The Milk War

Northumberland on Schmidt Verdict

2010-02-06T20:26:00.000-08:00

http://www.northumberlandtoday.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2436265

the humans drinking cow milk argument

2010-01-27T09:29:00.001-08:00

as in, we we're not designed to drink what's meant for calves. a weaker argument put to Earth's most successful omnivore is hard to imagine.

Illness in Wisconsin

2009-08-29T08:22:00.000-07:00

Wisconsin Illnesses blamed on raw milk consumption 8/09

Unpasteurized milk linked to illnesses in state

By Jesse Garza of the Journal Sentinel

Posted: Aug. 28, 2009

Unpasteurized milk has been linked to 13 confirmed cases of illness in southeastern Wisconsin, state officials announced Friday while warning residents in possession of such milk to discard it.

According to a news release from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services and the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, the cases involve people who have tested positive for campylobacter jejuni, a bacterial infection that causes gastro-intestinal symptoms and fever and can lead to severe complications.

Other people in the households of those infected have been tested for the infection, however the results of those tests were not available Friday. Campylobacter can be passed between people or be contracted directly from contaminated food.

The onslaught of the illnesses was Aug. 14-20 and all people infected had consumed raw milk or had been in households where someone else consumed raw milk and became ill, according to the release.

Campylobacter jejuni bacteria cause nausea, diarrhea, abdominal cramping, fever and vomiting. Rarely, it can lead to temporary arthritis or paralysis, generally after the initial symptoms have disappeared.

Anyone who has these symptoms and has recently consumed unpasteurized milk or dairy products should contact their doctor. To prevent spreading campylobacter bacteria, people should follow proper hand-washing procedures and wash down bathroom and kitchen surfaces with an anti-bacterial agent.

Selling or distributing raw milk and raw milk products is illegal in Wisconsin, according to the release.

Regulators say it is illegal and unsafe because the milk can carry pathogens capable of making someone very ill or even killing them.

Trafficking in Raw Milk

2009-07-15T11:44:00.000-07:00

Trafficking in Raw Milk

Michael Schmidt - trial update 1/09

2009-01-31T17:37:00.000-08:00

the latest

Milk Martyr

Michael Schmidt is at the epicentre of the legal battle to sell raw milk

Matthew Coutts, National Post Published: Saturday, January 31, 2009

The defendant has been called everything from the hero of the organic food movement to the inspiration for the first international conference on raw milk. But, as he returned to an Ontario courtroom this week to his other role as the focus of a decade-long court battle over the legality of peddling raw milk, Michael Schmidt remained, in his dress and composure, a simple dairy farmer.

Wearing the same black jeans, black vest and simple, beige, button-up shirt he had worn the day before, the 54-year-old Durham region dairy farmer sat waiting for his chance to speak in his own defence. As he acted as his own lawyer in the face of nearly 20 criminal charges for the sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk, a plastic milk crate of court documents sat on the floor next to him.

After calling himself as a witness, he stood to read a prepared statement and answer questions from Ministry of Natural Resources lawyers into the specifics of a "cow share" co-operative he contends makes legal his distribution of raw milk to a select group of members.

During his nearly 90-minute appearance, much anticipated in the German immigrant's long-running legal battle, Justice Paul Kowarsky reminded the defendant he was allowed to sit down while he addressed the court. The amicable milkman declined, saying simply, "I love to stand."

His choice of words sparked a momentary buzz through the tiny Newmarket courtroom, filled primarily with supporters, raw milk advocates and members of the contentious co-op program who have come to see the soft-spoken farmer as a hero and even a martyr, standing up for those who seek to drink legally unpasteurized milk.

For something that takes so little to prepare, raw or unpasteurized milk has caused a mighty stir throughout Ontario and the country recently, all of which seemed to come to a head this week as Mr. Schmidt's case unrolled in the courtroom, with a raw milk symposium set to take place in downtown Toronto today.

With the confluence of this pivotal trial and the academic symposium, it is fitting to ask whether this is the epicentre of a national movement or just a gathering of a small band of advocates on the fringe, and alternately, whether Mr. Schmidt is some kind of organic superhero, as his supporters contend, or just a farmer trying to peddle his product.

In countries around the world, including Mr. Schmidt's native Germany, unpasteurized milk is available in stores and the focus of very little debate. In Canada and parts of the United States, however, officials have deemed untreated milk a health concern that could contain deadly bacteria capable of spreading salmonella, listeria and E. coli. Ontario's Health Protection and Promotion Act makes it illegal to "sell, offer for sale, deliver or distribute milk or cream that has not been pasteurized or sterilized," although it is not illegal to drink it.

Advocates, none more visible than Mr. Schmidt, have long contended that pasteurization decreases the taste and health benefits of milk, and seek legal changes to allow people a personal choice.

The language of the advocates can reach the height of hero worship, like this press release distributed ahead of the trial this week: "Michael Schmidt intellectualizes his passion in a productive and progressive manner. This charismatic farmer is not only representing the underdog, but an inspiration for anyone raging against the hand life deals them."

Conversations outside of court this week constantly hit on the hot-points of the advocacy movement: Raw milk tastes better, it's healthier, heating for sterilization dims the milk's natural glow. These topics will all be discussed at today's International Raw Milk Symposium at the University of Toronto's Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, where Mr. Schmidt, several of his supporters and international experts will discuss recent nutritional research and debate regulations.

Organizers describe the event as a chance for the public to hear how raw milk is "demonstrably better for you than pasteurized milk" and is seeing a rising consumer demand.

Top billings at the event are Dr. Ron Hull, an Australian microbiologist, and Dr. Ted Beals, a Michigan pathologist, both of whom are in Ontario to appear as expert witnesses during Mr. Schmidt's case.

"My view is that raw milk from farms like Michael's is safe. The evidence is there that it is not a health hazard. The other thing is that industrial milk destined for pasteurization is different in that respect," based on the way it is handled, said Dr. Hull.

Dr. Beals similarly added that he has no reason to doubt government studies that have found pathogens in milk before it is pasteurized, but also can't ignore findings on milk destined for raw consumption that finds it to be safe.

"I'm here to testify that the product that we are talking about doesn't have the documented properties that the studies they are doing have shown. And most conspicuously, people aren't getting sick," he said.

Celebrity chef Jamie Kennedy, a long-time supporter of Mr. Schmidt, will speak on the gastronomic benefits of raw dairy.

"The work that people like me are involved with is all about preserving the artisan nature of food in food production with the aim of encouraging food culture," he said, adding his support for Mr. Schmidt's quest for exoneration.

Since being the target of an undercover investigation and very public raid on his farm in 2006, Mr. Schmidt has become the face of raw milk advocacy, refusing to stop production, earning himself a $55,000 fine in October for defying a court order, and has united a small, dedicated band of supporters behind him in his quest.

"He's like an endangered species," said Olga Shibanova, a cow-share member and mother of three, after proceedings had ended on Wednesday. "People like him need to be protected."

After emigrating from Russia 15 years ago, Ms. Shibanova spent a decade in Ontario literally knocking on doors searching for someone that could provide unpasteurized dairy for her family until finding Mr. Schmidt. Other cow-share members were just as emphatic, sending scores of pages of first-hand accounts to court with the milk man.

About 150 people have purchased a membership in the cow-share co-operative, paying a membership fee of $300 for partial ownership in one of the 30 cows kept at Mr. Schmidt's southern Ontario Glencolton Farms.

While Mr. Schmidt contends he does not sell milk, instead providing it to members at a $3-per-litre fee to cover the cost of raising and milking the animals, prosecution has argued the cow-share program is an attempt to skirt around the anti-sale and distribution laws that boils down to a sale and distribution business.

The second phase of Mr. Schmidt's trial is a constitutional challenge, in which he challenges the milk laws as an assault on the personal freedom to drink raw milk if one so chooses. He said raw milk consumption should be similar to smoking, where those that know the risks and wish to do it anyway should be allowed.

