Raw Milk: Did I Screw Up? Do I Print a Retraction?

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 18:48:28 PM PDT

I did not screw up. I did do my homework. I did print the truth. I will not print a retraction. McAfee noted that he has never bottled the milk of another dairy. From my understanding, that is the truth. Also, it is my understanding the McAfee likes to stoke the controversy he provokes because it tends to gain him more business. I based my claim that McAfee had - at some point, if not now - outsourced some of his products on a statement made by McAfee himself on a blog. McAfee said:

We no longer outsource for cream or butter. Our HACCP policy closed our herd and now we produce all the products required. If we do not make it or we run out of it...then we will use ear plugs and let the crying begin.

In the past we have purchased raw cream from other organic creameries to make butter. We have not done this in a while and our policy prevents this going forward.

and

We have been buying colostrum and remember that colostrum is not a dairy product and is regulated differently

In other words, he outsourced his colostrum, a product that comes out of a cow's udder but is not regulated as a dairy product.

I should have posted this evidence yesterday, but I was sick yesterday and was not in my most logical state. I am a bit offended that some of the people on this site assumed I was in the wrong as I think it is fairly clear that I always do my homework and when I am wrong, I say so and apologize as soon as I find out I've made a mistake. I speak my mind and I don't hold back to be politically correct, but I am not hotheaded and impetuous as commenters accused me of being yesterday.

The raw milk piece I wrote took weeks to research. I read the book The Raw Milk Revolution in its entirety and spoke to people on both sides of the debate. Prior to printing the article, I let a person on either side of the debate read what I wrote to check it for accuracy. The regulator found it to be balanced. The pro-raw milk person was less pleased with it but I made a number of changes to make it more balanced in her opinion. The one thing that would have made the piece better in the pro-raw-milk person's position would be if I had quoted or mentioned some of the more hardline regulators. There are regulators out there (many of them) who would much prefer to shut down all raw milk instead of just regulating it to make it as safe as possible while still allowing people freedom to eat or drink what they wish to eat or drink. I don't appreciate those regulators any more than I appreciate raw milk advocates who refuse to accept any regulation or admit that raw milk may carry any risk whatsoever. Both sides will need to compromise if this debate is going to come to a good conclusion. And unfortunately, it seems like - at least in some cases - the fringier elements on either side of the debate are driving their opponents toward extremes instead of towards compromise. And the regulators, unfortunately, hold all the cards. That's a situation in which everyone loses.

Sue Me, Sue Me, What Can You Do Me...

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 15:49:06 PM PDT

I wrote this article because it seemed to me that the FDA - a highly underfunded arm of the government - was wasting a lot of time over nothing on raw milk. It's not that raw milk never made anyone sick. Rather, to me, it's a question of going after the biggest threats first and dealing with the little ones subsequently. In the case of raw milk, raw milk consumers very often have personal relationships with their farmers. Yes, some risk may be there, but the consumer is able to assess the risk much more effectively than when they buy products at the supermarket. There were many more deaths over peanut butter in the last year than raw milk. I'd rather just let the raw milk people drink their raw milk and have the FDA focus on bigger problems. A good compromise would be that raw milk follows safety regulations to make it as safe as possible while still keeping it legal.

To research the article, I spoke to both sides of the raw milk debate. I spoke to VERY PASSIONATE people on both sides. I tried to look for facts on both sides. Unfortunately, there was just about no way on earth to get the two sides to agree on one set of "facts." The regulators believed in safety data that the raw milk drinkers thought was bogus. The raw milk drinkers believed raw milk gave you health benefits that the regulators thought was, at best, irrelevant. So I tried presenting both sides and suggesting a compromise solution.

Throughout my research, one particular raw dairy stuck out - Organic Pastures, owned by Mark McAfee, the colorful California dairyman who is interested in sending me a letter from his attorney. He didn't stick out for being bad or good, just for being different. He's the largest raw dairy and he also holds a LOT of political power. Sometimes the debate over the broad question of raw milk gets hung up on issues that are McAfee-only issues, just because he engages in some practices that are unique to him. (I've drank raw milk from several sources and only McAfee's was available to me at Whole Foods, for example. Usually I get it directly out of the bulk tank at a dairy farm, for free because it can't be sold legally.)

You can read McAfee's comment below. By the time I woke up today it seemed that a huge commotion had come and gone. The Google alert for my story says "Got Raw Milk? Think Twice Before You Drink It." I didn't write that title. I didn't even make that point very strongly in my article. My writing was more about the balance between keeping consumers safe from unconscionable businesses vs. allowing consumers the freedom to take a risk if they wish to. By the time I got to the Alternet piece, the title was "The Battle Over Raw Milk: Let's Ditch the Hysterics and Give People a Choice." That's more in line with what I wrote. The subtitle said "Few foods provoke such strong reactions (for and against it) as raw milk. Find out why." That's also in line with what I wrote. Yet from the comments it seems that an earlier subtitle blamed raw milk for autism and asthma. That is the exact opposite of what I wrote. I wrote that evidence supports that it HELPS autism and asthma.

