http://www.marlerblog.com/2009/03/articles/lawyer-oped/organic-pastures-dairy-e-coli-o157h7-raw-milk-product-outbreak-2006/
Bill Marler
See above – I would really like some comments and for you all to send this around to the public health community – it is time to step up and at least be honest that Raw Milk can cause illnesses.
William D. Marler, Esq.
Marler Clark LLP PS
6600 Columbia Center
701 Fifth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
P: 1-206-346-1890
F: 1-206-346-1898
C: 1-206-794-5043
E: bma...@marlerclark.com
W: www.marlerclark.com
See also, www.marlerblog.com
Roy Costa
Raw Milk: Strengthening the Public Health Message:
I am writing in response to Mr. Marler's request to address the ineffectiveness of the public health response to raw milk sales and consumption. We keep beating the danger drum but not everyone is listening. Its not just a matter of beating the drum harder or a united voice. There are numerous background issues that are confounding solutions and the message is getting very lost. We have to understand the background interference in order to make progress with the public health message.
The hazards of drinking raw milk are well known and need no further proof. FDA's prohibition against interstate sales should logically extend to sales within states. Sales of raw milk and the economic benefit to some small diary farmers who find themselves in an economic crisis is overriding common sense. The Weston-Price Foundation and other promoters of raw milk with marginal science to back their health claims are simply advertising for these desperate farmers. They are leading consumers to believe raw milk is good for them, when in fact it is a very hazardous product.
Bill Marler in his recent blog writes a very in depth and much appreciated survey of the legal and public health ramifications of raw milk sales and consumption. See: http://www.marlerblog.com/2009/03/articles/lawyer-oped/organic-pastures-dairy-e-coli-o157h7-raw-milk-product-outbreak-2006/
In an important observation about the early history of raw milk before pasteurization laws, Mr. Marler states, “the ability to sell and purchase raw milk was thus determined more by the social and political nature of the individual jurisdiction than by scientific knowledge”. The socio-economics and politics in this country have changed dramatically since the introduction of pasteurization, but the essential problem of science versus politics has not gone away.
Today, if you want pasteurized milk, it is readily available. Those of us who prefer a safe product can easily obtain it; but now it is become a matter of choice. Social pressure and consumer demand have created an economic incentive for dairy farmers to sell raw milk directly to consumers, sidestepping co-ops, intermediaries, and processors. A willingness to supply is coupled with a consumer demand for raw milk. There is a demand for raw milk for the same reasons there is a demand for organically grown foods, free-range chicken, and hormone free milk; namely political, social justice and health consciousness on the part of the consumer. If states continue to allow sales of raw milk within their borders, customers will demand it and there will be production (and morbidity and mortality).
As mentioned in comments by readers of Mr. Marler’s blog, consumers are making up their own collective minds about what to eat and do not trust government’s food safety messages implicitly. Consumers for example are now demanding rBST free milk (milk free of added hormones) even after FDA’s assurance that bovine growth hormone is an approved additive and milk containing it is safe. What is the difference in the mind of the consumer? The difference is that “artificial” growth hormone is something man has conjured up through biotechnology to increase the milk supply. The dairy industry did not adopt hormone treatment to make milk better tasting, cows more healthy, or milk more nutritious. Consumers see no benefit at all and on the other hand perceive risk. rBST supposedly makes the dairy industry more profitable and we should remember that many small farmers use rBST!. In this case, however, consumers are not buying it and point to early onset puberty as the result of added hormones in food even when the science for this association is lacking. E coli, Salmonella and other pathogens, on the other hand, are just part of the natural environment. Some consumers will reject the scientifically proven evidence for severe risk and drink raw milk regardless of how weak the science is for the perceived benefits.
Mistrust of government, concerns for small farmers and favorable media reports are compelling consumers and influencing thier behavior. It is hard for the safety community to paint these farmers and their supporters as the “bad guys” The media is full of quotes from reputable people (including healthy farming folk who drink it everyday with no ill effects) praising raw milk.
The obvious reaction from public health advocates to this growing danger is to ban raw milk sales. Should we also make it illegal to sell other high-risk foods? What about rare hamburger, raw shellfish and sprouts? Do you remember how far the New Jersey Health Department got when they banned sunny-side-up eggs?