"The issue is whether people without a share of the cow have a right to buy the milk," he said. "It's a national debate."

mcoutts@nationalpost.com

Health Risks

2008-12-17T05:49:00.000-08:00

http://news.smashits.com/329310/Unpasteurized-milk-poses-serious-health-risks.htm

Unpasteurized milk poses serious health risks

Posted: 11:26a.m. IST, December 17, 2008

Washington, Dec 17 (ANI): Unpasteurized milk can pose a serious threat due to possible contamination with pathogenic bacteria, say researchers.

The milk can get contaminated at the time of collection, processing, distribution, or storage of milk, the authors write.

Many pathogens that can be found in the dairy farm environment can contaminate the teat skin of dairy cows and consequently the milk at the time when cows are milked.

Experts have reported that presence of Salmonella and E. coli pooled milk collected from farms.

Despite the ban on sale of raw milk in 26 states in 2006, the authors note that those who are opposed to pasteurization have found ways to circumvent the law and obtain raw milk.

Raw milk advocates claim that unpasteurized milk cures or prevents disease, but no scientific evidence supports this notion.

In the review, co-authors Jeffrey T. LeJeune and Paivi J. Rajala-Schultz of the College of Veterinary Medicine in Columbus, Ohio suggests that testing raw milk, which has been suggested as an alternative to pasteurization, cannot ensure a product that is 100 percent safe and free of pathogens.

They say that pasteurization remains the best way to reduce the unavoidable risk of contamination.

The review appears in journal Clinical Infectious Diseases. (ANI)

FDA Crackdown in CA on OP

2008-11-21T17:23:00.001-08:00

FDA cracks down on Calif. raw milk supplier

The Associated Press

Posted: 11/21/2008 04:03:26 PM PST

FRESNO, Calif.—The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is seeking a court order to block a Kerman dairy from shipping raw-milk products outside California.

The federal agency filed a civil lawsuit Thursday alleging Organic Pastures has been illegally selling its products to consumers in other states. It says the company has tried to skirt the law by labeling its shipments as intended for animal consumption only.

While advocates say non-pasteurized milk has health benefits, the FDA prohibits interstate sales of raw milk products because they also can carry harmful bacteria.

Organic Pastures owner Mark McAfee says the company has never shipped raw milk across state lines for human consumption. He says the company follows FDA guidelines and has done nothing illegal.

———

Information from: The Fresno Bee, http://www.fresnobee.com

A Time Before Pasteurization - Globeandmail.com

2008-09-22T20:34:00.000-07:00

A time before pasteurization

* Article
* Comments (Comment3)
*

JANE JENKINS

Globe and Mail

September 22, 2008 at 10:02 PM EDT

Have Canadian consumers lost their minds? At a time of heightened anxiety about deli meats contaminated with the deadly listeria bacterium, it boggles the imagination to think of people actively seeking out raw milk to drink. But that's exactly what's been happening at Michael Schmidt's organic farm in Southwestern Ontario.

Food safety regulations, which require all milk for sale in Canada to be pasteurized, are skirted through the legal loophole that allows people to drink raw milk from cows they own. So urbanites who don't have cows in their garages but who want to drink unpasteurized milk have bought shares in Mr. Schmidt's animals.

Cow-share programs allow people to get around pasteurization laws intended to keep consumers, especially children and pregnant women, safe from milk-borne pathogens such as E. coli, salmonella and listeria, the latest bacterium to join the average Canadian's vocabulary.

Mr. Schmidt's unflinching battle to gain the right to market his unpasteurized milk has been ongoing since his cow-lease program was set up in 1994. He was in the news again last week, facing contempt of court charges for violating a 2007 health order to stop selling raw milk.
Related Articles

From the archives

* Raw milk trial launched in bad faith, farmer says
* Dairy farmer rejects deal in raw-milk court case
* The right to rawness

The Globe and Mail

Appearing without legal counsel, Mr. Schmidt has argued that all he sold were his milking services to the off-site cow owners. Enthusiasts say raw milk straight from a cow is pure, wholesome and natural — indeed, the perfect food, with enzymes and antibodies sure to improve health. It is recommended as perfectly safe for small children and expectant mothers, citing sterile barns and stainless steel milk containers as proof that levels of lethal bacteria are negligible as long as the product is kept in a refrigerated environment.

According to the share owners, the main barrier preventing more people from enjoying the benefits are the corporate interests of large dairy farms and their industrialized food factories, protected by a complicit public health bureaucracy. At its core, then, the fight to drink raw milk is wrapped in a broader, consumer-driven rejection of industrialized food production, with the right to choose what one consumes considered a basic civil liberty.

What is so striking about this rhetoric is how astonishingly similar it is to criticisms hurled at early 20th-century public health officials as they pushed for mandatory pasteurization in Canada. Their vision was to improve public health by reducing the incidence of a host of milk-borne diseases, such as bovine tuberculosis, scarlet fever, brucellosis and diphtheria, which are especially dangerous to infants and young children. New Brunswick's infant mortality rates in the early 1920s were the highest in Canada; for every 1,000 babies born, a staggering 150 would die before their second birthdays. Babies in the rest of the country didn't fare much better. Blamed were dairy cows with bovine tuberculosis and unsanitary milk, so teeming with deadly bacteria it was often called white poison.

While campaigns to eradicate bovine tuberculosis were slow getting under way, another solution was pasteurization, the namesake of 19th-century scientist Louis Pasteur, who devised the brilliantly simple heating process that kills micro-organisms.

But there was loud opposition to pasteurization among dairy farmers, milk distributors and the general public. Complaints varied: It was too expensive. It was government interference in citizens' diets. The new milk, run through machines, tasted bad. And it just wasn't pure or natural. So argued New Brunswick politician F. L. Potts in the 1925 election campaign, when he thundered: "If the Lord had wanted us to drink pasteurized milk, he would have put a cooler on a cow!"

Much to Potts's dismay, however, pasteurization won out. Toronto was the first city to pass mandatory pasteurization bylaws in 1915, with Saint John and Saskatoon following in 1923. It would take another 40 years for the laws to spread across Canada and be complemented with a program to eradicate bovine tuberculosis, but the impact was dramatic. Infant mortality rates plummeted and Canada gained an international reputation for its work to create a safe milk supply.

After the 1920s campaign to pasteurize Saint John's milk was over, the health minister there reflected that "as time goes on, the advantages of pasteurization will be more marked and we will wonder how the public tolerated the old order of things for so long." Surely, we will not now let fears of industrialized food lead us to chase an idealized vision of "natural" milk, right back into that old order of things.

Jane Jenkins is assistant professor of science and technology studies at St. Thomas University in Fredericton.

