Why is the FDA using swat teams on raw milk?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

KeithTalent

Elite Member | Administrator | No Lifer
Administrator
Nov 30, 2005
50,231
118
116
Honestly, is there a taste difference? That's what I'm trying to understand because many things I've read say for cheese, absolutely. Something about the enzymes that aren't broken down, etc do good things for the cheese.

I summon The Pizza to answer these questions. Pizza! Pizza! GoatMilkPizza!

Most assuredly for cheese; I've done samplings at restaurants and at cheesemakers and you can definitely taste the difference.

As for milk, I remember it tasting very different, but it was also because my Grandfather essentially just shot it out of the cow on to the table for us to drink, so it tasted very different than the milk I bought in the store. Of course maybe any sort of processing would have augmented the flavour, so I can't be certain if it was only pasteurization that caused the taste difference.

KT
 

busydude

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2010
8,793
5
76
I drank un pasteurized milk for 21 years. Most of the population in India do the same.

For reference watch Bizzare food with Andrew ..... He clearly explains it.
 

AreaCode707

Lifer
Sep 21, 2001
18,447
133
106
OP is usually a troll but on this topic there's some truth.

The Estrella Family Creamery in Washington state was one of the most respected artisan cheesemakers in the state. They were fully licensed and very professional about their health standards. This included doing their own testing for contamination.

One day they found listeria contamination in their Cave 3. They followed procedure right down to the letter, reporting the FDA, stopping sales of all cheese that had been through Cave 3 and issuing a recall (voluntary on their part) of all cheese that had been through Cave 3. As it happens, it was all soft cheese.

They closed the cave, brought in the FDA for recommendations and made every change the FDA requested of them, mortgaging their farm to do so. They returned to making cheese aged in that cave but did not sell any of it pending the FDA's ok.

Upon retesting, the FDA found listeria still in that cave unfortunately, and they also found it in the drain in the make room and in the wheel track of the little on premise retail shop. This is where things started to go bad.

The FDA asked the Estrellas to do a recall of ALL their cheeses. The only thing out in the market were their hard aged cheeses. Now, there has never been a case of hard cheese listeriosis in the history of the US and in general cheeses aged more than 18 months are considered not a risk for listeriosis. This was entirely at the discretion of the FDA, there was no listeria bacteria found anywhere in the hard cheese aging caves, and they had no good reason to do a recall.

Faced with the prospect of losing $600,000 worth of product on top of their expensive changes and remortgaged farm, in the face of an overwhelming lack of evidence, the Estrellas refused the recall. Here is where things go from bad to worse.

Context: the Estrellas have adopted several children from Africa. Their oldest is 22, their youngest is 12. Three girls, two boys. These are unbelieveably good kids, amazingly happy and well adjusted considering the trauma they've gone through in their lives. Some of them saw their parents killed in front of them when they were young. The FDA inspectors know this; they are well acquainted with the businesses and people they inspect.

The FDA rounded up the Federal Marshals and one day, with no notice, they showed up on the Estrellas doorstep, FULLY ARMED, to shut down the facility and seize the product. The kids were home alone. They asked the marshals to wait, that their parents were 15 minutes away and on their way home, but the marshals refused.

They broke sanitary protocol all over the creamery, walking in to the make room with mud-caked boots, no hairnets, etc, causing contamination as they shut down the facility. They put a seizure notice on the doors. The FDA then made up a list of complaints (spiderwebs, rust, cheesemaker eating out of the middle of the cheese wheel and putting it back, etc.) and it was formally posted. Trust me, I've been out there, I've seen Kelly Estrella as she makes cheese, and none of those complaints are accurate.

Now, the Estrellas can go to court to combat this but cheese has a limited shelf life. They cannot afford to fight this, and even if they could the product that is locked up would be worthless by the time the court battle even rolled started.

They have shut down their entire business and are trying desperately to stay afloat while they transition their business to an organic CSA. Honestly, they have a very slim chance of making it, considering that they have no income and have to ramp up both a market and product within a year.

The FDA in Washington is absolutely in bed with the dairy industry, and the dairy industry is a pretty powerful lobby. They love to help the local news out with scare tactic stories about raw milk and, given the overblown all natural movement in the Seattle area, the newspaper finds it a properly controversial topic to cover.