Mr. Marler writes, “the highest levels of the Department of Health and Human Services have concluded that certified raw milk poses a serious threat to the public health”. At some point, we will have to be pragmatic about the safety of raw milk. Just like with other hazardous commodities, the public health community, food scientists, dairy experts and FDA will need to determine “best practices” and how to achieve the least harmful product. FDA then should monitor the outcomes and adjust standards. We will gain credibility not by confronting farmers and consumers who are not convinced we are right, but by attempting to find a scientifically rational solution to the contamination problem and by addressing social justice concerns.
It does not help safety advocates to have the major dairy industry players appearing to be somehow in collusion with FDA. The “big dairy" perception and its influence over FDA is a major part of the problem and needs to change. Change in public perception is not likely unless there are dynamic changes in the position of the dairy industry as regard the underlying issues that are driving the raw milk debate. Perception is also unlikely to change unless we have a clear study from FDA showing that raw milk either has or lacks significant nutritional benefits.
FDA needs to distance itself a little from industry, bring all parties to the table, do the science, and through an open and inclusive process determine the best possible microbiological quality for raw milk for states that will not outlaw it. FDA will not likely influence local states to ban raw milk, therefore state raw milk certification programs need to be very strong. If the most meticulous program will not work completely, we will have undoubtedly reduced incidence. This may be the best public health can do.
Roy E Costa, R.S., M.S./M.B.A. Public Health Sanitarian Consultant Environ Health Associates, Inc 1.386.734.5187 www.haccptraining.org www.safefoods.tv rco...@cfl.rr.com
From: bma...@marlerclark.com
To: bma...@marlerclark.com
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:12:12 -0700
Subject: [Foodsafe] http://www.marlerblog.com/2009/03/articles/lawyer-oped/organic-pastur es-dairy-e-coli-o157h7-raw-milk-product-outbreak-2006/
Aqu...@aol.com
Aqua-Terra Consultants
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!
Roy Costa
Concerning the pathogens, I was meaning the perception is that they are just there, in any outdoor environment frequented by animals. Making raw milk safe will have to tackle this problem. I can almost guarantee I could design a system for safe raw milk production given enough resources. I think we need to find the breakpoint and be able to tell the world "we can make raw milk safe and it will cost each producer about 100,000 at first and then 20,000 a year". Or "we have determined that even with unlimited resources the product cannot be made safely". What we will do then is either validate certification program standards, or we must do away with them because we proved they do not work.
Now we drive the most criminal farmer and radical consumer underground, and radically constrict supply making it very profitable for the criminal. We then need mandatory criminal prosecution.
like "official government research has shown that safe raw milk production is possible, and will cost the avergae farmer about $100,000 in initial capital outlay and at least 10,000.00 a year", then revise the certificatiojn standards. Or, "research has shown that even with unlimited resources, raw milk cannot be produced safely". This might mean certification programs by the states would have to stop, effectively halting production for sale for all but the most criminally minded farmer.
Roy E Costa, R.S., M.S./M.B.A. Public Health Sanitarian Consultant Environ Health Associates, Inc 1.386.734.5187 www.haccptraining.org www.safefoods.tv rco...@cfl.rr.com
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:29:07 -0400
Subject: [Foodsafe] Re: Raw Milk: Strengthening the Public Health Message
To: roye...@hotmail.com; bma...@marlerclark.com; foodsa...@googlegroups.com
Roy Costa
Concerning the pathogens, I was meaning the perception is that they are just there, in any outdoor environment frequented by animals. Making raw milk safe will have to tackle this problem. I can almost guarantee I could design a system for safe raw milk production given enough resources. I think we need to find the breakpoint and be able to tell the world "we can make raw milk safe and it will cost each producer about 100,000 at first and then 20,000 a year". Or "we have determined that even with unlimited resources the product cannot be made safely". What we will do then is either validate certification program standards, or we must do away with them because we proved they do not work.
Now we drive the most criminal farmer and radical consumer underground, and radically constrict supply making it very profitable for the criminal. We then need mandatory criminal prosecution.
like "official government research has shown that safe raw milk production is possible, and will cost the avergae farmer about $100,000 in initial capital outlay and at least 10,000.00 a year", then revise the certificatiojn standards. Or, "research has shown that even with unlimited resources, raw milk cannot be produced safely". This might mean certification programs by the states would have to stop, effectively halting production for sale for all but the most criminally minded farmer.
