# Raw Milk Becomes Contentious



## cornbread (Jul 4, 2005)

Raw Milk Becomes Contentious
Quote:
________________________________________
âRaw milk is dangerous,â John Sheehan, the director of the F.D.A.âs Division of Plant and Food Safety, said in a telephone interview. âAvoid it all costs. Do not give it to your children.â 


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/us/25iht-letter.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Raw Milk Becomes Contentious

NEW YORK â My neighborhood weekly newspaper, The Brooklyn Paper, ran a front-page story this week about a local mother who belongs to a group so secretive that, as the article put it, âshe canât even reveal its name.â 

The accompanying picture showed the woman, Hannah Springer, holding a toddler in one arm and a glass of milk in the other. She doesnât look like a drug dealer or a counterfeit DVD merchant, and indeed she isnât. Still, the secret organization of which she is an enthusiastic member buys and distributes a product banned for retail sale in New York â raw milk, unprocessed and unpasteurized. 

The article explained that when she was expecting her now 18-month-old boy, Ms. Springer learned that she had a chronic thyroid disorder, and when she started drinking raw milk, purchased in Pennsylvania, smuggled across the border and sold at clandestine points in Brooklyn, she was cured. 

âI no longer have to take thyroid meds, which every doctor said I would be on for the rest of my life,â she told The Brooklyn Paper. She said that her son drinks two cups of raw milk a day and is healthier as a result. 

âBasically, we spend a little more money on food,â she said, because raw milk is more expensive than pasteurized supermarket milk, âso we donât have to pay the doctor.â 

âTell me what you eat, and I will tell you what you are,â the French culinary philosopher Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin said, and today, what you eat seems as much a personâs more general state of mind as ever. The food movements picking up steam in America â organic, buy local, vegan, vegetarian, and the like â signal something a good deal bigger than just dietary preference. 

And certainly that seems to be the case with raw milk, which is banned in about half the American states and whose purchase and consumption therefore involve a minor â though in fact not exceedingly risky â degree of civil disobedience. 

But the element of rebellion against authority is more conspicuous when it comes to raw milk, because if, like Ms. Springer, you feed it to your toddler, you are flouting the conviction of most of the national institutions that monitor food safety and public health in the United States, including the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control, the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics. All of these agencies and organizations strongly advise against drinking raw milk on the grounds that it could harbor harmful pathogens â which is why milk is pasteurized in the first place. 

âRaw milk is dangerous,â John Sheehan, the director of the F.D.A.âs Division of Plant and Food Safety, said in a telephone interview. âAvoid it all costs. Do not give it to your children.â 

Responding to the many claims made for raw milk by what have come to be called the raw milkies â among them, that it cures thyroid deficiency, asthma, allergies, even cancer â Mr. Sheehan said: âThatâs complete nonsense. Weâve reviewed just about everything that the raw milk advocates say, and weâve found no support for it whatsoever. There are no signs that it is curative of any disease.â 

And yet, the signs are that the raw milk movement is becoming something of a cult, growing nationwide, with several organizations and foundations lobbying for it and proclaiming its near miraculous merits. Next month the second annual International Raw Milk Symposium will be held in Madison, Wisconsin. Assuming that the urban guerrilla warfare taking place around raw milk in Brooklyn is not unique, more and more people must be drinking it, even in the states where itâs banned. 

So whatâs going on? 

For one thing, a very American battle seems to be taking place, pitting disgruntled or suspicious citizens against what they see as an unreasonable, greedy, distant or simply clueless establishment. The raw milkies are a bit like the Tea Party movement in this sense â though theyâre likely to be on opposite ends of the spectrum in most regards. They represent a sort of gastronomic populism that wants to inform you of what agribusiness and the retail supermarket chains allegedly donât want you to know. 
continued.....


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

Dairy farm kids should have been dropping like flies.


----------



## Kmac15 (May 19, 2007)

I worked with a woman that worked for a testing facility that tested samples of milk for local commercial dairies and the results would turn your stomach. 
I would never drink raw milk from a commercial dairy.