China Milk Scandal - Sept. 18, 2008

2008-09-19T16:33:00.002-07:00

Employees remove contaminated milk formula products from the shelves of a supermarket in
Hefei, Anhui province Photo: REUTERS
W
China's milk scandal spreads to Olympic brand
Three of China's best-known brands of liquid milk were tainted with melamine, the chemical at
the centre of an expanding health scare, extensive tests have found.
By Richard Spencer in Beijing
Last Updated: 4:25PM BST 19 Sep 2008
The government released the
findings as it tried to play down
the scandal, which began with
baby milk but is rapidly spreading
to wider distrust inside the country
of "made in China" products.
Singapore on Friday suspended
the import and sale of all milk and
milk products from China after
local tests found samples
containing the potentially deadly
industrial chemical melamine.
Some online commentators are
expressing disgust that milk from
one of the brands, an Olympic
sponsor, was produced
separately, tested and cleared for
use in Olympic venues.
"Melamine for us, safety for our guests," said one wry comment.
The latest tests were carried out on supermarket milk from more than 400 suppliers, including foreign firms such
as Nestle. The government said 24 batches of milk from 295 samples taken from three brands - Mengniu, Yili, and
Guangming - were found to be tainted with melamine.
By Friday night, 300 of Starbucks’ 330 outlets in China were only serving soy milk in their coffees.
The chemical is alleged to have been added to watered down raw milk supplies by farmers and middlemen to
boost its protein readings. It can cause kidney stones, and has been blamed for the deaths of four babies who
drank milk made from formula from China's largest low-cost producer, Sanlu.
According to the latest figures, 6,244 babies have fallen sick and 158 are suffering acute kidney failure.
Mengniu, whose successful television sponsorships and reputation for quality have made it a darling of investors,
China's milk scandal spreads to Olympic brand - Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/298711...
1 of 2 9/19/08 7:35 PM
is listed on the Hong Kong stock exchange and is involved in joint ventures with European partners.
Yili was the sponsor, and milk supplier, for the Beijing Olympics, but a senior health official said that special
measures had been taken.
"We applied special scanning management procedures for all Olympic products," the official, Li Changjiang, said.
"All stages of food product supplies, including milk products, were strictly monitored step-by-step by us, with no
loopholes in the process."
Mengniu and Yili are China's biggest dairy companies. Mengniu was sole supplier for Starbucks in China, until its
involvement in the scandal was confirmed.
Starbucks said Mengniu milk had now been pulled out of its coffee shops, and said there was no evidence any of
its customers had fallen ill.
The central authorities have reacted with fury to the discovery that Sanlu and its New Zealand minority
stakeholder Fonterra informed local authorities of the problem on August 2, five weeks before they themselves
were told by the New Zealand government.
It has since become clear that the company had been receiving complaints from parents as early as March.
The company chairwoman, a senior Communist Party official, has been sacked and detained. The mayor of the
city where the company is based, Shijiazhuang, along with a vice-mayor and other senior officials, have also been
sacked.
Eighteen people accused of putting the melamine into the milk have been formally arrested, equivalent in Chinese
law to being charged with offences.
But the authorities have also moved to limit discussion, issuing orders to local newspapers on how to report the
scandal and removing blog posts by journalists describing attempts as late as last week to cover it up.
The headline on the story on the state news agency describing the latest test findings was suitably upbeat. "Most
liquid milk in China does not contain melamine," it read.
Related Content
Milk poisons Chinese babies (/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/2977016/Babies-in-China-suffer-acute-kidney-
failure-from-powdered-baby-milk.html)
Starbucks and KFC are drawn into China's tainted milk scandal (/news/worldnews/asia/china
/2985934/Starbucks-and-KFC-are-drawn-into-Chinas-tainted-milk-scandal.html)
Six thousand babies sick from tainted Chinese milk (/news/worldnews/asia/china/2975638
/Six-thousand-babies-sick-from-tainted-Chinese-milk.html)
Back to top
© Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2008
China's milk scandal spreads to Olympic brand - Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/298711...
2 of 2 9/19/08 7:35 PM

Montgomery County PA - Raw Milk Suspension Rescinded

2008-09-19T16:33:00.001-07:00

PA Agriculture Department Rescinds Permit Suspension of Montgomery County Raw Milk Dairy

Last update: 6:06 p.m. EDT Sept. 19, 2008
HARRISBURG, Pa., Sept 19, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- The state Department of Agriculture today rescinded the fluid raw milk permit suspension for the Hendricks Farm & Dairy of Telford, Montgomery County, after testing of raw milk samples at the farm showed no evidence of pathogenic bacteria. Sales of raw milk may resume at the farm.
The Department of Agriculture issued a notice of suspension to the farm on Sept. 12 after the state Department of Health received reports that individuals who consumed raw milk purchased from the dairy were found to have gastrointestinal illness due to Campylobacter, a bacterial infection.
Samples taken from the farm from Sept. 11 - 16 tested negative for Campylobacter, and a satisfactory inspection at the farm was conducted on Sept. 18. As a result, the raw milk permit suspension was rescinded.
As a precaution, the Department of Agriculture will continue to test samples from the farm for the next three weeks.
For more information on raw milk in Pennsylvania, including a list of permitted sellers, visit www.agriculture.state.pa.us/pafoodsafety.
CONTACT: Chris L. Ryder
(717) 787-5085
SOURCE Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture

http://www.agriculture.state.pa.us

Copyright (C) 2008 PR Newswire. All rights reserved End of Story

Sacramento CA - Raw Milk Hearing April 15

2008-03-31T13:34:00.001-07:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, March 31, 2008

Fresh Farm Milk: Assuring Safety and Consumer Choice

Joint Senate hearings to be held April 15th

Raw Milk consumers are amassing to attend the Biggest Raw Milk event
in History!!

Senator Dean Florez and Senator Maldonado are holding joint senate
hearings on raw milk for California. It appears that CDFA and the FDA
are sending their "Anti Raw Milk A-Team" to try and stop the rising
tide of raw milk market interest in California. The chief of FDA dairy
safety John Sheehan will be attending along with eight other PhD
University food safety experts.

The Raw Milk Dream Team will include: Sally Fallon (president of the
Weston A Price Foundation ), Jordan Rubin ( author of the Makers Diet
), Dr. Ted Beals MD, Dr. Mark Gebhart MD, Dr. Cat Berge DVM PhD and
Walter Robb president of Wholefoods. Other powerful voices will also
be attending to stand with raw milk in a science and consumer
choice-based show-down that could quite possibly reset the destiny of
consumer food choices for the next 100 years. Some of the experts will
testify via remote video because they are from other countries. Raw
milk experts will argue demonstrated California raw milk safety,
superior nutrition and consumer choice.

1500 raw milk consumers are expected to pack this six-hour hearing.
Many will have the opportunity to speak briefly about why they demand
raw milk in California. Information collected from this joint hearing
will form the basis for new legislation that will protect consumer
choice as well as create sound standards for testing Fresh Farm Milk
in California.

Date: Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Location: Sacramento CA State Capitol Building Rm #4203
Subject: Fresh Farm Milk-Assuring Safety and Consumer Choice
Joint Hearing of: Senate Agriculture Committee and the Select
Committee on Food-Borne Illness
Senators Maldonado and Florez-Chairs
3:00 PM until 9:00 PM hours or until everyone has spoken
John L. Burton Hearing Room (4203)

Interviews available:
Mark McAfee
Founder, Organic Pastures Dairy 559-846-9732

Kevin Burget |Executive Producer | Wide Iris Productions |+1 (888) 810-1211 | wideiris.net

Raw milk producer wins court victory, faces inquiry

2008-03-21T14:00:00.000-07:00

Raw milk producer wins court victory, faces inquiry

By Dennis Pollock and Bethany Clough / The Fresno Bee

03/20/08 12:57:47

On the same day that it won a court victory against state regulators of raw milk, a Kerman dairy found itself at the center of an investigation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Two employees of Organic Pastures Dairy Co. were questioned by federal agents Wednesday after being subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury in federal court in Fresno on April 3. Hours before the employees were questioned, the dairy won a favorable court ruling that temporarily stopped enforcement of a state law calling for tighter restrictions on bacteria levels in milk.

Superior Court Judge Harry J. Tobias in Hollister issued a temporary restraining order that prohibits enforcement of AB 1735, which set a 10 coliform-per-milliliter standard. Organic Pastures and another raw milk producer, Claravale Farms Inc. in San Benito County, had filed a suit against the California Department of Food and Agriculture saying the limits would put them out of business.

The state can continue testing for coliform levels but cannot enforce the standard until at least April 25, when a hearing will be held on whether to impose a preliminary injunction or lift the temporary restraining order.

Steve Lyle, a CDFA spokesman, said the judge ruled there was not evidence presented that showed a link between coliform levels and a threat to public health.

“We plan to present the evidence the judge is seeking on April 25,” Lyle said.

Check fresnobee.com for updates and read tomorrow's Bee for the complete story.

Vermont's Farm Fresh Restoration Act

2008-03-16T05:05:00.000-07:00

from Montpelier/Barre Times Argus

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080312/OPINION02/803120308/1022/OPINION02

Raw milk bill makes sense

March 12, 2008
I have always loved milk, so this week's anticipated hearings for the Farm Fresh Milk Restoration Act has my attention (H.616 Wednesday and Thursday). This bill would allow farmers to sell above the 25 quart per day limit and advertise the availability of their good, wholesome raw milk. The details of this bill are available on Rural Vermont's Web site (ruralvermont.org).

The FDA has been quoted, from their Web site, that drinking raw milk is "like playing Russian roulette with your health." This seems like an ironic statement from the agency that has allowed genetically modified foods, irradiation, and cloned meats into our food chain (yes, right in your local market). Our own government "overseers" have long been playing "Russian roulette" with the population's health. With no labeling, we are not even allowed choice.