Roy E Costa, R.S., M.S./M.B.A. Public Health Sanitarian Consultant Environ Health Associates, Inc 1.386.734.5187 www.haccptraining.org www.safefoods.tv rco...@cfl.rr.com
From: Aqu...@aol.com
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 17:29:07 -0400
Subject: [Foodsafe] Re: Raw Milk: Strengthening the Public Health Message
To: roye...@hotmail.com; bma...@marlerclark.com; foodsa...@googlegroups.com
Allen Sayler
Bill, I want to applaud you and Mr. Clark for the courage to stand up against the massive public misinformation campaign of the raw milk advocates. The International Association of Food Protection (IAFP) has a Raw Milk Subcommittee that, along with other public health organizations, is attempting to organize the scientific and food safety committee to publicize the true facts about human raw milk consumption and anyone interested in assisting can contact myself or Dr. Ron Schmidt at the University of Florida.
The time is past for accepting raw milk proponent's arguments based on individual testimony and assumptions and publicizing these as scientifically supportable fact. It is also time to move from being defensive about this issue to finding supporters in state legislatures that will listen to public health experts and remove state raw milk laws that were passed in order to silence raw milk proponents without regarding for the true medical cost to society, particularly the impact on children.
While it may be an interesting academic exercise for some public health "experts" to postulate about the whether it is theoretically possible to produce "safe" raw milk consistently free of human pathogens for human consumption, the practical answer today and into the near future is "no". CDC's recent analysis of raw milk outbreak data proves that states with more liberal raw milk laws also have higher levels of raw milk-caused human illness outbreaks. So much for the argument that making raw milk sales legal will keep the producers from going underground, triggering large raw milk illness outbreaks. The opposite is actually true. This is another example of arguments by raw milk proponents that do not hold water when analyzed using scientific fact.
It is also almost comic that the raw milk consumption issue is compared with raw oyster consumption in the US. I do not know of children that regularly consume raw oysters. This is an adult food. The decision to purchase and serve raw milk is made primarily by well-intentioned mothers that are doing so in order to feed it to their children. The two issues are very different, as well as the risks of illness.
Most commercial dairy farms have the ability to produce milk under much better hygienic conditions today than 20 or 50 years ago, but because human pathogens are commonly found in the dairy farm environment, and some of these pathogens cause mastitis in dairy cattle, the presence of human pathogens in raw milk is not just because of poor farm hygiene and human intervention. There will always be some low level of human pathogens in raw milk and exposing the most susceptible populations in our society to this risk is unacceptable when the solution is so simple, pasteurize the raw milk.
A major initiative for the raw milk proponents will play out at the 2009 National Conference of Interstate Milk Shipments meeting in Orlando, Florida, April 17 - 22, 2009. Proposal 152 submitted by Mark McAfee requests the NCIMS to issue a policy statement in support of the FDA Citizen's Petition to amend 21 CFR 1240.61 to allow the interstate sale of raw milk for human consumption. The preliminary review of this proposal will occur at a meeting of the NCIMS Animal/Herd Shares Study Committee on Sunday, April 19 from 8:00 - 10:00 am EDT. I would challenge the public health community to get involved in this effort by attending this meeting in-person to provide testimony against adoption of this proposal that would role back the public health movement in this country by 100 years.
Thank You!
Allen R. Sayler, Vice President
International Dairy Foods Association
Phone: 202-220-3544
Fax: 202-331-7820
Cell: 202-841-1029
Register for IDFA's Milk & Culture Dairy Products Symposium! March 31 - April 2, 2009, Kansas City, MO
For more information or to register,
visit
http://www.idfa.org/meetings/2009_mcdp_symposium.cfm
From:
Foodsa...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Foodsa...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bill Marler
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:12
PM
To: Bill Marler
Subject: [Foodsafe]
http://www.marlerblog.com/2009/03/articles/lawyer-oped/organic-pastur
es-dairy-e-coli-o157h7-raw-milk-product-outbreak-2006/
Bill Marler
On 3/21/09 6:43 PM, "Allen Sayler" <asa...@idfa.org> wrote:
Bill, I want to applaud you and Mr. Clark for the courage to stand up against the massive public misinformation campaign of the raw milk advocates. The International Association of Food Protection (IAFP) has a Raw Milk Subcommittee that, along with other public health organizations, is attempting to organize the scientific and food safety committee to publicize the true facts about human raw milk consumption and anyone interested in assisting can contact myself or Dr. Ron Schmidt at the University of Florida.