Now I do get my raw milk from a local farmer, I have seen his methods and know that his own kids drink it everyday. I would worry about buying raw milk from a person a state away.


----------



## wy_white_wolf (Oct 14, 2004)

I didn't even know you could get milk form the store until I was a teenager.


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

I am a raw milk smuggler.
DH calls me a 'moo shiner'. 
I don't think it is a miraculous cure for anything, I just like the taste and appreciate the not having all the good parts cooked out of it before I get it.
However, people that claim crazy stuff about do weaken the fight for raw milk being legalized.
Just because it is legal doesn't mean that everyone has to drink it, just the ones that want too.
I had to buy whole organic milk at the store to get me through until I can make a run this weekend.. wow! You can really taste the difference. My raw milk doesn't really have a noticeable 'taste', but the store stuff sure did... blech.
And I know I run a risk when I cross the state line, but so far so good.
They busted someone crossing from SC into Ga not long ago.. poured his milk out on the road and arrested him.
I hope the coppers don't notice my out of state tags as I load up....


----------



## dahliaqueen (Nov 9, 2005)

Kmac15 said:


> I would never drink raw milk from a commercial dairy.
> 
> Now I do get my raw milk from a local farmer, I have seen his methods and know that his own kids drink it everyday. I would worry about buying raw milk from a person a state away.


Totally agree. 

Raw milk is a biodynamic food that does have almost magical qualities, but the environment that the milk comes from is most important.


----------



## dahliaqueen (Nov 9, 2005)

chickenista said:


> I am a raw milk smuggler.
> DH calls me a 'moo shiner'.
> 
> I hope the coppers don't notice my out of state tags as I load up....


The nighttime is your friend.
Enjoy.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Drank RAW milk for years and never had a problem with it, but then I knew who was milking and how concerned they were with sanitation. Unfortunatly I've mooooved 1100 miles away and haven't found a local 'dealer' errr source.


----------



## dahliaqueen (Nov 9, 2005)

mnn2501 said:


> Drank RAW milk for years and never had a problem with it, but then I knew who was milking and how concerned they were with sanitation. Unfortunatly I've mooooved 1100 miles away and haven't found a local 'dealer' errr source.


You might search for a source here....
http://www.organicconsumers.org/


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

The government should have the power to protect us from the evil dairy industry.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Dh and his brothers drank raw milk when they were kids. One of our neighbors milked one of our cows so they could have milk for their baby. If raw milk is the danger the PTB claim it to be, no one should be around to dispute it now.


----------



## springvalley (Jun 23, 2009)

Well I`m one of those guys that has the moo still, I have drank raw milk most of my life, and I`m still alive. My daughter drinks it, my wife drinks it, The day will come that I won`t be able to print this here. I hope not , but it may, I really do think it is close to a miracle food. I have people tell me all the time they can`t drink milk, they are lactose intolerant. I tell them they need to try "REAL MILK", and send them home with a half gallon of "REAL MILK". I is amaizing they say "Oh my gosh, I can drink it" and bingo a new customer. I have also had people with all types of gastric trouble that have been cured of them by drinking raw milk. I had one customer with a five year old son, that had never had a solid bowel movement(Ever), after being on "REAL MILK" for two weeks, he finally had a solid bowel , and I another customer. Myself before we started milking again after an extended hiatis, I had such an acid reflux stomach, I would have to down about half dozen tums each night just to be able to sleep through the night. Now that we drink "REAL MILK" I have not had to take any antacids. Now I am a big proponent of the raw milk campaign, it works, thats all I can say. Break the law and drink raw milk, then I will be a law breaker. Thanks Marc


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

You can smoke and drink around your kid, feed them nothing but junk, causing obesity, diabetes and it's complications (now epidemic). You can take them out on the highway risking head on collisions, and the government doesn't care. 

But by gawd, if you give them raw milk, you are risking their lives!!