So here's what Mark McAfee wrote to me in the comments:

Please review your data and research. Raw milk and fermented raw milk helps autistic kids like no other food on earth. see www.californiarawmilk.org for testimonials from moms that say just that and more. Autistic kids have terrible disbiosis and GUT issues. One of the best food therapies is the reseeding and feeding of the missing gut bacteria. This bacteria comes from raw milk and fermented raw milks, not pastuerized dead milk or dairy products. Just like breast milk...raw milk heals like no other food.

Also...Organic Pastures Dairy has never ever bottled one ounce of another dairies raw milk...not one drop. This is a blantant lie and an untruth spoken to try and hurt OPDC and misslead our consumers.

I ask you to print a retraction or face a letter from our attorney.

Lastly....Dr. Mike Payne ( a "GOT MILK" CMAB PhD at UC Davis )has testified under oath that he does not think that raw milk is safe under any conditions. He stood against SB 201 along with CDFA and UC Davis. SB 201 established very strong HACCP type protections for raw milk in CA. SB 201 was vetoed by the governor after UC Davis ( Mike Payne ) and CDFA "back doored" the legislative process. SB 201 had passed both houses of the legilsature and was on the governors desk when it was vetoed...now Mike Payne demands a HACCP program for CA raw milk. This is an outrage and disingenious.... he speaks with forked tongue!!

Raw milk is a choice made by consumers and that is the end of the story. All of the crying and sniveling done by Mike Payne and others is irrelavent. The people drink raw milk and will defend that right at the legislature ( and they have already done so ). When the SB 201 hearings were held last year....the FDA and CDFA did not even show up ( Senator Dean Florez had invited them to please be present ) yet they did not even show.

The 50,000 people that consume raw milk in CA could careless what UC Davis or big ag sayes about their personal choices. Raw milk in CA must pass all of the standards for pastuerized milk with out being pastuerized. It is clean yet it is biodiverse,enzyme rich and very safe.

Jill....how come you never called me for an interview prior to posting this piece. It is poorly researched and is filled with political crap that is unsupported by fact or documented history in the legislature and the courts. Much of what you have said in your article is just not so....it is false.

Please call me anytime...I will give you the facts and you can confirm them.

1-877 RAW MILK....I take calls from all of our consumers everyday and I will take yours also.

All the best,

Mark McAfee
Founder OPDC
Fresno CA

Oh boy.

Read This Book If You Want To Understand the Food Safety Debate

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Sep 15, 2009 at 23:23:43 PM PDT

According to the rumors, the bill was secretly sponsored by Monsanto and it was going to ban backyard gardens, farmers markets, and organics. Yet, Consumers Union strongly supported the bill. I read through the bill text and didn't find anything that would possibly ban organics or farmers' markets. Most of the bill had nothing to do with farms - it covered "food facilities," a term that exempts farms and restaurants. Oh - and the Monsanto claim? Totally false. A look at Monsanto's lobbying records shows they had nothing to do with it.

According to the rumors from DC insiders, H.R. 875 was basically dead on arrival. Its sponsor, Rosa DeLauro, was not on the committee that would ultimately pass a food safety bill, the House Energy and Commerce Committee. One of the most powerful men on that committee, Henry Waxman, had also proposed a food safety bill. His bill would be the one that moved forward, not H.R. 875. Then word came down that there would be a NEW bill put forth by Dingell that combined characteristics of his previous bill and H.R. 875. That turned out to be H.R. 2749, which ultimately passed. So why the hysteria over a bill that ultimately went nowhere? And why are people so suspicious of giving the government more power to keep our food safe when clearly we have a major food safety problem in this country?

Once H.R. 2749 came on the scene, opposition started up again, although this time it was quite a bit more grounded in reality. Still, what gives? If people are dying from peanut butter and spinach, shouldn't the government have the tools to keep us safe from foodborne illness?

Throughout this time, I kept in touch with my friend Judith McGeary, who understood the opposition to the food safety bills very well (in fact, she had a hand in writing some of the action alerts... the sane, reality-based ones, that is). At the core of much of the opposition was raw milk. Through Judith, I navigated what would otherwise be a very confusing headache of food safety bill opposition.

