Why is the FDA using swat teams on raw milk?

[linuxboy]

but but but UV is radiation and when you do that to spinach and milk it gives you skin cancer! Oh Noes!!!!

My guess is we will see low-temp pasteurization approved for fluid milk as early as the 2013 revision of the PMO. It was on the agenda at the PMO conference, and was approved for recommending that it be adopted into law during the 2011 session. Tough to say if this is positive, there's not enough research out there to say what long-term effects are of consuming UV-treated complex proteins like are found bound in micellar structures in milk, or of the effects of consuming fats degraded by UV. But taste-wise, there are technologies out there... they're just in beta.

 

[Jeff7]

Check out UV pasteurization.

But I want gamma radiation pasteurization! :'(
(Because gamma radiation is awesome, why else?)

I wonder what kind of effect that would have on milk down at the molecular or fat-globule, or whatever small scale is relevant?

(I don't even know what exactly it is about raw milk that makes it better to digest. The explanations I've heard are that it's either enzymes in the milk, or else bacteria in it that produce the enzymes later on. Maybe both? And then some part of the pasteurization or homogenization process ends up destroying the effective component.)

 

[linuxboy]

what exactly it is about raw milk that makes it better to digest.

Commonly attributed to several co-factors:

1) Presence of natural enzymes, such as lactase, which help to break down lactose for those who are truly lactose-intolerant.
2) Presence of intact membrane around fat globules helps with lipolysis during digestion
3) P/H milk has new products and combinations... like homogenization causes fat to be adsorbed to casein micelles, making them less digestible because the rate of proteolysis is affected, and the protein strands are different due to the adsorption.

Pasteurization denatures lipases and lactase. Homogenization creates unbound FFA and other radicals that also may be co-antagonists during digestion (theory only, lack of concrete evidence).

 

[arrfep]

Meanwhile, 36 MILLION pounds of Cargill ground-turkey are recalled because of fears of salmonella contamination....

 

[Jeff7]

...
Pasteurization denatures lipases and lactase. Homogenization creates unbound FFA and other radicals that also may be co-antagonists during digestion (theory only, lack of concrete evidence).

That's what's frustrating about it. The debate is being run by the extremists on either of the spectrum: The ones who don't give a shit about public health so long as their profitability isn't compromised, and the ones who think that 30X dilution is powerful medicine.

 

[Eli]

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 fuck.

That is seriously disturbing...

 

[waffleironhead]

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.

Is that a total count of all cases from each or based off of case per percentage of consumption.

 

[AreaCode707]

Holy fuck.

That is seriously disturbing...

Yeah, and it is one of the most sad and depressing things I've ever seen watching this family of self-sufficient hard-working people flounder and go under. They've done so much for others but a fund-raiser only achieved $3k for them, which is about half a month of operating expenses for their farm.

If you think being honest and hard-working will pay off, just pray you never get the government on your ass, no matter how legitimate you are. They can ruin you in a day and destroy your life. I've been watching it happen for the last year, and it is horrifying.

 

[Jeff7]

Yeah, and it is one of the most sad and depressing things I've ever seen watching this family of self-sufficient hard-working people flounder and go under. They've done so much for others but a fund-raiser only achieved $3k for them, which is about half a month of operating expenses for their farm.

If you think being honest and hard-working will pay off, just pray you never get the government on your ass, no matter how legitimate you are. They can ruin you in a day and destroy your life. I've been watching it happen for the last year, and it is horrifying.

First thing that came to mind was that old saying of, "Well I'm doing nothing wrong, therefore I have nothing to worry about!"
That of course depends entirely on who's out there deciding what "wrong" is.

 

[lxskllr]

That's what's frustrating about it. The debate is being run by the extremists on either of the spectrum: The ones who don't give a shit about public health so long as their profitability isn't compromised, and the ones who think that 30X dilution is powerful medicine.

You do know that a lot(most) of people that are into the natural food movement don't believe in homeopathy, right? In any case it's the wrong question. The government doesn't have the authority to dictate what people consume. If I want to smoke mercury vapor from an inhaler, it's my right to do so. The health benefits/detriments either way are of no concern to anyone but the people involved.

 

[waggy]

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

most people don't. but it does exist.