The time is past for accepting raw milk proponent's arguments based on individual testimony and assumptions and publicizing these as scientifically supportable fact. It is also time to move from being defensive about this issue to finding supporters in state legislatures that will listen to public health experts and remove state raw milk laws that were passed in order to silence raw milk proponents without regarding for the true medical cost to society, particularly the impact on children.
While it may be an interesting academic exercise for some public health "experts" to postulate about the whether it is theoretically possible to produce "safe" raw milk consistently free of human pathogens for human consumption, the practical answer today and into the near future is "no". CDC's recent analysis of raw milk outbreak data proves that states with more liberal raw milk laws also have higher levels of raw milk-caused human illness outbreaks. So much for the argument that making raw milk sales legal will keep the producers from going underground, triggering large raw milk illness outbreaks. The opposite is actually true. This is another example of arguments by raw milk proponents that do not hold water when analyzed using scientific fact.
It is also almost comic that the raw milk consumption issue is compared with raw oyster consumption in the US. I do not know of children that regularly consume raw oysters. This is an adult food. The decision to purchase and serve raw milk is made primarily by well-intentioned mothers that are doing so in order to feed it to their children. The two issues are very different, as well as the risks of illness.
Most commercial dairy farms have the ability to produce milk under much better hygienic conditions today than 20 or 50 years ago, but because human pathogens are commonly found in the dairy farm environment, and some of these pathogens cause mastitis in dairy cattle, the presence of human pathogens in raw milk is not just because of poor farm hygiene and human intervention. There will always be some low level of human pathogens in raw milk and exposing the most susceptible populations in our society to this risk is unacceptable when the solution is so simple, pasteurize the raw milk.
A major initiative for the raw milk proponents will play out at the 2009 National Conference of Interstate Milk Shipments meeting in Orlando, Florida, April 17 - 22, 2009. Proposal 152 submitted by Mark McAfee requests the NCIMS to issue a policy statement in support of the FDA Citizen's Petition to amend 21 CFR 1240.61 to allow the interstate sale of raw milk for human consumption. The preliminary review of this proposal will occur at a meeting of the NCIMS Animal/Herd Shares Study Committee on Sunday, April 19 from 8:00 - 10:00 am EDT. I would challenge the public health community to get involved in this effort by attending this meeting in-person to provide testimony against adoption of this proposal that would role back the public health movement in this country by 100 years.
Thank You!
Allen R. Sayler, Vice President
International Dairy Foods Association
Phone: 202-220-3544
Fax: 202-331-7820
Cell: 202-841-1029
Register for IDFA's Milk & Culture Dairy Products Symposium! March 31 - April 2, 2009, Kansas City, MO
For more information or to register, visit
http://www.idfa.org/meetings/2009_mcdp_symposium.cfm <http://www.idfa.org/meetings/2009_mcdp_symposium.cfm>
Roy Costa
I totally agree with you that the increasing consumption and acceptance of the commercial production of raw milk for consumption is a threat to public health. I differ from your stance in that I don't think we are making progress, and I don't think your current approach to the problem is the best. We will fall further behind if we just keep on doing what we have done so far, and I am trying my best to explain why I feel it is so.
The media blitz by raw milk advocates aside, the facts remain that consumers want this product, the media is soft on the issue, many prominent people believe consumers deserve a choice and that small dairy farmers who face the threat of losing their livelihood deserve an opportunity to sell this product as a means to stay afloat. I don't believe this, but many other people do.
Until these underlying issues are addressed and the consumption stops, public health experts need to be thinking about the best way to improve the safety of this product, and that is what I am talking about now. You seem to feel that somehow we will have the political muscle to make FDA stop all raw milk consumption in the US, but that is quite unlikely.
When I speak on this list I speak for myself. I am not affiliated with any association or group or any employer, agency or client that stands to gain or lose from what I say. The members of this list generally recognize this. What I say, I say with conviction because it is what I believe. What I believe is a result of 30 years of hard fought experience in the frontlines of public health, where I lifted myself up by the bootstraps through education and a lot of hard work. Whether that qualifies me as an expert or not, I will let others judge. Public health people do not make value judgments as to which life is more important to protect; a child dying from E coli in a hamburger or listeria in queso blanco, or an elderly person dying from vibriosis is all wasted human life and this is what we are supposed to be preventing, if we can.
In a way, the dairy industry and public health advocates may also be making assumptions and stating them as fact. Where is the scientific evidence that proves raw milk cannot be made safe by any means other than pasteurization? Just citing the epidemiology of outbreaks and the failure of current certification schemes does not address this point. Where is the scientific evidence that says folks who drink raw milk (and do not get sick or die) are not healthier as many claim?