To me, this is what H.616 is about: choice.

People ought to have the choice to drink whatever kind of milk they want and farmers ought to be able to sell and advertise raw milk without fear of penalization. I am almost 48 years old and have been milking cows and goats and drinking raw milk for near 30 years. I practically lived off of raw milk through both my pregnancies — birthing at home lovely, strong children. My hay crews know I am a real taskmaster — that's because I drink my "Popeye's Spinach" — raw milk. So give Rural Vermont a call, 223-7222, or get on the Web site and find out how you can help support milk choice, local food, small farms, and the great state of Vermont.

Sloan Armstrong

Walden

Nolts in PA Update

2008-01-25T06:10:00.001-08:00

http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2007/8/11/civil-disobedience-in-pennsylvania-tyrants-will-rule-if-no-o.html

CA Update

2008-01-25T06:08:00.000-08:00

http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2008/1/24/hey-mark-youre-aggravating-our-raw-milk-mood-swings-a-new-mo.html

Bid in Assembly to repeal tough new raw milk standard

2008-01-17T09:38:00.000-08:00

Bid in Assembly to repeal tough new raw milk standard

Carol Ness, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Saying California's two raw milk dairies "got rolled by a state agency," a state assemblywoman is taking steps to repeal a strict new standard that the dairies say will put them out of business and deprive 40,000 consumers of unpasteurized milk.

Owners of both raw milk dairies, Organic Pastures of Fresno and Claravale Farm of San Benito County, protested that they were never told of the proposed limit or given a chance to oppose it before the Legislature passed it without debate in October. It took effect Jan. 1.

On Wednesday afternoon, Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures and Ron and Collette Garthwaite of Claravale plan to bring a cadre of scientists, doctors and raw milk consumers to present their case for raw milk to a hearing of the Assembly Agriculture Committee, where the limit originated.

The committee's chairwoman, Assemblywoman Nicole Parra, D-Hanford, said she is introducing an urgency bill to repeal of the limit - 10 coliform bacteria per milliliter of milk. It was one line in a long bill tweaking dairy standards, AB1735.

The bill was proposed by the California Department of Food and Agriculture, according to department spokesman Steve Lyle. It was put on the consent agenda, meant for bills with no opposition, and passed without hearing or debate.

Parra said yesterday that she learned only after the law passed that the standard was controversial, that there were only two raw milk dairies in California, and that they had never been told of the proposed limit although department inspectors work with them regularly.

"How difficult would it have been to call them?" she asked. "At the end of the day, CDFA knew this was controversial."

Parra said she expects criticism for pushing for repeal of a food safety law, but she's doing so "on behalf of these two dairies that I believe were rolled by a state agency. In the end, that's not something I could live with."

Raw milk proponents say the coliform limit is impossible to meet, and that it's unnecessary because most coliform are benign, or even good for human health, and that raw milk already is tested for the kinds that cause illness, including E. coli and listeria.

The department, which has a long history of trying to outlaw raw milk in California, said in a statement that "coliform do not belong in raw milk" and that AB1735 "went through the normal legislative process."

If the agriculture committee votes to repeal the coliform limit, it would have to pass both the Assembly and Senate by a two-thirds majority as an urgency bill.

Parra said the department is free to introduce a coliform limit as a new bill subject to legislative debate.

E-mail Carol Ness at cness@sfchronicle.com.

State's tough new raw milk standards upset consumers, farmers

2007-10-27T09:50:00.000-07:00

State's tough new raw milk standards upset consumers, farmers

Carol Ness, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, October 26, 2007

Raw milk, as precious as mother's milk to about 40,000 California consumers, is likely to be tougher to find on store shelves come January because of a state law that the Legislature passed quietly this month.

For the first time, raw milk will have to meet a strict limit for coliform bacteria.

"It basically prohibits raw milk in California," said Mark McAfee, managing partner of Organic Pastures Dairy in Fresno, which produces most of the raw milk sold in California. He sees the standard as a stealth attempt to ban raw milk.

Raw milk advocates and milk safety authorities agree that most strains of coliform bacteria don't cause illness. Raw milk already is tested for the ones that do - E. coli, salmonella, listeria and campylobacter. The rest are part of the teeming culture of bacteria and enzymes that proponents believe make raw milk more healthful than pasteurized milk.

The raw milk standard was part of AB1735, a broader measure designed to align California milk standards with federal ones. There was no public debate over the bill, nor were the two raw milk dairies in California informed in advance. The bill won routine, unanimous approval, and the governor signed it Oct. 8.

The maneuver represents latest round in a struggle between raw milk's avid fans and government food safety and public health officials, who want all milk pasteurized. A Food and Drug Administration manager has compared drinking raw milk to "playing Russian roulette with your health."

California is one of just four states that allow raw milk to be sold in stores; 24 others permit sales directly from farms. The federal government requires any milk shipped across state lines to be pasteurized.

The California Department of Food and Agriculture, which inspects dairies and tests raw and pasteurized milk monthly, strongly backs the new raw milk standard.

"A coliform count by itself doesn't mean there's an organism that will make you sick," said Stephen Beam, the state agency's chief in charge of dairy food safety. But a high count is an "an indication of general sanitation and will lead you to solve a problem before it becomes a greater problem."

Several other Western states, including Oregon and Washington, have adopted the same limit, Beam said.

The food and agriculture department says the limit is reachable. About 25 percent of the raw farm milk the agency tests before pasteurization comes in below the limit of 10 coliform per milliliter, according to agency figures.

In preliminary tests over the last year, both of California's raw milk dairies met the standard six out of eight times, Beam said. Under the law, two bad results in any four consecutive tests draws a warning from the state, and a third out of five shuts down the dairy until it can demonstrate consistent good results.

McAfee said new coliform limit will be impossible for his 350-cow dairy to meet consistently because coliform are so common in the environment and in cows.

Besides that, he argues - and many raw milk consumers agree - that beneficial bacteria are a big reason people seek out raw milk. They believe bacteria help build the immune system and reduce allergies and asthma and that the good bacteria actually inhibit the production of bad bacteria in raw milk.

The new limit, McAfee contends, "is going to make the sale of raw milk very, very difficult if not impossible in California."

Organic Pastures sells $5.8 million a year in raw milk, cream and cheese, most of it in California. About 300 stores, including many Whole Foods supermarkets and San Francisco's Rainbow Grocery, carry the milk. It's also shipped to other states labeled as pet food, which is legal.

McAfee said, and the state agriculture department's Beam confirmed, that no illness-causing bacteria have been found in milk from his dairy.

But Organic Pastures raw milk has been recalled three times over the past two years, when state health authorities believed it had caused outbreaks of food-borne illness. Two involved non-fatal E. coli, but no E. coli bacteria was found in Organic Pastures milk, McAfee and Beam said. The third case, earlier this year, did find listeria in Organic Pastures cream; McAfee said he had bought the cream from another organic dairy.

The only other dairy that sells raw milk in California stores, as well as in farmers' markets, is tiny Claravale Farms, with 55 milking cows. It recently moved from Watsonville to San Benito County and has never found pathogens in its milk.

Claravale owner Ron Garthwaite said the new limit will make his job more difficult.

"It's hard to argue against a coliform limit," he said. "It's a contaminant, and if you are doing things cleanly, it shouldn't be there. But I don't know, maybe in six months I'll be out of business."

Most raw milk consumers, who already pay more for raw milk and can't find it in most stores, still aren't aware of the new law.

Informed of it by a reporter's call earlier this week, San Francisco artist Francesca Pera called it "pretty upsetting" and predicted it would drive raw milk drinkers underground.

Pera, who lives in the Richmond District, is the organizer of a 15-member buying club to purchase milk directly from Organic Pastures, both to save money and ensure their supply. Her family drinks it "mainly for health reasons," since her 16-year-old daughter was diagnosed with an autoimmune disease a couple of years ago.

"As happens in other states, people find small farms and buy raw milk illegally through cow shares," Pera said. "That's what we could be forced to do."

McAfee has vowed to fight for repeal and is talking with Assembly Agriculture Committee staff about a meeting next week.