 

[sao123]

You do know that a lot(most) of people that are into the natural food movement don't believe in homeopathy, right? In any case it's the wrong question. The government doesn't have the authority to dictate what people consume. If I want to smoke mercury vapor from an inhaler, it's my right to do so. The health benefits/detriments either way are of no concern to anyone but the people involved.

according to the FDA, you have no rights... this is their opinion issued to the courts this year in the Raw Milk Court Case...

FDA has long opposed “freedom of food choice” but its response to the FTCLDF complaint represents FDA’s strongest public statement yet on the freedom to obtain and consume the foods of one’s choice. Here are some of FDA’s views expressed in its response on ‘freedom of food choice’ in general and on the right to obtain and consume raw milk in particular:

1. “Plaintiffs’ assertion of a new ‘fundamental right’ to produce, obtain, and consume unpasteurized milk lacks any support in law” (page 4).
2. “It is within HHS’s authority . . . to institute an intrastate ban [on unpasteurized milk] as well” (page 6).
3. “Plaintiffs’ assertion of a new ‘fundamental right’ under substantive due process to produce, obtain, and consume unpasteurized milk lacks any support in law” (page 17).
4. “There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food” (page 25).
5. “There is no ‘deeply rooted’ historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds” (page 26).
6. “Plaintiffs’ assertion of a ‘fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families’ is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish” (page 26).
7. FDA’s brief goes on to state that “even if such a right did exist, it would not render FDA’s regulations unconstitutional because prohibiting the interstate sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk promotes bodily and physical health” (page 27).
8. “There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract” (page 27).

http://www.realmilk.com/fdalawsuit.html

 

[DrPizza]

Pasteurization changes the flavor. A lot of cheeses require raw milk - not pasteurized. It's damn difficult to get raw milk if you don't own your own animals. I have seen ads for "milk for animal consumption only" - I suspect it's a hint-hint, wink-wink type of transaction.

A lot of different types of cheeses made from goat's milk are delicious. To call one product "goat cheese" is essentially like labeling all those other cheeses you buy in the store "cow cheese." Goat milk fudge is also delicious. I've had quite a bit of it. I have about a pound of a soft goat cheese in my fridge at the moment, it's delicious.

Areacode's story is but one of many. Big Dairy has the FDA/USDA in their pocket. There was a family in Vermont who imported a special breed of sheep. Vermont is a dairy state. Those sheep had better output than cows - with less input. (Required less feed per gallon of milk produced.) That particular breed of sheep has NEVER had scrapie in any country in the world. Scrapie is related to mad cow disease. Their entire herd was seized. Of course, the only way to test them is to kill them and examine the brains. Why not just kill all the adults? After all, if zero adults were carrying the disease, then of course zero of the offspring would have the disease. But that leaves a problem - the offspring could compete with the dairy industry. The entire herd was put down. And, of course, it's illegal to import more now. There were zero positive tests, although they had an "inconclusive" - with a sample that was far too old (months) and degraded to be of any value at all. There's a book about the whole thing: Mad Sheep by Linda Faillace
http://www.chelseagreen.com/bookstore/item/mad_sheep:hardcover/reviews
(pretty good book)

I may be mistaken, but I believe it was from the book that I learned an interesting fact: when Mad Cow was doing its damage in Europe, the European countries came to a conclusion: "Hey! Let's not grind up the slaughter leftovers of cows and feed them back to cows." The industry that ground up all the cow stuff said, "wtf are we gonna do with this stuff?" It was exported to the U.S. for several months. At one point, France was testing as many cattle a DAY as the U.S. did in a year. An American producer wanted to export beef to Japan. Japan said "not unless you guys test every single animal that you slaughter." The USDA said "you may NOT test every one." The U.S. beef industry said "whew! That was a close one." If an adult animal showed symptoms of mad cow, they were tested at slaughter. The vast majority of cattle are slaughtered before the age of 3. Mad cow takes 5 to 8 years before there are symptoms.

In my opinion, any farm selling raw milk is going to be damn sure that their herd is tested and they're going to be as safe as possible. A small farm is one lawsuit away from ruined. I believe that at the heart of the matter, the possibility of some of the diseases (E Coli, etc.) is there, and at least on the surface, the USDA and/or FDA kind of have the right idea, but their enforcement is very overzealous - pushed by big business in order to reduce competition.