I am fully convinced that raw milk is a dangerous product and should not be offered for sale, but the dairy industry is not making a good case for this, and neither is the public health community. This failure can be easily seen by the positive commentary given by raw milk advocates published in the media, this is a symptom of our problem. My point is, until the economic and social drivers behind this trend are recognized and dealt with in a socially just way, raw milk production and consumption will continue to grow. It is our unwillingness to address why this trend has taken hold that is the real threat to undoing the public health progress made by pasteurization.
Whether interstate shipments of raw milk will be loosened or not, there is strong pressure for states not only to allow production, but for it to expand. We can have all the meetings we want and some good may come from them, but I don't think the public is hearing the message we want them to hear no matter how steamed up we get about it or how loud we ring the alarm bells. I believe it will take a radical approach to change the dynamics of this issue and consumer perception, which of course is at the root of it.
Roy E Costa, R.S., M.S./M.B.A. Public Health Sanitarian Consultant Environ Health Associates, Inc 1.386.734.5187 www.haccptraining.org www.safefoods.tv rco...@cfl.rr.com
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:43:24 -0400
From: asa...@idfa.org
To: bma...@marlerclark.com; foodsa...@googlegroups.com; aqu...@aol.com; roye...@hotmail.com
Garry Dawson
Why not simply have the Government set the Microbiological limits for MILK.
Whether it is Raw or Pasteurised shouldn’t matter it either meets the limits set and can be sold or it doesn’t.
It would then be up to the Raw Milk proponents to demonstrate that their milk consistently meets the criteria and put in place testing regimes including end of shelf life tests to back this up.
Garry Dawson
Proprietor
HACCP Manager Software
</html
Roy Costa
As long as it is allowed, this is a rational approach but reason is being outmatched and there is distortion of facts, self interest on both sides, and polarization. In this climate, reasoning is quite difficult. I believe raw milk is too hazardous a product to sell, I would like to see FDA simply ban it, but I also believe this about undercooked ground beef, sprouts and raw shellfish, but there is a demand for them and we have processes that limit the hazards, somewhat.
As public health professionals, this is what we do when we cannot outright prohibit the hazardous product. We have states that allow raw milk sales and have set microbial limits for raw milk, those need to be validated, and we need validation and clear definition of the process by which standards are set and achieved. That is where the science is lacking. We also need a prospective case control study to tell us whether raw milk drinking is protective against certain disorders as claimed by proponents. Just telling people not to drink raw milk and threatening farmers doesn't cut it with the media or with some of the public. Frankly we have not been convincing enough and many are rejecting our argument, thus states are under pressure to ease up on laws. As Mr. Sayler pointed out, this may undo 100 years of public health protection and would be a very serious setback. I argue that to protect public health we need a fall back position because it is not likely that the dairy industry will solve the socio-economic problems of small dairy farmer-producers and convince all consumers not to drink raw milk.
For an example of state standards raw milk micro standards see:
http://www.milkfacts.info/Milk%20Microbiology/Microbial%20Standards.htm
Roy E Costa, R.S., M.S./M.B.A. Public Health Sanitarian Consultant Environ Health Associates, Inc 1.386.734.5187 www.haccptraining.org www.safefoods.tv rco...@cfl.rr.com
Subject: [Foodsafe] Re: Raw Milk: Strengthening the Public Health Message
K B
Egg...@aol.com
Boston, Ma. 02114
On the other hand if husbandry practices can be fine tuned to disfavor the presence of pathogens then the problem shifts to correcting husbandry practices and not banning products. Ditto for product handling and packaging.
Roy - thanks for a well balanced perspective. Key question:Can raw milk be produced to a level of safety comparable to other raw foods? If the answer is yes then raw milk needs to be produced and certified to that standard, not banned from commerce.The only section of your dissertation that I wonder about:"E coli, Salmonella and other pathogens, on the other hand, are just part of the natural environment"I would question whether that are part of the "natural environment" or whether they are part of a "manmade environment". Husbandry practices have a significant impact on the health of animals and the microbial balance. Post harvest product handling practices also affect product safety. If you accept that pathogens are endemic and present under all circumstances then no raw foods can ever be produced safely and hence the urgency to ban raw milk (and with this paradigm all raw foods).On the other hand if husbandry practices can be fine tuned to disfavor the presence of pathogens then the problem shifts to correcting husbandry practices and not banning products. Ditto for product handling and packaging.