This week, I've read through an advance copy of David Gumpert's upcoming book The Raw Milk Revolution. I can now say: I GET IT. I might not agree with it 100%, but I get it. If you want to understand the vocal opposition to food safety laws, you should read Gumpert's book too. That's not the only reason to read it though. Even if you have little interest in raw milk, I think this book is a key piece in the puzzle to understanding the backwards priorities in America's food safety system.

Monday Extra Large Sampler Platter

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 14:28:23 PM PDT

• PBS will be running a show called Poisoned Waters, says Natasha at Change.org. It looks like a good one to check out.

• Andy Borowitz reports that Wall Street salary caps drive away assholes

• Friend and fellow foodie Tom Laskawy was on the radio machine! He posted the MP3 on his blog so you can listen.

• I've been doing a politics of school lunch series over at Change.org. Check it out if you feel inclined.

• California's got a new cash crop: solar panels. Or, perhaps more accurately, solar energy.

• Brilliant piece from Civil Eats about garden-based learning.

• Definitely check out this piece on Eating Liberally about nutritionism. That's the term that I think Michael Pollan probably coined referring to the obsession with eating all sorts of vitamins but forgetting to focus on whether or not you're eating real food.

• One of the pioneers of the organics movement talks about what the word organic has meant over the past 30+ years. Very enlightening - especially if you (like me) didn't even exist 30 years ago :)

• Two of my favorite bloggers together in one diary! Yay! Marion Nestle did an interview at Obama Foodorama about Obama's new puppy and pet food politics. (And speaking of Pet Food Politics, I highly recommend Nestle's book of that title and I'm looking forward to her next book about what pets should eat too!)

• Also not to miss from Dr. Nestle - her take on how to fix the FDA.

• The Green Fork blog takes a look at the politics of raw milk.

• Calling all Mountain Dew lovers! Fooducate tells all about Yellow #5. The most upsetting fact on the list? Organic foods CAN contain this artificial food dye. What?!

• Pot calling kettle black alert! The US is getting huffy about China dumping cheap food into U.S. markets. Never mind that we do exactly that all over the world.

• Some essential reading from The Ethicurean: California retailers give FREE fresh produce to WIC recipients. Yum. Plus a liberal helping of information about the state of the WIC program today.

• Yay! Political winds shifting in favor of legalizing pot!!!!

Raw Milk

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 18:01:09 PM PDT

The way we mass produce dairy these days is not good for the cows, nor for the milk. When you feed cows corn instead of grass (or mostly grass), you're asking for trouble. The milk is less healthy from the studies I've seen, and I have no doubt that we need to pasteurize it. Anything coming out of any factory farm probably should not be eaten raw, period.

However, if a cow is raised on pasture and the milk is tested regularly for harmful microbes, then I see no reason why we shouldn't be allowed to drink it raw. Perhaps the government should require warning labels like they do for unpasteurized juice, warning that there might be negative health consequences - particularly for children, the elderly, and the immune-suppressed. But if people are taking the risk knowingly and the producer is doing everything possible to guarantee the safety of the product, then I think it should be legal.

Ron Paul Does First Good Thing Ever

by: Jill Richardson

Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 17:33:35 PM PST

I realize that some people are opposed to raw milk, but I really like the stuff. Yes, you're taking a risk when you drink it, but if you choose the right dairy for your raw milk, you aren't taking much of a risk. After all, we now have fantastic techniques to test milk for harmful microbes that weren't available when we began pasteurizing milk way back when. Change.org gives a perspective on raw milk if you'd like to learn more about it, and if you'd like to read some literature by the biggest cheerleaders of raw milk around, check out the Weston A. Price Foundation.

The consumption of raw milk is legal in every state, yet its sale is currently illegal in about half the states. HR 778 would enable those living in states where the sale of raw milk is illegal-and those living in states where the sale is legal but sources are not present-to be able to exercise their legal right to consume raw milk. As Congressman Paul stated in introducing the bill, "Americans have the right to consume these products without having the Federal Government second-guess their judgment about what products best promote health. If there are legitimate concerns about the safety of unpasteurized milk, those concerns should be addressed at the state and local level."

Hooray! Now, Ron Paul, if you want to do something else totally awesome, can you please introduce a law legalizing industrial hemp?

Efforts to Crush Raw Milk Availability

by: Anne Hawley

Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 15:22:11 PM PDT

Meanwhile, my 78-year-old mother, who was raised in dreadful fear of non-pasteurized milk, sent me this OpEd News blog entry, titled "Raw Milk and the Government/Corporate Effort to Crush It".

It's not terribly well sourced, but I hope it will provoke some discussion about raw dairy products and the corporate and government politics thereof.

I've been searching for several weeks now to find a local source (Portland, Oregon) for raw milk that doesn't involve a long drive to pastureland miles outside the city. So far, no joy, but I'm convinced that making that switch will be another plank in my personal platform of better health through real food.