Category: raw milk

Ron Paul Is Right!

FDA Should Lift Its Ban On Interstate Sale of Raw Milk For Human Consumption

I never thought that I would agree with Representative Ron Paul. But after long reflection, I think that FDA should change its raw milk policy.

Consumers who wish to purchase and drink raw milk must navigate a labyrinth of regulations that govern its sale. Some states ban the retail sale of raw milk outright. Some permit it on store shelves. Still others allow its consumption through the back door of a “cow-share” program. Cow-share programs allow consumers to purchase a part of a dairy cow, and circumvent state laws that only permit consumption of raw milk by the cow’s owner.

This hodgepodge of state policies results in little or no oversight of raw milk producers and bottlers. And, in consequence, everybody suffers.

Earlier this week, representatives of the US dairy industry urged the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) to subject raw milk producers to the same regulatory and reporting requirements that are faced by producers of pasteurized milk. But how can FDA regulate raw milk producers while simultaneously banning the retail sale of their products?

The consumption of raw milk, and of dairy products made from unpasteurized milk, has been behind numerous outbreaks of food-borne disease. Many of these outbreaks have been linked to raw milk obtained through cow-share programs or purchased directly from dairy farmers.

In lifting the outright ban on interstate shipment of raw milk for retail sale, FDA would be able to bring raw milk under its regulatory umbrella. National standards could be set in cooperation with all 50 states, in much the same way that uniform standards have been agreed to for pasteurized milk. FDA and state regulators could insist on stringent safety and sanitation standards that would apply equally to all raw or pasteurized milk producers.

I have never been a supporter of the raw milk lobby. I know too well that raw milk, as it is produced and marketed today, is microbiologically risky. But prohibition isn’t working – just as it didn’t work for alcoholic beverages in the 1930s.

I have come to the conclusion that the only way to protect the US consumer from the health risks associated with drinking raw milk is to legalize it – and to hold raw milk to the same demanding safety standards that pasteurized milk must meet.

It’s time to recognize – and to regulate – raw milk.

Guest Blog: The Raw Milk Debate

The following Guest Blog first appeared on the ePerspective, a feature of the IFT newsletter, the weekly, and is reproduced here with the kind permission of its author, Dr. Catherine Donnelly.

The Raw Milk Debate: Economic Opportunity or Legal Liability?

Despite claims of health benefits associated with raw milk consumption, raw milk is a well documented source of bacterial pathogens which can cause human illness, and in some instances, death. Consumers who choose to purchase and consume raw milk should understand that raw milk may contain dangerous bacterial pathogens. Consumers should also understand whether they are in a risk group, which increases their chances of adverse health impacts from exposure to bacterial pathogens.

The dangers posed to public health by bacterial pathogens associated with raw milk consumption are numerous. Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella Typhimurium, Escherichia coli O157:H7, and Campylobacter are just four of the pathogens of concern in raw milk. The bacterial pathogens posing a risk to consumer health have become more dangerous in the past two decades.

During this same period, the percentage of our population at risk for foodborne illness has increased significantly. It is critically important to understand risks posed by raw milk consumption, why the pathogens have become so dangerous, who is at greatest risk for severe illness and death, and why we need public health policies that limit exposure and warn susceptible consumers about dangers posed by raw milk consumption.

Of all of the food commodity sectors in the U.S., no sector is more committed to public health than the dairy industry. The reason for the absolute commitment to public health stems from early in the 1900s when raw milk was a major source of human disease, including tuberculosis and scarlet fever. Numerous deaths were linked to raw milk consumption. The public health response to this crisis was the crafting in 1924 of the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO), a comprehensive document which governs all aspects of production, processing, and marketing of milk and dairy products. Pasteurized milk is not a safe product simply due to the heat treatment which milk receives; milk safety is achieved because the PMO outlines a comprehensive system to assure milk safety.

The PMO is constantly updated, guided by scientific experts, farmers, and dairy industry personnel working through the National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments (NCIMS) which works to “assure the safest possible milk supply for all the people” through enforcement of Grade A milk sanitation laws. The PMO has made pasteurized milk one of the safest food products available to consumers, and this ordinance has had a profound positive impact on public health. The PMO is the accepted operating guideline for the handling and production of milk and dairy products in most states. Adherence to the PMO importantly protects the U.S. milk market by enhancing consumer confidence in dairy product safety and reducing liability costs of this economically significant sector of the U.S. agricultural economy.

Many states have recently passed legislation to expand the sale of unpasteurized milk, allowing farmers to sell larger quantities of unpasteurized milk and thereby enhance economic opportunities in these times of severe economic challenges for so many dairy farmers. However, should economic opportunity be met at the expense of public health? Does pursuit of economic opportunity for some create the right to jeopardize the image of an entire industry that has built its reputation on the safety and wholesomeness of its products? Has this legislation created two standards for milk production in the U.S. and if so, what does this pose for the future of the U.S. dairy industry? There are important liability issues faced by individuals producing products causing harm to consumers, so the key question remains: Has raw milk legislation created economic opportunity or legal liability for farmers engaged in the sale of unpasteurized milk?