I was just reading that Ron Paul has sponsored legislation related to this:
http://www.idahopress.com/opinion/other_letters/article_4ba1dd02-3770-11df-a4c0-001cc4c002e0.htm




> He also shares my belief that individuals, not a heavy-handed nanny-style government, should decide for themselves whether to drink raw milk. As a result, he sponsored H.R. 778 to remove the ban on allowing the interstate sale of raw milk.


----------



## JeffNY (Dec 13, 2004)

The FDA approves drugs that kill 300,000+ people a year, and they are worried about Raw Milk?



Jeff


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

This kinda thing drives me nutz. I understand if you're going to collect milk for hundreds of small farms blend it all together and say ewwww there's nasty bugs in there then yeah that process needs pasteurization. I milked my red holstein cow last year and we drank the milk and just us. I'd like to try to milk again this year (different cows so who knows) and even in my sub standard barn I'll drink the milk. We pasteurized some with a little (and very old) home pasteurizer. Which is kind of a joke really. More fuss than it was worth. My home grown milk in my crappy barn was far better than store bought. I know the cows (and we did cow calf for over 10 years so I know what a sick cow looks like and have milked in a over regulated dairy operation too) If she kicked off the milker (so not even dirty hand milking <--- LOL!!!!) we just used that for feeding lambs. No problem. When it comes to food let people decide what they want. If it kills them so be it. I eat my own grown in the dirt potatoes too!


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

This is actually a complex issue, not easily explained in a couple paragraphs. You have to know and understand the history behind the regulations and understand how the dairy people (I'm not going to call it the dairy industry because too many people just see factory farms and big business) depend on the regulations that bolster public confidence in their products.

"I've been drinking it for years and it hasn't hurt me" isn't worth two hoots to the average consumer. An agency with scientists who's job is to make our food as safe as possible are not going to allow milk with disease or bacteria to go to the stores.

With continued pressure, we are seeing Departments of Agriculture getting out of the way of raw milk sales. While some homesteaders will hail this as a victory, I don't. In order to sell your milk you will have to issue notice that it hasn't been pasturized and could contain pathigans. The buyers will have to give notice that they understand the risks. This gets the DOA off the hook.
But, with widespread sales of raw milk, someone is going to get sick. The milk will get blamed and it will recieve national news. Expect an outcry, " Why isn't the government protecting its citizens?" The sale of raw milk will be outlawed and stiff fines will prevent us from risking our farms.
What we've got now is about as good as it gets. A tiny farmer to consumer "black market" that keeps everyone careful and quiet.
The same misconception that we can "see" when a cow is producing disease carrying milk is as misguided as unprotected sex with someone that "looks healthy". Good luck with that!
"If it kills them, so be it." won't cut it when you get hauled to court. Plan on losing your farm.


----------



## navygirl (Oct 23, 2005)

The way I see it, we're far more likely to get sick from eating at a fast food joint than we are to get sick from drinking raw milk. I don't see all the fast food restaurants getting shut down when someone gets sick (and sometimes dies) from eating their food...
Most importantly, I am a grown-up, and I don't want or need a "nanny". I will decide what to feed myself and my family. Period. We drink raw milk.


----------



## Dandish (Feb 8, 2007)

I've never had raw milk, but really want to try it. Things like this DO make me a little nervous, though...

http://www.detnews.com/article/2010...acteria-in-raw-milk-sickens-eight-in-Michigan

I get milk from a local dairy that sells something they call "natural milk" it's pasturized gently just to the legal limit and it is not homogenized - the cream will rise - and it's delicious...http://www.calderdairy.com/dairy


----------



## mosepijo (Oct 21, 2008)

We don't drink milk unless it is "raw Milk". I buy about 3 gallons a week. Plus, getting the butter, yogurt, and kefir are a bonus too. I don't care what the government tries to do, I will keep on buying it. 

I did have one seller once for about a month. I did get sick from her milk. So I quit and found the one I have now. You just have to make sure they are clean and know how to handle fresh milk.