He intends to stir up his customers - including, he says, actor Sylvester Stallone - to action, starting with a press conference Saturday in Fresno.

Whom to contact

Assembly Agriculture Committee chair Nicole Parra, D-Hanford (Kings County); (916) 319-2030

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger; (916) 445-2841 or www.gov.ca.gov

California Department of Food and Agriculture, Animal Health and Food Safety Services, Milk and Dairy Food Safety Branch;

(916) 654-0773

Organic Pastures;

(559) 846-9732 or www.organicpastures.com.

E-mail Carol Ness at cness@sfchronicle.com.

NYT - Should This Milk Be Legal? 8/8/2007

2007-08-08T10:50:00.000-07:00

August 8, 2007
Should This Milk Be Legal?
By JOE DRAPE

THERE was the name of a Web site scrawled on cardboard and quickly torn to bits by an anonymous farmer in the Greenmarket at Union Square. Then came the paperwork, legal enough presumably, to protect the source of the illicit substance. Finally, Yaron Milgrom-Elcott received the monthly drop site: an address near Chelsea, open for two hours, show up or lose the white stuff.

Mr. Milgrom-Elcott never missed a drop. Each month, he joined mothers with newborns and Wall Street titans in search of a box of unpasteurized, unhomogenized, raw milk. He is also part of a movement of perhaps hundreds of thousands across the country who will risk illness or even death to drink their milk the way Americans did for centuries: straight from the cow.

Twenty years ago, the Food and Drug Administration banned interstate sales of unpasteurized milk. This spring the agency warned consumers again that they were risking their health drinking raw milk.

Still, individual states determine how raw milk is bought and sold within their borders. While its sale for human consumption is illegal in 15 states, New York is one of 26 where it can be bought with restrictions. The chief one is that raw milk can only be sold on the premises of one of 19 dairy farms approved by the state. Clandestine milk clubs, like the one Mr. Milgrom-Elcott joined, are one way of circumventing the law, and there are others.

Raw milk drinkers may praise its richer flavor or claim it is more nutritious than pasteurized milk. No matter why they drink it, the demand for it is booming. In 2000, the Organic Pastures Dairy Company in the San Joaquin Valley near Fresno became California’s first raw milk dairy with certified organic pasture land. This year its co-founder, Mark McAfee, expects it to gross $6 million — up from $4.9 last year.

His raw milk is sold in 300 stores in California, where it is legal. He also has an $80,000 a month mail order business, shipping creams and cheese as well as milk to all 50 states. He believes he reaches 35,000 customers a week for his raw milk products. Because the laws allow interstate shipping of raw milk that is not meant for human consumption, Organic Pastures milk is labeled as pet food.

“I like to go into the warehouse and see the addresses — it goes all over creation,” he said. “We don’t have the same customers day in and day out. We’re the entry point. We hear back that shipping is too expensive but that they found a local provider, either a farm or on the black market. They have got to have it.”

Mr. McAfee said he knows firsthand of more than six dairies in Pennsylvania, some of them Amish, that supply the black market in New York and Boston. “They’re sending in 200 cases of milk every month,” he said.

Some drink it for the same reason raw milk cheeses are popular: the taste. “I first discovered it two summers ago in France,” said Mr. Milgrom-Elcott, who is pursuing a doctorate in medieval Jewish mysticism at New York University. “There is a richness and density unlike processed milk, plus there’s this complexity of flavor.”

Others believe that it is good for them. Pasteurization — a process of heating and quickly cooling milk to kill pathogens such as E. coli, salmonella and listeria — also destroys beneficial bacteria, proteins and enzymes, they say. Advocates attribute stronger immune and better digestive systems to raw milk. Many have incorporated it into their diet as part of a broader philosophy to treat their bodies and the planet properly.

Nina Planck, the author of “Real Food: What to Eat and Why,” defied the F.D.A.’s warning and drank raw milk while she was pregnant. She not only continues to drink it while nursing her 9-month-old son, Julian, but also allows him the occasional sip. She has an arrangement with a couple of farmers to deliver it to New York City.

“We drink raw milk because we trust the traditional food chain more than the industrial one,” said Ms. Planck, who knows a number of farmers from her days as director of the New York City Greenmarkets and through her boyfriend, Rob Kaufelt, the owner of Murray’s Cheese in Greenwich Village.

“We’re willing to spend more money the higher up the food chain we go,” she said. “We’re not alone, either. You cannot categorize the people who are drinking raw milk. They are people from the blue states and red states, farmers and yuppies and Birkenstock wearers.”

Food scientists can hardly believe that so many consumers have turned their back on one of the most successful public health endeavors of the 20th century. In 1938, for example, milk caused 25 percent of all outbreaks of food- and water-related sickness.

With the advent of universal pasteurization, that number fell to 1 percent by 1993, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nutrition advocacy group in Washington.

David Barbano, director of the Northeast Dairy Foods Research Center, operated by Cornell and the University of Vermont and supported by the dairy industry, grew up drinking raw milk on a family farm. He does not remember ever getting sick, but says science has never found any evidence that it was more beneficial than pasteurized milk. In fact, he said, raw milk has very little vitamin D, which is added to most pasteurized milk.

“There is always going to be a percentage of raw milk that carries disease-causing bacteria,” said Dr. Barbano, who is a professor of food science at Cornell. “As long as I have pasteurized milk available for me, and I guess more importantly for my daughter, the risk is not worth any benefit anyone has been able to prove.”

Sally Fallon, president of the Westin A. Price Foundation, another nutrition advocacy group, argues that the risk to raw milk drinkers is insignificant, and the demand for product is growing steadily. In 1998, when the Washington-based foundation created the Web site realmilk.com, it barely had half a page of sources where raw milk could be purchased legally. Now, the list has grown to more than two dozen pages, and Ms. Fallon puts the number of raw milk drinkers at half a million.

“We are trying to be pragmatic and create demand,” said Ms. Fallon of the 10,000-member, 400-chapter foundation, which has mounted legal challenges to raw milk regulations in several states. “Even though it is illegal in some places, it is very available through cow sharing or cow herding programs.”

In Virginia, for example, Chip and Susan Planck — Nina’s parents — pay $40 a year plus $25 monthly to own a share in one cow, the only legal way to get raw milk in that state. In return, they get a gallon of raw milk a week. It is technically not a sale but compensation for the cow’s room and board.

Last year the Hawthorne Valley Farm in Ghent, N.Y., offered a buyers’ club program to its raw milk customers in the hopes of giving a bigger boost to a steadily growing market. It was designed to encourage those customers in New York and beyond to order in bulk but send only one representative a week to pick up the order.

When the New York State Department Public Interestand Markets caught wind of it, however, it asked Hawthorne to end the program and the farm complied. Still, Abe Madey, the farm’s dairy manager and cheesemaker, says business is steady. About 100 regular customers, many of whom drive two hours from New York City, purchase up to 7,500 gallons annually of raw milk worth about $45,000 to the farm, he said.

The milk club that Mr. Milgrom-Elcott belongs to, and others like it, is far more problematic, according to Jessica A. Chittenden, a spokeswoman for the Agriculture and Markets department. She says the 41 milk inspectors charged with the monthly testing of New York’s 5,000 dairy farms had not yet turned their attention to the clandestine dropoffs.

“It is under review,” said Ms. Chittenden, adding that the department cited five of the raw milk permit holders for violations in the past year. “Our utmost concern is for public health. We are trying to insure that the safest products are out there.”

For a few months anyhow, Mr. Milgrom-Elcott can shed his identity of a potential law-breaker. His wife, Miriam Sheinbein, just finished her third year at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and is currently serving a brief rotation in San Francisco. In California, raw milk is legal and widely available. While Ms. Sheinbein, who is 19 weeks pregnant, has decided to forego the delicacy until the baby is born, Mr. Milgrom-Elcott is delighted to take his habit above-ground.

“It’s hard to live without,” he said.

But then again, Mr. Milgrom-Elcott’s secret life in New York was not without its thrills.

“We also bought crème fraîche from the milk club,” he said. “It was nearly as ethereal as our fromager’s in Aix-en-Provence.”