I suspect we will one day expose that safe raw milk production cannot be done with the prevailing methodology of mass milk production or careless niche production. The dominant mass milk producers would need to completely retool their operations in a way that does not fit their current operations. Hence the drive to quash raw milk. Wanting to improve the safety of raw milk makes sense. Wanting to ban raw milk makes cents.Alan Ismond, P.Eng.
Aqua-Terra Consultants
Egg...@aol.com
Boston, Ma. 02114
Raw Milk: Strengthening the Public Health Message:
I am writing in response to Mr. Marler's request to address the ineffectiveness of the public health response to raw milk sales and consumption. We keep beating the danger drum but not everyone is listening. Its not just a matter of beating the drum harder or a united voice. There are numerous background issues that are confounding solutions and the message is getting very lost. We have to understand the background interference in order to make progress with the public health message.
The hazards of drinking raw milk are well known and need no further proof. FDA's prohibition against interstate sales should logically extend to sales within states. Sales of raw milk and the economic benefit to some small diary farmers who find themselves in an economic crisis is overriding common sense. The Weston-Price Foundation and other promoters of raw milk with marginal science to back their health claims are simply advertising for these desperate farmers. They are leading consumers to believe raw milk is good for them, when in fact it is a very hazardous product.
Bill Marler in his recent blog writes a very in depth and much appreciated survey of the legal and public health ramifications of raw milk sales and consumption. See: http://www.marlerblog.com/2009/03/articles/lawyer-oped/organic-pastures-dairy-e-coli-o157h7-raw-milk-product-outbreak-2006/
In an important observation about the early history of raw milk before pasteurization laws, Mr. Marler states, “the ability to sell and purchase raw milk was thus determined more by the social and political nature of the individual jurisdiction than by scientific knowledge”. The socio-economics and politics in this country have changed dramatically since the introduction of pasteurization, but the essential problem of science versus politics has not gone away.
Today, if you want pasteurized milk, it is readily available. Those of us who prefer a safe product can easily obtain it; but now it is become a matter of choice. Social pressure and consumer demand have created an economic incentive for dairy farmers to sell raw milk directly to consumers, sidestepping co-ops, intermediaries, and processors. A willingness to supply is coupled with a consumer demand for raw milk. There is a demand for raw milk for the same reasons there is a demand for organically grown foods, free-range chicken, and hormone free milk; namely political, social justice and health consciousness on the part of the consumer. If states continue to allow sales of raw milk within their borders, customers will demand it and there will be production (and morbidity and mortality).
As mentioned in comments by readers of Mr. Marler’s blog, consumers are making up their own collective minds about what to eat and do not trust government’s food safety messages implicitly. Consumers for example are now demanding rBST free milk (milk free of added hormones) even after FDA’s assurance that bovine growth hormone is an approved additive and milk containing it is safe. What is the difference in the mind of the consumer? The difference is that “artificial” growth hormone is something man has conjured up through biotechnology to increase the milk supply. The dairy industry did not adopt hormone treatment to make milk better tasting, cows more healthy, or milk more nutritious. Consumers see no benefit at all and on the other hand perceive risk. rBST supposedly makes the dairy industry more profitable and we should remember that many small farmers use rBST!. In this case, however, consumers are not buying it and point to early onset puberty as the result of added hormones in food even when the science for this association is lacking. E coli, Salmonella and other pathogens, on the other hand, are just part of the natural environment. Some consumers will reject the scientifically proven evidence for severe risk and drink raw milk regardless of how weak the science is for the perceived benefits.
Mistrust of government, concerns for small farmers and favorable media reports are compelling consumers and influencing thier behavior. It is hard for the safety community to paint these farmers and their supporters as the “bad guys” The media is full of quotes from reputable people (including healthy farming folk who drink it everyday with no ill effects) praising raw milk.
The obvious reaction from public health advocates to this growing danger is to ban raw milk sales. Should we also make it illegal to sell other high-risk foods? What about rare hamburger, raw shellfish and sprouts? Do you remember how far the New Jersey Health Department got when they banned sunny-side-up eggs?