----------



## JeffNY (Dec 13, 2004)

haypoint said:


> This is actually a complex issue, not easily explained in a couple paragraphs. You have to know and understand the history behind the regulations and understand how the dairy people (I'm not going to call it the dairy industry because too many people just see factory farms and big business) depend on the regulations that bolster public confidence in their products.
> 
> "I've been drinking it for years and it hasn't hurt me" isn't worth two hoots to the average consumer. An agency with scientists who's job is to make our food as safe as possible are not going to allow milk with disease or bacteria to go to the stores.
> 
> ...


They should post on milk cartons that there could be pathogens in the milk as well. If you ever take the time to look up the statistics. Plenty of people get sick, and plenty have died from pasteurized milk. There are also plenty that have died from luncheon meats, died from eating vegitables, and locally some people died from drinking water that had pathogens in it. But we dont see any concern from the government with those products. It is likely because those products benefit the government, via taxes.


They really dont care about us, they care about their bottom line. They dont want tons of people selling a product they cant tax. Same goes with moonshine. They dont like it, because they cant tax it.


Jeff


----------



## blooba (Feb 9, 2010)

Dandish said:


> I've never had raw milk, but really want to try it. Things like this DO make me a little nervous, though...
> 
> http://www.detnews.com/article/2010...acteria-in-raw-milk-sickens-eight-in-Michigan


What were they doing buying milk from a place that shipped it in from Indiana? I would say there is the problem.

There are plenty of cows in MI, i don't see why they needed to ship it in.


----------



## Ana Bluebird (Dec 8, 2002)

I grew up on a small farm and we sold milk---small time stuff. All of us drank raw milk without problems. BUT I have seen the large dairy farms that are around now (the small farmer selling milk is gone) and I don't drink milk any more unless I can get it from a farmer that knows his cows personally---what they eat, how healthy they are, and how clean the barn and equipment is. I also don't eat beef---especially fast-food hamburgers. Too scarey.


----------



## Pyrenees (Oct 23, 2004)

Ross said:


> When it comes to food let people decide what they want. If it kills them so be it. I eat my own grown in the dirt potatoes too!


Unfortunatley the USDA and FDA have to look at the population as a whole...if the family members of people who died from food borne pathogens didn't head straight to the press and create a huge ruckus, then yes the gov't agancies would stay out of it. But most the population in this country expects to be protected from their own uninformed choices, hence the USDA/FDA exist.

If I were getting raw milk from a farmer I knew and who's production methods I was familiar with...then I would have no problem with it. If it came from a farm with a somatic cell count of >1 million (yes they are out there), then no way would I drink it. 

So, unless I can verify the source no on in my family drinks raw milk...or eats at McDonalds unless we are in an absolute pinch.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I wish lots of folks got sick on Fast Food. But, that wish isn't supported by facts. Millions get served food in Fast Food joints and don't get sick. There is more bacteria in the average raw milk than in a greasy Big Mac. Just one of those things that oppose how I wish the world to be, but facts are facts.

There is plenty of concern about lunch meat, vegetables and water, both from a well and bottled.
Maybe in your state the government benifits from taxing food, but no such tax in Michigan. Tax on booze, not on milk.
Well fed animals, raised in comfortable barns, seemingly healthy can still carry dangerous pathogens. If you could tell just by looking, Labs wouldn't be required.

It seems brave to select our food without the intervention of rules, regulations, inspections and standards, "Get out of my way and let me decide.", but there are real reasons for all that so called red tape. Learn about food safety issues of a hundred years ago and you'll be able to speak with a better understanding of why we have rules.

