is clearly untrue because most of the “real milk” outbreaks came from grassfed animals on pasture on small, family farms.”
    Again, no hypothesis or controls to test this anecdotal statement. There are multiple steps beyond ‘grassfed animals’ where pathogens can enter the food supply, even for raw milk. Suggest that the statement be disregarded.
    In response to the statement: “Interviews revealed that both patients had consumed unpasteurized cow milk sold by Organic Pastures in the week prior to the onset of illness.” Two patients does not make a statistically accurate epidemiological conclusion. It’s almost a trend, but certainly not evidence.
    I stopped reading at this point. It’s pretty clear that neither side was ready to argue this topic at a scientifically relevant level.

  • Doc Mudd

    No end in sight to the quackery and snakeoil sales pitches.
    Raw milkies do love them some magic in their milk!
    Eww, aahhh, oooohhh…it’s ALIVE!! Isn’t that what they always say in B-grade movies?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8GRQHsAVjI&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkjD3D5FgmE&NR=1

  • I don’t understand why it is OK to consume many, many other things that may or may not make a person ill but not milk. People in 26 states were made ill and one died of salmonella just lately in turkey but is anyone outlawing turkey? No. Spinach with E. Coli, is it outlawed? Nope it just happened. Seems like all food is potentially dangerous to me.

  • anie

    Seeing as how all of this has been put forth by a man whose business income is rooted in the legal system (prosecuting cases based upon), it seems he might not be the most impartial person in the room upon whom to call.
    It’s not the medical community who is calling all these things “dangerous” and unsafe, now, is it? It’s the folks who make money supporting agri-business, big dairy and the lawyers.

  • Mary

    Well, as a matter of fact anie, it is the medical community who is calling raw milk unsafe. Here’s a story from earlier this year:
    http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/03/wisconsin-pediatricians-speak-out-against-raw-milk/
    The Wisconsin Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics (WIAAP) has again voiced “strong opposition” to bills that would legalize the sale of unpasteurized milk in Wisconsin, saying the measures put children at risk.
    “Simply put, this legislation would endanger kids,” said Dr.Jeff Lamont, president of the WIAAP, in a recent news release.
    Dr. Jim Conway, chair of the WIAAP Infectious Disease and Immunization committee, said, “These bills represent another attempt to undermine the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance of 1934, which has protected the public’s health for 77 years.”
    “The financial benefit to a small group of people is not worth the risk and higher health care costs to taxpayers,” said Dr. Lamont, adding that “as pediatricians we care for and protect children who cannot choose their own diets.”
    The pediatricians note that raw milk, which has not been heat-treated to kill dangerous pathogens, is known to expose consumers to foodborne illnesses caused by bacteria such as E coli, Salmonella, Listeria, Campylobacter and even tuberculosis. These bacteria are capable of causing diseases as serious as meningitis, kidney failure, severe diarrhea, bone or joint infections, and even death, and can lead to miscarriages in pregnant women.
    Conway stated, “Pasteurization has prevented countless cases of infection in children and individuals with compromised immune systems, as well as the general public. There are no scientific reasons to oppose pasteurization, but there are significant risks associated with the practice of drinking raw milk.”
    States that permit the sale of raw milk run nearly three times the risk of having raw milk-related outbreaks, the WIAAP pointed out. In 2010 alone there were 16 documented disease outbreaks caused by unpasteurized dairy products in 11 states that do permit the products.
    “Most importantly,” said Conway, “There is no scientific evidence of any health benefits to raw milk, while there are countless publications in peer-reviewed journals clearly proving the benefits of pasteurization.”
    Recent testimony by the Wisconsin Veterinary Medical Association (WVMA) also expressed opposition to the proposed law. Dr. Keith Poulsen of the WVMA said, “Grade A milk is only suitable for human consumption after pasteurization, as there are no acceptable rapid tests to identify harmful bacteria in raw milk, and even healthy cows shed bacteria in their milk.”
    Along with the Wisconsin pediatricians and veterinarians and their national organizations, multiple public health and agricultural health agencies oppose the sale of unpasteurized milk products, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, NMC (formerly the National Mastitis Council), the U.S. Animal Health Association, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Environmental Health Association, the International Association for Food Protection, the World Health Organization, and the Wisconsin Division of Public Health.

    • Jessica Collins

      This is what happens when we let politicians define nutritional guidelines. The Government’s nutritional recommendations are an awful joke, and so is the corrupt FDA. I suffered for years with no answers from any of the doctors or specialists. It wasn’t until I took my health into my own hands and started eating a natural diet more in line with what our ancestors consumed that I found relief from my chronic afflictions. People need to wake up and stop trusting the powers that be to keep them safe and secure. Sustainability starts in the home, not in DC!

  • Doc Mudd

    Ah, but it is the medical community who substantiates the risks of consuming raw milk…
    http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/252/15/2048.short
    http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com/about-us/
    More to the point, it seems to be the profiteering raw milk producers and snakeoil salesmen who are making deceptive claims to entice fools to purchase the dangerous, overpriced stuff…
    http://www.marlerblog.com/legal-cases/two-raw-milks—one-for-the-pasteurizer-and-one-in-the-raw/
    Raw milk – a fool and her money are soon parted.

  • I sell Raw milk from Cows that are never given grain and get fresh pasture everyday. I have had customers tell me that it has changed their lives for the better. That’s enough evidence for me. Why can’t we allow people to make their own choices? Why must we always want to control other people’s lives? This entire debate has to do with power over people. We need to encourage consumers to be educated about what they purchase. We don’t need to encourage consumers to trust large governmental bureaucracies that have huge pressure from huge corporations. Consumers need to be more connected with the food system and demand information directly from the producer. Our farm encourages our consumers to use all information available and make their own informed decisions. We encourage them to be vigilant in seeking that information. What is the problem with that? There are risks in everyday life. Raw milk is a minor risk that has great rewards. Driving a car to work is a major risk that has great rewards. Smoking cigarettes is a major risk that has no rewards. These are all choices and they should all be given to those individuals that are effected, not to someone else sitting behind the desk of “saving humanity.” When are we going to realize that without the Freedom to choose, we have nothing?

  • Doc Mudd

    Well, as long as we have been admonished to search the medical literature for documentation confirming the needless risks of unpasteurized dairy products (and have successfully done so)…
    …perhaps it is time for raw milk proponents to cite peer-reviewed documentation from the medical literature confirming how unpasteurized dairy products have, in any specific fashion, “changed their lives for the better”.
    Long past time the snakeoil salespitch claims be scientifically validated.
    The lame personal testimonials are as worthless and deceptive today as they were over a century ago when patent medicine quackery was in its first heyday.

  • Jessica Collins

    This author is a fear mongerer, and I am disgusted after reading this article. Life is full of inherent risks, if people want to drink living milk over that dead garbage in the store, then that is their right. Cars are super dangerous, but we still drive everyday, don’t we? What about CAFO’s? GMO’s? How about the thousands of people stricken ill from restaurant food? The list goes on and on when it comes to risk, so spare me your hyperbole about raw milk being so dangerous! People should have the LIBERTY and FREEDOM to drink whatever they want. Keep your nose out of my business. Oiy.