Mr. Marler writes, “the highest levels of the Department of Health and Human Services have concluded that certified raw milk poses a serious threat to the public health”. At some point, we will have to be pragmatic about the safety of raw milk. Just like with other hazardous commodities, the public health community, food scientists, dairy experts and FDA will need to determine “best practices” and how to achieve the least harmful product. FDA then should monitor the outcomes and adjust standards. We will gain credibility not by confronting farmers and consumers who are not convinced we are right, but by attempting to find a scientifically rational solution to the contamination problem and by addressing social justice concerns.
It does not help safety advocates to have the major dairy industry players appearing to be somehow in collusion with FDA. The “big dairy" perception and its influence over FDA is a major part of the problem and needs to change. Change in public perception is not likely unless there are dynamic changes in the position of the dairy industry as regard the underlying issues that are driving the raw milk debate. Perception is also unlikely to change unless we have a clear study from FDA showing that raw milk either has or lacks significant nutritional benefits.
FDA needs to distance itself a little from industry, bring all parties to the table, do the science, and through an open and inclusive process determine the best possible microbiological quality for raw milk for states that will not outlaw it. FDA will not likely influence local states to ban raw milk, therefore state raw milk certification programs need to be very strong. If the most meticulous program will not work completely, we will have undoubtedly reduced incidence. This may be the best public health can do.
Roy E Costa, R.S., M.S./M.B.A. Public Health Sanitarian Consultant Environ Health Associates, Inc 1.386.734.5187 www.haccptraining.org www.safefoods.tv rco...@cfl.rr.com
From: bma...@marlerclark.com
To: bma...@marlerclark.com
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:12:12 -0700
Egg...@aol.com
Richard Webman
Boston, Ma. 02114
The big milk processors are IMHO trying to protect the industry not their specific brand and with good reason.
Roy Costa
A valuable and insightful post.
Let me be very clear. The reason I have been talking about the raw milk issue is to point out why I believe we are not making enough progress in getting raw milk out of the market place. Its about public perception and I am not advocating raw milk.
As long as the public mistrusts the food safety messages from authorities, consumers are going to make up their own minds about what they eat. You need only to look at rBST and see how the consumer is thinking. I bring up the sensitive topic of rBST not to fan the flames. Whether it is scientifically safe or not, overwhelming consumer rejection of rBST is partly due to deeply held cultural belief systems that are also at work in this debate.
There are also several other background regulatory issues influencing consumers including the lax oversight of imports and FDA's problems with drug approvals. These well publicized failures (sorry) make them distrust the raw milk message emanating from FDA. Right or wrong, the public today perceives a problem of reliability and integrity in authorities entrusted with their health.
The public's negative opinion of government's integrity is fueled by the intrigues in Washington politics; people are very sensitized to lobbyists right now. Being a public servant for 23 years (and not ashamed of it) I don't share the opinion that FDA is in the pocket of industry. While there are undoubtedly self-serving politicians and opportunistic food industry lobbies, I believe as you do that most public health officials are acting in good faith, but nevertheless, its a popular viewpoint that they are not. This belief is very much at the root of the growing trend to dabble in risky behavior such as consumption of raw milk even when the authorities say not to.
I have proposed a couple of ideas that are controversial based on these analyses. Granted my stance is unpopular in the mood people are in in this debate. I am unpopular when I criticize an industry that has done an outstanding job in public health protection for 100 years. I only do it because in this debate, industry seemingly stands for nothing other then mobilizing government for a regulatory fix. This is an odd stance for me, since I do believe we need industry support for stronger food safety laws to make them successful.
I do not criticize the dairy industry for wanting to stop the continued spread of a hazardous dairy product. I am critical because until now, the industry has not recognized why the public is not getting the public health message and has not developed a strategy that will change this.
I proposed two admittedly debatable suggestions for confronting the raw milk activists and strengthening the public health message based upon my own understanding of the following:
A. Raw milk activists decry the economic plight of small dairy farmers and thus gain the sympathy of the public who see farmers as the very soul of this country and claim they have a biblical-God given right to distribute this product.
B. Raw milk activists point to health benefits from consuming what admittedly is a very rich "natural product" and that raw milk has a place in their diets.
C. Because they have been successful with A. and B. they are also able to convince some that raw milk is safe to drink.
Again, I feel I have to say due to the emotions running rampant here, that I personally do not support the basis for these positions. On the contrary, I believe a strategy for improving the public health message can be based upon understanding the weakness in these scientific arguments.