About Cathy Donnelly: Dr. Catherine Donnelly is Professor, Dept. of Nutrition and Food Science, University of Vermont and Co-director, Vermont Institute for Artisan Cheese.


Organic Pastures, Happy Cows & E. coli O157:H7

When a large, multi-state food poisoning outbreak is in progress, it’s easy for a second outbreak to go virtually unnoticed, especially when the same microbe – in this case E. coli O157:H7 – is responsible for both. That’s what would have happened in 2006, except for the vigilance of California’s health authorities and the technology of microbiological “fingerprinting”.

On September 8, 2006, Wisconsin health authorities reported to CDC that they had identified a small cluster of E. coli O157:H7 illnesses – all due to the identical strain of the microbe. Within a week, Oregon and New Mexico were added to the list of affected states, and the source of the outbreaks had been traced to bagged spinach.

The 2006 spinach outbreak had begun. Ultimately, 199 people in 26 states would report an illness with the outbreak strain. Just over one-half (102) of the victims would be hospitalized, and 31 would develop kidney failure and other consequences of hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). Three people would die.

While the spinach outbreak was in full bloom, the California Department of Health Services received reports of five children who had been infected with E. coli O157:H7. Two of the children were hospitalized, one of them suffering from HUS. A sixth child was also hospitalized with HUS, but E. coli O157:H7 was not lab-confirmed.

The E. coli O157:H7 cultures obtained from the five lab-confirmed victims matched each other, but had a different molecular fingerprint from the microbe that was behind the spinach outbreak. When investigators questioned the victims and their parents, they quickly found a common link. All six children had consumed raw milk or (in one case) raw colostrum from Organic Pastures Dairy Co., California’s largest producer of organic raw milk for retail sale.

The California Department of Food and Agriculture, on September 21st, ordered a state-wide recall of Organic Pastures’ whole and skim raw milk, raw cream and raw colostrum, and barred the company from producing raw milk. The production quarantine was lifted on September 29th, but the company was still forbidden from bottling its milk and cream for retail sale.

The owner of Organic Pastures, Mark McAfee, has always denied that his dairy was responsible for the six illnesses. In a telephone interview reported by SignOnSanDiego.com at the time of the outbreak, McAfee claimed he had been told that some of the children had eaten spinach and undercooked hamburger. And he contended that one of those foods had made them ill – despite the lab evidence that the children were infected with a different strain of E. coli O157:H7 than the one responsible for the spinach outbreak.

But Mark McAfee is an honorable man, and we should believe him.
The Organic Pastures web site boasts that “In more than 32 million servings, and more than five years of intensive testing, not one single pathogen has been found or detected. Not one person has complained to the state of CA that they have become sickened by an OPDC product.”

Yet victims of the 2006 outbreak specifically reported drinking Organic Pastures raw milk and raw colostrum. And California ordered a recall of Organic Pastures raw cream in 2007 after finding Listeria monocytogenes in a sample.

But Mark McAfee is an honorable man, and we should believe him.
After California lifted its quarantine order, McAfee celebrated his exoneration. In his opinion, without the State having found the outbreak strain in his milk, in his dairy environment, or in his cows, there was no evidence that Organic Pastures was responsible for the E. coli O157:H7 outbreak.

According to the CDC report released this week, however, the production lot that was linked to the outbreak was no longer available for testing. Also, non-outbreak strains of the microbe were recovered from the dairy herd.

But Mark McAfee is an honorable man, and we should believe him.
Organic Pastures claims that the total bacterial counts in its raw milk are consistently below the State’s limit of 15,000 bacteria per milliliter – even during the period covered by the 2006 outbreak. The State lab, though, found numerous samples containing counts in excess of the 15,000 limit – several of them in excess of 1,000,000 per milliliter.

Organic Pastures implies that its products have been negative for E. coli O157:H7 since 2002; however, the pdf file accessed from the same web page shows that testing for the pathogen only began about one month before the start of the 2006 outbreak.

But Mark McAfee is an honorable man, and we should believe him.
FDA prohibits the interstate sale of raw milk for human consumption. Organic Pastures says on its web site that it does not ship raw milk to customers outside of California. McAfee has exploited a loophole in the FDA regulations, which treat raw colostrum as a “non-dairy dietary supplement.” Organic Pastures’ Superlite Colostrum, containing 95% raw milk and 5% raw colostrum, is shipped to customers nationwide.

But Mark McAfee is an honorable man, and we should believe him.

Or should we believe the families of five children who were sickened in the 2006 outbreak and who have filed lawsuits against Mark McAfee?