The Milk War - Glencolton's Story

2007-07-04T21:23:00.001-07:00

http://www.realmilk.com/real-milk-canada.html

North Carolina Raw Milk Scare

2007-04-26T08:52:00.000-07:00

CITIZEN-TIMES.com
Health department issues warning on consuming raw milk

North Carolina Divisions of Public Health and Environmental Health
April 25, 2007 2:22 pm

The N.C. Divisions of Public Health and Environmental Health are
warning citizens against raw milk consumption after one person became
ill following consumption of raw milk products in Wilkes County.

"Raw milk – milk that has not been pasteurized – contains harmful
bacteria that may cause illness and possible death," State
Epidemiologist Dr. Jeff Engel said. "According to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, 45 outbreaks of food-borne illness
associated with unpasteurized milk or cheese made from unpasteurized
milk occurred between 1998 to May 2005. These outbreaks accounted for

1,007 illnesses, 104 hospitalizations, and two deaths."

Engel added that the Wilkes County outbreak serves as a reminder to
all North Carolinians that consuming raw milk or raw milk products is
dangerous and a risk to one's health.

Health officials have confirmed one case of campylobacteriosis in a
man who drank unpasteurized milk. That man, who was hospitalized, is
now recovering. Investigators are looking into several other probable
infections in people who drank from the same milk source.

Campylobacteriosis is one of several diseases that can be acquired by
consuming raw milk.

Symptoms of illness caused by raw milk vary depending on which
harmful bacteria are present. Symptoms may include but are not
limited to vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, fever, headache and
body aches. Most healthy people recover quickly from illness caused
by harmful bacteria in raw milk or raw milk products; however,
pregnant women, the elderly, infants, young children and people with
weakened immune systems are at a greater risk of developing long-term
or life-threatening illnesses.

Since 1987, in order to better protect consumers from such risks, the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration has required all milk packaged for
human consumption be pasteurized before being delivered for
introduction into interstate commerce. Pasteurization, a process that
heats milk to a specific temperature for a set period of time, kills
bacteria responsible for diseases such as listeriosis, salmonellosis,
campylobacteriosis, typhoid fever, tuberculosis, diphtheria and
brucellosis.

North Carolina implemented a milk program in the 1920s, resulting
from outbreaks associated with unpasteurized milk. That program has
evolved to become the Dairy Protection Branch in the Division of
Environmental Health with six regional milk specialists who inspect
the state's Grade "A" facilities involved in the production,
transportation, processing and distribution of Grade "A" milk and
milk products. In 1983, the state adopted the federal Pasteurized
Milk Ordinance and, as an effort to protect public health,
legislation was passed to prohibit the sale of raw milk for human
consumption.

For more information about North Carolina's Grade "A" milk program,
contact Kay Sigmon at (704) 483-6218. For information about the
communicable diseases that can be caused by consuming raw milk or raw
milk products, please contact Dr. Greg Smith at (919) 715-8179. The
FDA also has information about raw milk consumption, which is
available online at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/rawm-toc.html or

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/rawmilk.html.

Amish Run-In Over Raw Dairy - AP

2007-04-26T08:27:00.001-07:00

Amish Farmer Says Milk Law Contrary to Religious Beliefs

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

MOUNT HOPE, Ohio —
Arlie Stutzman was busted in a rare sting when an undercover agent
bought raw milk from the Amish dairy farmer in an unlabeled container.

Now, Stutzman is fighting the law that forbids the sale of raw milk,
saying he believes it violates his religious beliefs because it
prohibits him from sharing the milk he produces with others.

"While I can and I have food, I'll share it," said Stutzman, who is
due in Holmes County Common Pleas Court on Friday to tell a judge his
views. "Do unto others what you would have others do unto you."

Last September, a man came to Stutzman's weathered, two-story
farmhouse, located in a pastoral region in northeast Ohio that has
the world's largest Amish settlement. The man asked for milk.

Stutzman was leery, but agreed to fill up the man's plastic container
from a 250-gallon stainless steel tank in the milkhouse.

After the creamy white, unpasteurized milk flowed into the container,
the man, an undercover agent from the Ohio Department of Agriculture,
gave Stutzman two dollars and left.

The department revoked Stutzman's license in February. In April, he
got a new license, which allows him to sell to cheese houses and
dairies, but received a warning not to sell raw milk to consumers again.

"You can't just give milk away to someone other then yourself. It's a
violation of the law," said LeeAnne Mizer, spokeswoman for the
department.

Organizations from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to the
American Dairy Association have said that raw milk contains health
risks because it has not been heated to kill bacteria, such as E. coli.

Regulators want Judge Thomas D. White to formally order Stutzman to
comply with dairy laws. Stutzman said he is fighting the request on
principle, saying he should be able to share his milk.

Stutzman's Amish faith places an emphasis on the community. To
preserve their lifestyle, the Amish avoid the use of electricity and
automobile ownership, which would allow the outside world to enter
unabated into their culture.

The Amish typically do not get involved in politics, unless laws
impede their ability to make a living or follow their religious
beliefs. Stutzman said he is getting some community support.

"It shows he's not going to be intimidated and he's going to do what
he thinks is the right thing," said his attorney, Gary Cox.

State officials said they sent the agent to his farm because they
received a tip from an anonymous neighbor about raw milk sales.

Stutzman, however, said he believes he was targeted because his cows
are partly owned by a group of 150 families in what is known as a
herd share agreement. Members pay him a fee for the cows and are
entitled to a portion of the milk.

Sales of raw milk are illegal in Ohio and 24 other states. But herd
share agreements take advantage of a loophole because the group is
buying the cows, not the milk.

Groups such as the Weston A. Price Foundation, which is dedicated to
restoring nutrient-dense foods to people's diets, advocate the
consumption of raw milk, saying pasteurization diminishes vitamin
content and kills beneficial bacteria.

For Stutzman, the herd share agreement gives him an outlet for his
extra milk. He also enjoys sharing his product with others who would
otherwise not have access to it.

"We know people are deprived of this real food," he said.

Buter County PA Raw Milk Listeria Scare 4/2007

2007-04-18T09:10:00.001-07:00

Ag Department Warns Consumers Of Raw Milk from Butler County Dairy

CARLISLE -- Consumers who have purchased raw milk from Fisher's Dairy, Butler County, any time after April 9, 2007, should discard it immediately due to the risk of Listeria monocytogenes contamination, Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff said.

"During routine inspection, a preliminary test showed the presence of Listeria bacteria in some of the raw milk samples taken from Fisher's Dairy," said Wolff. "If consumers have raw milk from this farm, they should discard it immediately."

There have been no illnesses reported because of the potential contamination, but if individuals who consumed the raw milk become ill, they are advised to consult their physician.

Raw milk is milk that has not been pasteurized or homogenized. The Department of Agriculture has suspended sales of raw milk at the dairy and is ensuring that corrective action is taken. Samples taken from the farm during routine testing on April 9 tested positive for Listeria on April 13. Multiple laboratory samples must come back negative before sales can resume.

Symptoms of Listeriosis are fever, muscle aches, and sometimes gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea or diarrhea. If infection spreads to the nervous system, symptoms such as headache, stiff neck, confusion, loss of balance or convulsions can occur. Infected pregnant women may experience only a mild, flu-like illness, but infections during pregnancy can lead to miscarriage or stillbirth. Symptoms of Listeriosis can appear in four days to three weeks.

POSTED 070417_0900 ET

Kevin Burget |Executive Producer | Wide Iris Productions |+1 (888) 810-1211 | wideiris.net

Monsanto - How Now Brown Cow?

2007-04-12T06:15:00.001-07:00

Monsanto - How Now Brown Cow?

Sunday, March 18 2007 @ 07:49 AM PDT

Contributed by: John Peck

Farm ReportAfter decades of being consumed in the U.S., Monsanto's recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) may be headed to the technological dustbin due to human health concerns. Will this be the fate of other genetically modified organisms (GMOs)?

Monsanto - How Now Brown Cow?