If you let eggs, fish and milk, either raw or pasturized, set unrefrigerated, bacteria will grow and you will get sick. Bacteria in fresh pasturized milk is very, very rare.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

For those that have their minds made up, this is a waste of your time, so move along there's nothing for you here. However, some folks will want to base their choices on facts, so here is a bit of very recent news:

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm206311.htm

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, along with several state agencies, is alerting consumers to an outbreak of campylobacteriosis associated with drinking raw milk. At least 12 confirmed illnesses have been recently reported in Michigan. Symptoms of campylobacteriosis include diarrhea, abdominal pain and fever.
The FDA is collaborating with the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH), the Illinois Department of Public Health, the Indiana State Board of Animal Health and the Indiana State Health Department, to investigate the outbreak. MDCH reports that, as of March 24, 2010, it received reports of 12 confirmed cases of illness from Campylobacter infections in consumers who drank raw milk. The raw milk originated from Forest Grove Dairy in Middlebury, Ind.
Raw milk is unpasteurized milk from hoofed mammals, such as cows, sheep, or goats. Raw milk may contain a wide variety of harmful bacteria &#8211; including Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7, Listeria, Campylobacter and Brucella -- that may cause illness and possibly death. Public health authorities, including FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have expressed concerns about the hazards of drinking raw milk for decades.
Symptoms of illness caused by various bacteria commonly found in raw milk may include vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, fever, headache and body ache. Most healthy individuals recover quickly from illness caused by raw milk. However, some people may have more severe illness, and the harmful bacteria in raw milk can be especially dangerous for pregnant women, the elderly, infants, young children and people with weakened immune systems.
If consumers of raw milk are experiencing one or more of these symptoms after consuming raw milk or food products made from raw milk, they should contact their health care provider immediately.
Since 1987, the FDA has required all milk packaged for human consumption to be pasteurized before being delivered for introduction into interstate commerce. Pasteurization, a process that heats milk to a specific temperature for a set period of time, kills bacteria responsible for diseases, such as listeriosis, salmonellosis, campylobacteriosis, typhoid fever, tuberculosis, diphtheria and brucellosis. FDA&#8217;s pasteurization requirement also applies to other milk products, with the exception of a few aged cheeses.
From 1998 to 2008, 85 outbreaks of human infections resulting from consumption of raw milk were reported to CDC. These outbreaks included a total of 1,614 reported illnesses, 187 hospitalizations and 2 deaths. Because not all cases of foodborne illness are recognized and reported, the actual number of illnesses associated with raw milk likely is greater.
Proponents of drinking raw milk often claim that raw milk is more nutritious than pasteurized milk and that raw milk is inherently antimicrobial, thus making pasteurization unnecessary. There is no meaningful nutritional difference between pasteurized and raw milk, and raw milk does not contain compounds that will kill harmful bacteria.
For more on the raw milk, please visit www.foodsafety.gov


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Here are some facts you might want to be aware of:
http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/...sumerInformationAboutMilkSafety/ucm165048.htm