My husband has dairy goats and we do not sell or share milk. We could be arrested for pouring you a glass if you came over to our house, even if you signed a waver. It is harder to get a license to sell raw milk or cheese than pretty much anything else you can imagine, even if you plaster the thing with warning labels. There are plenty of people out there who know everything you could know about the risks and still really want to buy it, but that apparently doesn't matter jack shit.

People all over Europe and actually every else in the world drink raw milk and eat raw milk cheese, but the US regulates the stuff like it is arsenic. You can produce and sell it but the regulations are ridiculous, the setup is prohibitively expensive, and as you can see with the Estrellas, the government can shut you down anytime they want without any practical recourse on your part.

[edit] By contrast, I just got back from Italy where we visited a parmigiano maker, large scale. The doors didn't shut during working hours, there were flies, plenty of rust, all raw milk, no hairnets, no washing off shoes, but this is a maker who is selling tons of of the Parmesan cheese you buy at the grocery store. When you salt the shit out of your cheese and age it, IT ISN'T DANGEROUS. They allow that stuff to be imported without even half the regulations we face in the US, but they shut down a domestic operation for a single swab of listeria in the drain.

Oh, and not all listeria is dangerous, and the FDA declined to ever test what they got from the Estrellas to find out if it was a dangerous strain.
 
Last edited:

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,897
31,411
146
Honestly, is there a taste difference? That's what I'm trying to understand because many things I've read say for cheese, absolutely. Something about the enzymes that aren't broken down, etc do good things for the cheese.

I summon The Pizza to answer these questions. Pizza! Pizza! GoatMilkPizza!


yes, yes, very much so yes.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,897
31,411
146
Holy Fuck fuck, I hate the FDA even more than I did before after reading that story.

:mad:
 

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,754
64
91
1. 404 SWAT not found.
2. Why is Spidey defending hippies?
3. Does pasteurization really affect the taste or nutritional content of milk?
 

AreaCode707

Lifer
Sep 21, 2001
18,447
133
106
3. Does pasteurization really affect the taste or nutritional content of milk?
Yeah and yeah. Huge difference actually. I'll be honest, I haven't been able to quite adjust to the taste of raw cow's milk because it is so different. I still buy the regular stuff for my tea because of it.
 

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
60,390
10,782
126
Holy Fuck fuck, I hate the FDA even more than I did before after reading that story.

:mad:

The FDA is a sham. They're in bed with the corporations, and aren't accountable to anyone. They're exactly what the USA government IS NOT supposed to be, but then again, that horse(cow?) was let out of the barn YEARS ago....
 

linuxboy

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,577
6
76
Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria. Nothing I want in my milk, thank you very much.
So then buy pasteurized milk.
Based on actual # of cases, pasteurized milk is much more likely to make you sick from adulteration than raw milk. Also, pasteurization does not guarantee the elimination of pathogens.

3. Does pasteurization really affect the taste or nutritional content of milk?
Yes, it denatures enzymes and destroys vitamins, among other things. Also, to prolong shelf life, many plants with treat milk with higher temperature or longer time than required by the pasteurized milk ordinance. It drastically alters flavor. Pasteurized milk tastes cooked and carmelized.

I thought the US has never allowed raw cheeses?
Yes, so long as they are aged at least 60 days (CFR 21, various sections)

Here's the situation on this story (as someone who personally knows the people involved).

One, they are not selling to the public. It is a business that provides goods to people by private contract. Sort of like a cooperative. You can't just walk off the street like you would to a grocery store and buy what you want.

Two, and more egregiously, the current charge is that there was a conspiracy to sell raw milk. The claim is that the private arrangement between two individuals is not valid because the government's mandate to control public health, and to control interstate commerce supersedes private agreements. This is more dangerous to me because it is yet one more interpretation of the law that takes power away from private individuals for the good of some hypothetical "public".
 
Last edited:

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
people would be amazed at how much power diary producers (not farmers the company's) have. 90% of all milk comes from a few plants and badged with whatever company buys it.
Doing so they also have gotten the FDA to outlaw raw milk and make it very hard for small producers to make there own milk.
 

amddude

Golden Member
Mar 9, 2006
1,711
1
81
This is because of the war on drugs. The now semi-militarized police have been conditioned by citizens to believe maximum force is ok without any real justification.