By: John E. Peck

Executive Director

Family Farm Defenders

In May 2006 the Journal of Reproductive Medicine revealed problems among expectant U.S. mothers who consumed recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) milk due to elevated levels of Insulin-like Growth Factor One (IGF-1). Subsequent media coverage about "human twinning" left processors and retailers scrambling to cut back on their rBGH milk supplies in hopes of limiting liability. For those of us who have been working to expose the rBGH fraud for the last 20 years, this was the opportune moment to bring back together concerned farmers, consumer advocates, and scientists, pool our expertise, strategize, and help drive the final nail into the coffin of the first genetically modified organism (GMO) allowed to enter the human food chain.

Over 20 years ago when experimental rBGH dairy products were sold illegally, without FDA approval, to students, staff, faculty, and patients at the University of Wisconsin – Madison, Dr. David Kronfeld was one of the first to prove that much of the published research on this patented technology was fraudulent. Dr. Kronfeld was then targeted for ridicule by the drug companies, the researchers, and even university officials themselves. He was ultimately demoted and his career nearly destroyed. At that time his support network was very small, just a handful of farmers and consumers. Many other ethical people who stood up against the corporate driven perversion of the public research agenda of the land grant college system were also punished and silenced. Those who survived those difficult years can take heart in how far the movement has come.

The grassroots resurgence in anti-rBGH activism can be credited to the incorruptible persistence of several key figures. John Kinsman, the dairy farmer who first exposed rBGH fieldtrials at UW-Madison and who now serves as secretary of the National Family Farm Coalition has never given up the ghost on this issue. Neither has Dr. Samuel Epstein, chair of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, who recently compiled years of research on the human health dangers of rBGH in his latest book, What's in Your Milk?" Richard North of Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility was instrumental in getting Tillamook to go rBGH-free back in March 2005. Despite years of vicious attempts by Monsanto and Fox News to silence her since her 1997 expose of rBGH use on farms in Florida, Jane Akre remains an inspirational whistleblower. Pete Hardin and his gadfly dairy paper, the Milkweed, have been giving Monsanto's rBGH scathing coverage from the very beginning. Patty Lovera and her colleagues at Food and Water Watch have been equally relentless in their anti-rBGH campaign against Starbucks, as has been longtime anti-GMO activist, Ronnie Cummins, with the Organic Consumers Association. And, of course, there are many others.

When California Dairy Inc. (CDI) President and CEO Richard Cotta, announced that they were going rBGH-free as of Aug. 1st, 2007 based upon "strictly consumer demand," this sent shock waves through the industry. CDI processes 45% of California's milk and joins a growing list of other processors who are rejecting Monsanto's technology, including Dean Foods, Darigold, H.P. Hood, Oakhurst Dairy of New England, United Dairymen of Arizona, and Shamrock Farms of Arizona. Recently dairy farmers shipping to one of the largest dairy cooperatives in the Midwest report that they have have been approached by the co-op's fieldmen urging them to stop using Posilac (Monsanto's brandname rBGH) if they are, and to certainly not start using it if they don't already. Co-op insiders say the decision has already been made to go completely rBGH-free by year's end.

Several of the largest grocery story and restaurant chains have also announced that they are going rBGH-free. Safeway reported that all of its stores in the Northwest have stopped accepting rBGH, this coming shortly after Starbucks reported all of its shops in Oregon and Washington were no longer serving rBGH products, as well as in other selected markets. Our task is now to get Starbucks to go completely rBGH-free nationwide at all of its 8,500 outlets. In Dec. Chipotle pledged to offer only rBGH–free sour cream at all of its 585 restaurants by the end of 2007. Rumor has it that Walmart, Krogers, and other retail giants are also putting pressure on dairy suppliers to go rBGH free as soon as possible.

Monsanto has suffered numerous rebukes for its other genetic tinkering activities over the last few years. Thanks to staunch opposition from the U.S. baking industry which knew it would lose its overseas markets, Monsanto on May 2004 withdraw its plans to introduce Round-Up Ready (RR) wheat to farm fields on the high plains. In May 2006 Indian farmers successfully argued before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission that Monsanto was charging an "unjustified" technology fee on patented Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton, opening the way for compensation claims. Hundreds of bankrupt farmers have been committing suicide in India as their Bt cotton yields plummeted to 200 kg/acre – far below the 1500 kg/acre promised by Monsanto. Lastly, in response to a lawsuit filed last year by farm groups, environmentalists, and consumer advocates, a federal judge in northern California issued an injunction on March 12, 2007 against further seed sales of Monsanto's Round-Up Ready (RR) alfalfa pending a thorough USDA environmental impact statement. Besides genetically engineered papaya (which has already destroyed much of the organic papaya industry in Hawaii), RR alfalfa was the only other perennial crop that had been approved for commercial production in the U.S.

Monsanto's public relations wing is now working overtime, trying to salvage its rBGH flagship, with a well-funded campaign to smear grassroots critics, spread doubt about labels among consumers, and to convince farmers that it is somehow their "right" to use expensive dangerous patented technologies that undermine their own economic viability. To give some examples, Dennis Avery of the rightwing Hudson Institute's Center for Global Food Issues has created such misinformation websites as Milk is Milk and Stop Labeling Lies, while Dairy Business Communications, recently launched its "Voices for Choices" campaign, ostensibly to safeguard the public image of the dairy industry by defending Monsanto's rBGH. Dubious front groups, such as the National Organization for African-Americans in Housing (NOAAH), have been cranking out pro rBGH opinion articles, arguing that greater access to healthier food for which farmers get a fairer price is somehow preying on lower income people. Posilac peddlers are also scouring the countryside, offering up to three months of the drug for "free" to any dairy farmer willing enough to sign Monsanto's one sided contract and consign their cows to a short brutal life of one and half lactations.

Renewing the offensive, on Feb. 20th 2007 a citizen petition was submitted to the FDA on behalf of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, Family Farm Defenders, and the Organic Consumers Association requesting a suspension of rBGH approval pending a reevaluation of its human health hazards and citing a section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that enables the commissioner to proactively label products with a cancer risk warning. While no one should hold their breath expecting favorable action by the FDA, the petition has already generated more media coverage and is another opportunity to raise public awareness. With the imminent demise of rBGH, it is now time to put on trial all other genetically engineered organisms (GMOs) contaminating our food/farm system, demand a moratorium against any new introductions, and promote food sovereignty as an alternative to this corrupt industrial agribusiness model.

For more info:

Family Farm Defenders,

1019 Williamson St. #B, Madison, WI 53703

tel./fax 608-260-0900

www.familyfarmdefenders.org

Escherichia coli O157:H7 FAQ - from CDC

2007-04-03T10:10:00.001-07:00

Escherichia coli O157:H7 Frequently Asked Questions

Escherichia coli O157:H7 is an emerging cause of foodborne illness.

An estimated 10,000 to 20,000 cases of infection occur in the United States each year. Infection often leads to bloody diarrhea, and occasionally to kidney failure. Most illness has been associated with eating undercooked, contaminated ground beef. Person-to-person contact in families and child care centers is also an important mode of transmission. Infection can also occur after drinking raw milk and after swimming in or drinking sewage-contaminated water.

Consumers can prevent E. coli O157:H7 infection by thoroughly cooking ground beef, avoiding unpasteurized milk, and washing hands carefully. Because the organism lives in the intestines of healthy cattle, preventive measures on cattle farms and during meat processing are being investigated.

What is Escherichia coli O157:H7?

E. coli O157:H7 is one of hundreds of strains of the bacterium Escherichia coli. Although most strains are harmless and live in the intestines of healthy humans and animals, this strain produces a powerful toxin and can cause severe illness. E. coli O157:H7 was first recognized as a cause of illness in 1982 during an outbreak of severe bloody diarrhea; the outbreak was traced to contaminated hamburgers. Since then, most infections have come from eating undercooked ground beef. The combination of letters and numbers in the name of the bacterium refers to the specific markers found on its surface and distinguishes it from other types of E. coli.

How is E. coli O157:H7 spread?

The organism can be found on a small number of cattle farms and can live in the intestines of healthy cattle. Meat can become contaminated during slaughter, and organisms can be thoroughly mixed into beef when it is ground. Bacteria present on the cow's udders or on equipment may get into raw milk.