The Dangers of Listeria and Pregnancy
Pregnant women run a serious risk of becoming ill from the bacteria Listeria which can cause miscarriage, fetal death or illness or death of a newborn. If you are pregnant, consuming raw milk - or foods made from raw milk, such as Mexican-style cheese like Queso Blanco or Queso Fresco - can harm your baby even if you don't feel sick.
Raw Milk & Pasteurization: Debunking Milk Myths
While pasteurization has helped provide safe, nutrient-rich milk and cheese for over 120 years, some people continue to believe that pasteurization harms milk and that raw milk is a safe healthier alternative.
Here are some common myths and proven facts about milk and pasteurization:
&#8226;	Pasteurizing milk DOES NOT cause lactose intolerance and allergic reations. Both raw milk and pasteurized milk can cause allergic reactions in people sensitive to milk proteins.
&#8226;	Raw milk DOES NOT kill dangerous pathogens by itself.
&#8226;	Pasteurization DOES NOT reduce milk's nutritional value.
&#8226;	Pasteurization DOES NOT mean that it is safe to leave milk out of the refrigerator for extended time, particularly after it has been opened.
&#8226;	Pasteurization DOES kill harmful bacteria.
&#8226;	Pasteurization DOES save lives.
&#8226; Is it safe to consume raw milk?
No. Raw milk is inherently dangerous and it should not be consumed by anyone at any time for any purpose. Raw milk may contain many pathogens, including but not limited to:
o	Enterotoxigenic Staphylococcus aureus
o	Campylobacter jejuni
o	Salmonella species
o	E. coli
o	Listeria monocytogenes
o	Mycobacterium tuberculosis
o	Mycobacterium bovis
o	Brucella species
o	Coxiella Burnetii
o	Yersinia enterocolitica
Illnesses caused by these bacteria can be especially problematic for infants, young children, the elderly, and the immunocompromised. One complication that can arise as a result of infection with E. coli O157:H7 is hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), which can cause acute renal failure, especially in the very young or the elderly.
Campylobacter jejuni
This organism has been associated with numerous outbreaks of foodborne illness related to the consumption of raw milk over the past twenty-five years, including outbreaks in Kansas, Minnesota, California, Colorado, Washington, Iowa, Oregon, Arizona, Georgia and Maine.
Children
&#8226;	Children fall victim to foodborne illness producing such devastating and oftentimes life-changing consequences as HUS.
&#8226;	If children knew that raw milk might make them very ill, cause them to lose their kidneys or even kill them, would they choose to drink it?
&#8226;	Children trust us to protect them, keep them safe, yet children are often fed raw milk by parents who believe it to be a healthy choice.
&#8226;	Continue educational efforts with respect to the hazards associated with consumption of raw milk.
&#8226;	Continue to urge parents to make only the safest and healthiest choices for their children.
HUS
&#8226;	One of the complications that can arise as a result of infection with E.coli O157:H7 is hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), which can have devastating consequences upon victims, (such as acute renal failure), especially where they are very young.
&#8226;	HUS has been associated with the consumption of raw milk domestically. See Martin et al. Lancet 1986; 8514:1043
Proctor and Davis (2002)
&#8226;	Reported on E. coli O157:H7 infections in Wisconsin between 1992-1999. (The disease only became reportable in Wisconsin in April of 2000.)
&#8226;	Between 1992-1999 there were 1333 cases reported in Wisconsin.
&#8226;	The highest age-specific mean annual incidence, 13.2 cases per 100,000 population, occurred in children aged 3-5 years old.
&#8226;	Among case patient identifiable exposures, consumption of raw milk/milk products was among the top three causes most frequently noted, at 7% of cases.
&#8226;	Proctor and Davis WMJ 2000 Aug; 99(5) 32-7.


----------



## JeffNY (Dec 13, 2004)

There are up to 85 million food born illnesses reported each year. The biggest cause? Vegitables. About 5500 people die per year.



There was a breakdown in either the CDC's or FDA's website. 20-30 million illnesses reported were from vegitables.


I know I drink ours, and what I have been sick on are vegitables and chicken. Well cooked chicken too.


But haypoint, im not surprised of your stance, you are a big government kinda guy.


Jeff


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

Haypoint can quote all his doom and gloom about "unsafe" raw milk all he wants.

I know with 100% certainty with my personal experiences that pasteurized milk gives me the same adverse reaction that supposedly only could come from unpasteurized milk. I have tried different brands, stores and locations as well as caprine versus bovine and the results are the same. 

Unpasteurized milk does not have any negative effects upon me, even when I have been feeling under the weather. The taste is also much better.

While I grant that one's experiences may vary, I am quite tired of someone telling me that I am too ignorant to know what I should and should not be eating or providing for my family.

Additionally, I have become ill more often from supposedly perfectly safe commercially processed foods prepared per industry standards than I have from the level of self-butchered, self-harvested and home grown food products even though I have no way to test for pathogens nor do I have the industrial quality food preparation facilities to "properly" prepare items. Perhaps my body and immune system are too stupid to know they should be getting sick from non-commercially produced food sources.

If government entities want to shove things down our throats, perhaps it is time the government entities get something shoved into an orifice of our choosing. 

I already know in the state of Missouri that a family friend and his family of my mother had the boom lowered on them by less than legal tactics because of his free range cattle, egg and dairy operation. This is a family who inspects the butchers they use because they don't trust the state to do proper inspections. They follow and exceed the requirements of the state and exceed the quality of industrial agriculture products and the state of Missouri wanted to make an example of them because of corporate interests feeling threatened.