For what it's worth, worldwide, more goat and sheep milk is consumed than cow milk. NOT in the U.S. though - not as long as the dairy industry has as powerful of lobbyists as they do. Goat milk is generally considered healthier than cow milk. (Go ahead and google for goat, cow, milk - source after source lists goat as being better. Someone else can do the legwork to find a peer reviewed source, but here's the first one I clicked on: )
http://www.gardenharvest.org/milkbenefits.htm

 

[AreaCode707]

snip

I hope more and more rational people speak out against the FDA's dairy-funded crusade against raw milk and raw milk cheese. Many of the raw milk supporters I know have been intelligent folks, but there are definitely some crazies in the camp and they give raw milk a very bad name.

 

[zinfamous]

You do know that a lot(most) of people that are into the natural food movement don't believe in homeopathy, right? In any case it's the wrong question. The government doesn't have the authority to dictate what people consume. If I want to smoke mercury vapor from an inhaler, it's my right to do so. The health benefits/detriments either way are of no concern to anyone but the people involved.

eh, but there's something to be said for regulations making sure there isn't any mercury in any inhaler--for those that don't want to inadvertently inhale any mercury.

...which is everyone. including yourself. The argument for them keeping people from manufacturing mercury inhalers is different from insuring that no mercury is unintentionally present in inhalers.

 

[linuxboy]

Is that a total count of all cases from each or based off of case per percentage of consumption.

Sorry, don't have exact stats in front of me, going from memory. Here's one take on it, though
http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/cdc-admits-no-one-has-died-from-drinking-raw-milk-in-last-11-years/

There is a very clear (to me) bias happening here. And as someone in the industry, I can tell you it is extremely political, and extremely driven by lobbyists and corporation to eliminate any real or perceived threats/competition. If a small producer gets shut down for taking a stand, and the government goes to a farmer and to the farmer's kids in bulletproof vests, with guns drawn (as they have done with the Amish, for example, whose religion teaches extreme pacifism)... well, do you think others would be dissuaded from speaking out? Would you be?

This is no joke, it's a real life drastic abuse of power and lack of accountability. The parallels to the rise of fascism are troubling. And, well, guess what, the banks and elites bankrolled the Nazis, too. Seemed like a safe risk to support those in power in return for favorable treatment. Always money to be made by making war and having monopoly.

Dr Pizza, re: cow/goat health differences and benefits. It's not clear cut, and depends on feed, minerality, breed, genetic lines, etc. But there are some clear differentiators, such as A1/A2 casein genetics for cows.

During the time of the German police state, Dietrich Bonhoeffer's friend and fellow pastor, Martin Niemoller, stood up in the Lutheran church and condemned the situation. The Roman church and the Lutheran church both tacitly and overtly supported the regime. And at one time, Niemoller uttered some version of the words, "First they came for the socialists and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist... and then they came for me, and no one was left to speak for me."

Dietrich Bonhoeffer died by hanging after a failed assassination attempt.

Right now, people are in jail as a result of the raid for performing on private contracts when all parties to the contract agreed on specific terms, including risks.

 

[Jeff7]

You do know that a lot(most) of people that are into the natural food movement don't believe in homeopathy, right? In any case it's the wrong question. The government doesn't have the authority to dictate what people consume. If I want to smoke mercury vapor from an inhaler, it's my right to do so. The health benefits/detriments either way are of no concern to anyone but the people involved.

What I was getting at is that a lot of the material available online is either by Monsanto-type organizations, or else by die-hard groups that are deep into the hippie end of the spectrum - long-wave radio spectrum, really out there. Hardcore vegan, crying at trees dying, that sort of person. They're the ones who also feel the need to be exceptionally vocal about this kind of thing. So it's tough to figure out what information may be regarded as being at all valid, versus something put out there by someone pushing an agenda.

Concerning that kind of choice, I'm kind of divided. It's into the same realm as motorcycle helmet laws. It's personal freedom at the detriment of society. Giving people the freedom to kill themselves by making (subjectively) stupid choices is a drain on everyone else, from an economic standpoint. A lot of resources are invested into raising a newborn into a reasonably productive adult, and the longer that person lives, the more return society gets. Cut that life short by some poor decision, and that does not live up to its potential.