Eating meat, especially ground beef, that has not been cooked sufficiently to kill E. coli O157:H7 can cause infection. Contaminated meat looks and smells normal. Although the number of organisms required to cause disease is not known, it is suspected to be very small.

Drinking unpasteurized milk and swimming in or drinking sewage-contaminated water can also cause infection. Bacteria in diarrheal stools of infected persons can be passed from one person to another if hygiene or handwashing habits are inadequate. This is particularly likely among toddlers who are not toilet trained. Family members and playmates of these children are at high risk of becoming infected.

Young children typically shed the organism in their feces for a week or two after their illness resolves. Older children rarely carry the organism without symptoms.

What illness does E. coli O157:H7 cause?

E. coli O157:H7 infection often causes severe bloody diarrhea and abdominal cramps; sometimes the infection causes nonbloody diarrhea or no symptoms. Usually little or no fever is present, and the illness resolves in 5 to 10 days. In some persons, particularly children under 5 years of age and the elderly, the infection can also cause a complication called hemolytic uremic syndrome, in which the red blood cells are destroyed and the kidneys fail. About 2 percenmt-7 percent of infections lead to this complication. In the United States, hemolytic uremic syndrome is the principal cause of acute kidney failure in children, and most cases of hemolytic uremic syndrome are caused by E. coli O157:H7.

How is E. coli O157:H7 infection diagnosed?

Infection with E. coli O157:H7 is diagnosed by detecting the bacterium in the stool. Most laboratories that culture stool do not test for E. coli O157:H7, so it is important to request that the stool specimen be tested on sorbitol-MacConkey (SMAC) agar for this organism. All persons who suddenly have diarrhea with blood should get their stool tested for E. coli O157:H7.

How is the illness treated?

Most persons recover without antibiotics or other specific treatment in 5-10 days. There is no evidence that antibiotics improve the course of disease, and it is thought that treatment with some antibiotics may precipitate kidney complications. Antidiarrheal agents, such as loperamide (Imodium), should also be avoided.

Hemolytic uremic syndrome is a life-threatening condition usually treated in an intensive care unit. Blood transfusions and kidney dialysis are often required. With intensive care, the death rate for hemolytic uremic syndrome is 3 percent-5 percent.

What are the long-term consequences of infection?

Persons who only have diarrhea usually recover completely. About one-third of persons with hemolytic uremic syndrome have abnormal kidney function many years later, and a few require long-term dialysis. Another 8 percent of persons with hemolytic uremic syndrome have other lifelong complications, such as high blood pressure, seizures, blindness, paralysis, and the effects of having part of their bowel removed.

What can be done to prevent the infection?

E. coli O157:H7 will continue to be an important public health concern as long as it contaminates meat. Preventive measures may reduce the number of cattle that carry it and the contamination of meat during slaughter and grinding. Research into such prevention measures is just beginning.

What can you do to prevent E. coli O157:H7 infection?

* Cook all ground beef and hamburger thoroughly. Because ground beef can turn brown before disease-causing bacteria are killed, use a digital instant-read meat thermometer to ensure thorough cooking. Ground beef should be cooked until a thermometer inserted into several parts of the patty, including the thickest part, reads at least 160 degrees F. Persons who cook ground beef without using a thermometer can decrease their risk of illness by not eating ground beef patties that are still pink in the middle.

* If you are served an undercooked hamburger or other ground beef product in a restaurant, send it back for further cooking. You may want to ask for a new bun and a clean plate, too.

* Avoid spreading harmful bacteria in your kitchen. Keep raw meat separate from ready-to-eat foods. Wash hands, counters, and utensils with hot soapy water after they touch raw meat. Never place cooked hamburgers or ground beef on the unwashed plate that held raw patties. Wash meat thermometers in between tests of patties that require further cooking.

* Drink only pasteurized milk, juice, or cider. Commercial juice with an extended shelf-life that is sold at room temperature (e.g. juice in cardboard boxes, vacuum sealed juice in glass containers) has been pasteurized, although this is generally not indicated on the label. Juice concentrates are also heated sufficiently to kill pathogens.

* Wash fruits and vegetables thoroughly, especially those that will not be cooked. Children under 5 years of age, immunocompromised persons, and the elderly should avoid eating alfalfa sprouts until their safety can be assured. Methods to decontaminate alfalfa seeds and sprouts are being investigated.

* Drink municipal water that has been treated with chlorine or other effective disinfectants.

* Avoid swallowing lake or pool water while swimming.

* Make sure that persons with diarrhea, especially children, wash their hands carefully with soap after bowel movements to reduce the risk of spreading infection, and that persons wash hands after changing soiled diapers. Anyone with a diarrheal illness should avoid swimming in public pools or lakes, sharing baths with others, and preparing food for others.

For more information about reducing your risk of foodborne illness, visit the US Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service website at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov or the Partnership for Food Safety Education at: For more advice on cooking ground beef, visit the U.S. Department of Agriculture web site at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/topics/gb.htm

Information courtesy of:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Center for Infectious Diseases | Division of Bacterial & Mycotic Diseases

1600 Clifton Rd, NE

MS C-09

Atlanta, GA 30333

Kevin Burget |Executive Producer | Wide Iris Productions |+1 (888) 810-1211 | wideiris.net

New Danger Associated With Drinking Ordinary Milk - Mercola.com

2007-04-03T07:08:00.001-07:00

New Danger Associated With Drinking Ordinary Milk

Milk in its raw form is healthier that pasteurized milk, a fact made abundantly clear in a recent study by Dr. Loren Cordain about the presence of betacellulin, the growth factor found in the whey fraction of milk.

Dr. Cordain cites 25 studies connecting increased rates of cancer to drinking pasteurized milk due to betacellulin, as it passes into the adult digestive tract intact, then comes in contact with receptors and the circulation that stimulates the growth of cancer cells throughout the body.

The factor that makes raw milk a healthier choice, as it protects your health from betacellulin: The presence of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). CLA blunts the cancer-causing effect of betacellulin and has prevented cancer in lab tests too, particularly in conjunction with saturated fat.

Wise Traditions (not currently posted)

Dr. Mercola's Comment:

Just a reminder, organic milk may be free from hormones and other contaminants, but it's still pasteurized, a destructive process that eliminates virtually any good bacteria already present, and may have lower levels of CLA too. Milk in its purest raw form, on the other hand, is rich in conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). The CLA content is also five times greater in milk produced by grass-fed cows.

Although organic milk is certainly far better than non-organic milk because it does not contain harmful pesticide and hormone residues, it is vitally important to understand that nearly all raw milk is better than organic milk.

Even though it is a challenge to obtain raw milk, it is far better to obtain your milk from raw sources than it is to purchase organic milk.

There simply is no comparison in the quality. Grass-fed raw milk is even better.

Most of the time with milk, the certification is an expensive certification process that doesn't add any value to the milk other than to assure you that the milk was raised under clean conditions.

Ideally, you should locate the dairy yourself and do your own inspection. Talk to the farmer and see how the cows are being raised. That beats any type of certification process that can be easily manipulated.

Additionally raw milk:

* Causes fewer allergies: Raw milk more than halves the levels of immunoglobulin E (IgE), a chemical pumped out by cells in response to an allergen.

* Has more nutrients: Raw milk is an outstanding source of nutrients including healthy beneficial bacteria such as lactobacillus acidophilus, vitamins and enzymes.

* Is healthier: Raw milk is not associated with any of the health problems surrounding pasteurized milk such as rheumatoid arthritis, skin rashes, diarrhea and cramps. Even people who have been allergic to pasteurized milk for many years can typically tolerate and even thrive on raw milk.

* Tastes better: As with any food, fresher is always better and this applies to milk as well. Fresh raw milk is creamier and better tasting than pasteurized milk that has a shelf life of several weeks.

If you've been looking for a raw milk source near you but have had no luck finding one, you'll want to review the listings on the Real Milk Web site.

The Real Reasons Why Raw Milk is Becoming More Popular

Pasteurized Milk and its Link to Autism

Is Raw Milk Consumption Growing in America?

Kevin Burget |Executive Producer | Wide Iris Productions |+1 (888) 810-1211 | wideiris.net