It would be as simple as the dairy association beginning an open dialogue with dairy farmers who feel they are outside the economic mainstream of the industry and trying to find safe, economic alternatives to raw milk as a means of survival. Second, FDA providing a sound scientific basis for telling consumers that there is no health difference between people who drink raw milk and pasteurized milk will diffuse the health-benefit issue; whereas just telling them nutritionally the products are the same, does not work.
These two strategies are very easily accomplished and would turn the tables on the opposition. I speak frankly here, also knowing that what I say is heard by both the proponents and opponents of raw milk. Therefore let me reiterate the most controversial issue that I have raised, and that is the stance by the dairy industry that pasteurization is the only way to make raw milk safe. It denies the many technical advances that have come about in the last 100 years. To support this, I have pointed to other hazardous products such as raw shellfish and sprouts because they provide a precedent for dealing with the approval of otherwise hazardous products. This is probably the most dangerous position that I have taken, but until science proves this idea wrong, meaning until it is attempted and fails under controlled conditions, I believe it bears discussion. Failure of certification programs is not proof-positive that careful regulation of raw milk cannot be accomplished under any means. The Interstate Shellfish Sanitary Commission is an interesting model to look at.
Your idea of the private testing of foods to determine whether they are contaminated is very interesting and a novel idea that I kind of like. I see no reason not to do this. It would definitely create a media buzz if research labs began recovering pathogens from products in commerce. Not to take another shot at FDA or other agencies (they are the targets of too much undeserved criticism already) we should be able to rely on our government's own surveillance and testing. Results in any case need to be transparent, and those results made clear to the public.
Thanks for writing. I enjoyed your post.
Roy E Costa, R.S., M.S./MBA. Public Health Sanitarian Consultant Environ Health Associates, Inc 1.386.734.5187 rco...@cfl.rr.com
Roy E Costa, R.S., M.S./M.B.A. Public Health Sanitarian Consultant Environ Health Associates, Inc 1.386.734.5187 www.haccptraining.org www.safefoods.tv rco...@cfl.rr.com
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 20:38:33 -0400
Subject: [Foodsafe] Re: Raw Milk: Strengthening the Public Health Message
To: Foodsa...@googlegroups.com; food-la...@googlegroups.com
CC: john.s...@fda.hhs.gov; david....@fda.hhs.gov
</HTML<BR
Peter M. Sandman
Dear Roy—
Just a quick note to tell you how much I admire what you’ve been saying about raw milk.
This is an issue I know nothing about. (I follow the Foodsafe listserv because of other interests, particularly recalls.) But as a risk communication practitioner, researcher, and consultant for 40 years now, I fervently agree that persuading raw milk consumers that it is hazardous will require an approach that shows more respect for their reasons for preferring it, that acknowledges more forthrightly their grounds for mistrusting its opponents, and that is open in principle to safety improvements other than pasteurization.
I am struck by the comparison to the vaccination/autism issue, one on which I have worked extensively. (See for example http://www.psandman.com/gst2008.htm#poling.) There the mainstream that considers vaccination “safe” (by which I mean acceptably safe, demonstrably safer than going unvaccinated) exaggerates vaccination safety and ignores or disparages the views of the other side. The other side is perhaps 99.9% wrong, but claiming it is 100% wrong is a huge risk communication error, which gives opponents the moral high ground and the ammunition they need to continue winning converts.
The mainstream that considers raw milk dangerous (not acceptably safe, demonstrably more dangerous than pasteurized milk, and perhaps more dangerous than going without milk altogether) is apparently making the same error … an error you are trying to correct.
One additional suggestion you might want to consider: Whatever new research is done to address the health effects (positive and negative) of raw milk should be undertaken in collaboration with raw milk’s proponents. Or at least the offer to collaborate should be made, sincerely, credibly, and publicly; they may decline, but would pay a price for doing so. In high-outrage controversies like this one, it is close to useless for one side to offer unilateral “proof” that the other side is wrong on any point.
All the best.
--Peter
</HTML<BR
</html
Roy Costa
Roy E Costa, R.S., M.S./M.B.A. Public Health Sanitarian Consultant Environ Health Associates, Inc 1.386.734.5187 www.haccptraining.org www.safefoods.tv rco...@cfl.rr.com
To: roye...@hotmail.com; egg...@aol.com; foodsa...@googlegroups.com; food-la...@googlegroups.com
CC: john.s...@fda.hhs.gov; david....@fda.hhs.gov
Subject: [Foodsafe] Re: Raw Milk: Strengthening the Public Health Message