Voila.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
people would be amazed at how much power diary producers (not farmers the company's) have. 90% of all milk comes from a few plants and badged with whatever company buys it.
Doing so they also have gotten the FDA to outlaw raw milk and make it very hard for small producers to make there own milk.

I don't buy into conspiracy theories much at all, but your point is valid. I just want good eats and tasty dairy.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,897
31,411
146
The FDA is a sham. They're in bed with the corporations, and aren't accountable to anyone. They're exactly what the USA government IS NOT supposed to be, but then again, that horse(cow?) was let out of the barn YEARS ago....

well, there very much is a need for the FDA (read: the Jungle) but it's become a whore of over-reaching power, corporate/lobbyist mentality.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,897
31,411
146
Based on actual # of cases, pasteurized milk is much more likely to make you sick from adulteration than raw milk. Also, pasteurization does not guarantee the elimination of pathogens.


Yes, it denatures enzymes and destroys vitamins, among other things. Also, to prolong shelf life, many plants with treat milk with higher temperature or longer time than required by the pasteurized milk ordinance. It drastically alters flavor. Pasteurized milk tastes cooked and carmelized.


Yes, so long as they are aged at least 60 days (CFR 21, various sections)

Here's the situation on this story (as someone who personally knows the people involved).

One, they are not selling to the public. It is a business that provides goods to people by private contract. Sort of like a cooperative. You can't just walk off the street like you would to a grocery store and buy what you want.

Two, and more egregiously, the current charge is that there was a conspiracy to sell raw milk. The claim is that the private arrangement between two individuals is not valid because the government's mandate to control public health, and to control interstate commerce supersedes private agreements. This is more dangerous to me because it is yet one more interpretation of the law that takes power away from private individuals for the good of some hypothetical "public".

Holy hell, these clowns think they are the DEA.

:mad:
 

linuxboy

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,577
6
76
Holy hell, these clowns think they are the DEA.
The FDA, per internal memos obtained through FOA requests has been on record multiple times with a specific agenda to go after raw milk and raw milk producers. It doesn't matter that the evidence is not there to support the contention that raw milk is actually dangerous. It is considered an "inherently" dangerous substance. Meaning, by virtue of its existence, it "might" be contaminated. And by virtue of its existence, pasteurized milk _is_ not. And so, as a matter of public policy, the perceived might ought to be outlawed.

It is not about the facts or real science or evidence or statistics. It is about the money. Guess who is in various leadership roles at the FDA? And guess who their employers have been over the years and on what boards they served, and what board positions they obtain after leaving their governmental jobs?
 

linuxboy

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,577
6
76
I heard on NPR a few months ago, that it kills about 10 people each year.
This is not a factual statement acquired through independent research. It was a restatement of an (inaccurately attributed to begin with) FDA statistic, and moreover the FDA evidential standard is that there has to be a "link". What they consider a link is that if a specific bacteria is found in the environment of the farm, and the same species is found in the person. Now there are many holes in this:

- They often do not subtype the strain, so there is no telling of the actual source of the contamination
- There is no way to tell if milk has been adulterated post sale. Improper handling of any food can create a situation where pathogens may be introduced
- It is not always easy to tell if a pathogen is definitively responsible for symptoms in some illnesses, or if an existing condition created an immune situation conducive to infection
- Often, when "raw milk" is heard, it stops genuine inquiry and research, because it is assumed to be the de facto causal factor

etc. The standard of proof for what a "link" is is extraordinarily suspect. If I could use this type of science, hell, I could link the God particle as only able to be isolated from stinky tofu by smashing two pieces together with a freight train while running 120 AC current through them.
 
Last edited:

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
60,390
10,782
126
well, there very much is a need for the FDA (read: the Jungle) but it's become a whore of over-reaching power, corporate/lobbyist mentality.

Their role should be purely informational. When they go beyond education, and start dictating what consenting adults consume, they've overstepped their authority, and intrude on the liberty of the people they work for.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
20
81
Drinking pasteurized/homogenized milk = unholy quantities of gas and gas-propelled intestinal contents.
Drinking pasteurized/homogenized milk + lactase tablets = gambling between stomach discomfort for awhile, or unholy quantities of gas and gas-propelled intestinal contents.
Drinking raw milk = as benign as drinking water, and it's one of the only things I can ingest in the early morning without discomfort. It's also a damned convenient meal, mainly because I tend to eat rather slowly. Fast eating results in accidentally chewing up the inside of my mouth, and poorly chewed food that kind of hurts on the way down. :\
The only reason I don't buy more of it is that it's a rather long drive that's not on the way to anywhere I normally need to go.