Some of the freedom of these choices also depends on people making properly-informed decisions. If all you hear is "vaccines cause autism omg noo!~`1`!1!!!", you might end up making a stupid decision, and contract an easily-prevented illness. Then you will lose productivity at a job by staying home sick, or be a bigger hit on society by nipping off and dying. Yes, you were given freedom of choice, and you made what you thought was a good choice, but it was based on bad information distributed by morons. In a society with an ever-increasing amount of information available, there's no way an individual can round up the necessary data to be fully informed about every possible decision.
That's where a regulatory agency could come into play, to help ensure that you won't make a stupid decision based on incorrect information, by helping to keep that incorrect information off the streets in the first place. (There are of course the loopholes. Enzyte, anyone?) But if the people who have the agenda to push are the ones policing the information, this system is effectively invalidated.

Freedom of choice...fun philosophical issues.

Sorry, don't have exact stats in front of me, going from memory. Here's one take on it, though
http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/cdc-admits-no-one-has-died-from-drinking-raw-milk-in-last-11-years/

There is a very clear (to me) bias happening here. And as someone in the industry, I can tell you it is extremely political, and extremely driven by lobbyists and corporation to eliminate any real or perceived threats. If a small producer gets shut down for taking a stand, and the government goes to a farmer and to the farmer's kids in bulletproof vests, with guns drawn... well, do you think others would be dissuaded from speaking out? Would you be?
...

Monsanto came to mind again, with their whole issue about milk manufacturers labeling products as coming from cows that weren't given the rBST growth hormone. They of course sell this hormone, so they didn't want anyone talking like it might not be a good thing, so they pushed to make it illegal to put that sort of thing on milk labels - effectively a very direct effort to prevent informed decision-making. And of course, money=power.

 

[skyking]

This has been an informative thread, thanks to Doc, areacode, and certainly linuxboy.
I grew up in a household that sold raw milk to the neighbors, we had 3~4 cows until the mid-sixties.
It was a common practice in those times, and we never had a problem with contamination.

 

[linuxboy]

Absolutely. Funny thing about milk is how many big corps have tried to get on the health bandwagon and charge more, when at times, what they label as "organic" is worse nutritionally than store bulk milk. Friend of mine, Mark, runs http://www.cornucopia.org/about/ and they have scorecards on the validity of claims from various dairies WRT organic. Funny who inevitably tends to rank lower...

 

[zinfamous]

yes, thanks to all. this has been a preposterously informative thread.

...if these were different-themed forums, it would certainly need a sticky.

 

[bryanl]

I drank un pasteurized milk for 21 years. Most of the population in India do the same.

For the sake of liberty, I want the U.S. to have India's health codes and disease rates.

Some states license raw milk dairies and hold them to stricter sanitation codes than regular dairies. The owners of a local one had a pasteurizer for the milk their family consumed.

 

[linuxboy]

Some states license raw milk dairies and hold them to stricter sanitation codes than regular dairies.

This is not really the exact truth All dairies are requires to comply with the current version of the PMO that each state's dept of ag/dairy adopts. This applies to both pasteurized and raw milk producers. In states where raw milk sales are permitted, whether by herd share, cow share, or outright, the sanitation standards are usually identical. That said, raw milk dairies typically will perform additional testing, such as by doing daily cultures from their bulk tanks.

my source: personal reading of all statutes of all 50 states, and case law research, and speaking to many dairy owners all over the country.

I want the U.S. to have India's health codes and disease rates.

Not sure on the latter, but as for the former, they are largely the same.

source: personal reading of Indian law, such as FSSR from this year, the 2006 FSSA, various docs from the FSSAI, guidance from NDDB, personal correspondence with dairy science profs at unis there, etc.

 

[busydude]

I want the U.S. to have India's health codes and disease rates.

You certainly do not want the disease rates of India.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

This has nothing to do with food safety and EVERYTHING to do with permit fees, inspection fees and, regulation power. Can't have our citizens bypassing the gubmints cut now can we?

Nope... especially when California is broke

 

[Jeff7]

Edit: n/m, the link was already posted here