Sucks that we still don't seem to have a good way of killing off the bad stuff in milk without wrecking the rest of it - pasteurization and homogenization do some funky things to milk. Unfortunately there's also a lot of bad information out there too. It seems that "nutrition" is a field that brings in a lot of lousy science from two extremes: The industry leaders like Monsanto which are out for money, no matter what the other costs may be, and the far-out hippie crowd that also endorses homeopathic BS.

Example.
Referenced is the Weston Price Foundation, which has a section dedicated to homeopathic "remedies."
(A comment there may deliver sad amusement: "written by elise krentzel, Feb 24 2010
I am a healer using methods that date back 3000 plus years. The modality is energetic cleansing of the aura and of course homeopathic remedies would make perfect sense for those whose fears and anxieties block their vital energy passages. With natural medicine and the clearing of channels that cause the mind to rerun old programs of debilitating proportions it's a wonder anyone hasn't tried homeopathy earlier." :eek:)
Including that kind of bullshit is very effective at giving an organization a reputation of not giving a damn about anything resembling science. Yes, the more you dilute it, the more potent it gets. In that case, every time you fart, you're giving the entire world's population an incredibly powerful Dutch Oven experience.

Anyway...all I know is that pasteurized/homogenized milk results in a grotesque intestinal nightmare. Raw milk is perfectly benign in that respect, assuming of course that the cows are healthy, and assuming the milk is collected in a sanitary fashion.
(Next step: Educational videos for cattle on the virtues of crapping in a designated location, and in a manner that keeps it off of the udder.)



The FDA is a sham. They're in bed with the corporations, and aren't accountable to anyone. They're exactly what the USA government IS NOT supposed to be, but then again, that horse(cow?) was let out of the barn YEARS ago....
It seems quite a few organizations have become that way - the regulations came into effect because people were tired of being screwed over by large organizations, or even endangered, without any kind of recourse or hope of it getting better. A company will be quite content to sell a dangerous product to people. If it kills someone, oh well. Buy another one and hope it doesn't do it again. Just remember to keep your head away from the spinning razor-sharp edges next time. ;)
But as more power becomes more concentrated in fewer people, it starts to get easier for them to join up into one social circle. As you said, yes, the regulators are friends, quite literally in some cases, with the people they're allegedly regulating.
 
Last edited:

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,897
31,411
146
Their role should be purely informational. When they go beyond education, and start dictating what consenting adults consume, they've overstepped their authority, and intrude on the liberty of the people they work for.

still, there is a need for regulation.

again, read: The Jungle. This is what gave us the FDA, for a very legitimate reason.

capitalism only works--and can work very well--when the beast is reigned in.
 

AreaCode707

Lifer
Sep 21, 2001
18,447
133
106
Sucks that we still don't seem to have a good way of killing off the bad stuff in milk without wrecking the rest of it - pasteurization and homogenization do some funky things to milk.
Check out UV pasteurization.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,897
31,411
146
Better hope the guy who fixed your salad at that fancy restaurant washed his hands after a run of the hershey squirts.

your suggestion, or at least the way I read it, was that these infections were communicable.

sorry if I misunderstood, hehe.
 

linuxboy

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,577
6
76
there is a need for regulation
Regulation entails making goods/commerce regular. Meaning unimpeded, so that a state may not block the shipment from another state just by having the desire to do so. It never meant to apply to private contracts among people.

Just like the commerce clause never meant to apply to agriculture per se, because the legal thought of the day was that it is necessary to have some control over merchants and maritime law. Meaning commerce with countries and those who sold value-added goods post-manufacturing, and not raw commodities such as milk. The case law for modernist interpretations is actually really recent. Congress is drunk with the power it thinks the commerce clause gives it and applies it to everything. Even insofar as saying, back in the pivotal case in the 30s/40s (wickard v filburn), that a farmer who chooses to not sell his crop is interfering with the flow of commerce. That's right. If I have something I want to raise for myself, on land I own, even though I own it, I don't have control over it if my production is deemed to interfere with the flow of commerce.