Cry wolf about the threat of raw, free range or non-commercial agriculture all you like. It falls on deaf ears. There are microbes everywhere and while one can kill some, you cannot kill them all. What one can do is make certain that the good ones are stronger and more numerous than the bad. For me that means eating as much raw and unprocessed food as I can.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I'm not expecting to change anyone's stance on this topic. In fact I stated that. People can base their beliefs on " It ain't killed me yet" proof, and you are fine with that. But throw out some facts and you get all defensive.

People can make their own choices on every topic, but it is better to make choices based on facts than just feelings. Let's get our heads out of the sand and accept the facts as they are, not just as we wish they are.

When some Mom follows the advice if some HT folks and has a child die, we'll all feel real bad. But I can say I tried to show the other side that many refused to do. You don't have to adopt my viewpoint, but I feel better just knowing you have seen the facts. What you do with them is up to you.

Contentious? You bet.


----------



## sheepish (Dec 9, 2006)

It is universally agreed that raw milk, straight from the source is the best food for babies. In fact, lack of access to such milk has led to the death of many babies.

Raw COW's milk has not "become contentious," it has been contentious for years; ever since people let commercial dairying supply their milk. It was the prevalence of TB among dairy herds that led to the banning of raw milk sales in the first place.

The problem with raw milk is not the milk itself, but what happens to it after it leaves the cow. 

If it is allowed to become contaminated by careless handling, which includes overlong storage, then problems arise. The problems have been compounded by mixing milk from many sources, so that a small problem can become a big one. Heat treating lowered the risk, but it also compromised the product. 

It may not be long before the only vegetables that can be sold will be heat treated. Will we then argue that that has not compromised the product?


----------



## JeffNY (Dec 13, 2004)

haypoint said:


> I'm not expecting to change anyone's stance on this topic. In fact I stated that. People can base their beliefs on " It ain't killed me yet" proof, and you are fine with that. But throw out some facts and you get all defensive.
> 
> People can make their own choices on every topic, but it is better to make choices based on facts than just feelings. Let's get our heads out of the sand and accept the facts as they are, not just as we wish they are.
> 
> ...


Haypoint. Your source are the very people against Raw Milk. Its no different than asking Obama if he thinks his national health care is a great idea. What do you think he will say? It is like asking someone who smokes pot, if it should be legalized. You are going to get statistics that suit their needs. We were told of someone who's mother became ill, and went to the Hospital. Do you know what the doctor asked them? "Did you drink raw milk?". The lady never has ever had raw milk. What she did have however prior to getting sick were things the FDA does not speak out against. And those are luncheon meats (Something she did eat), and veggies. Yet why would the doctor ask a dumb assuming question like that? What does everyone that gets sick, drink raw milk? There is a war right now, and its those who are big government (like yourself), that are against raw milk. And those who do drink it, and don't have problems with it. I know I have been drinking ours since 05, and I haven't been sick at all from it. I have however several times in fact, been sick from milk bought in the store. In fact it went sour within 2 days of buying it. Yet we have heard cases of raw milk lasting for 2 weeks in peoples fridge without it going bad.


Again you say "people are set in their ways". You are as well, your set in your ways, and no matter how good the data is supporting raw milk. You are against it. Anything big government, you like. Why does the FDA allow drugs in the market that kill people? Why do they allow veggies to be sold that sit for several days, open to any fly or people sneezing on them? Why do we have LARGE e-coli outbreaks from things they dont speak out against? Why are thousands dieing from food borne illnesses, the majority being from veggies, and the like. Things they don't speak out against?

Simple answer, they collect taxes, its ok. Yet I don't see you posting a thread with your concerns with how meat is handled, and the drugs sold on the market. Yet you find the time to post things that are against small farms. That being Raw milk and even your NAIS thing.


Jeff


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

"Set in their ways" refers to people that have their minds made up and will not acept any facts that counter their position.
I consider data supporting raw milk and discount, " it ain't killed me yet" comments.

When a handfull of folks get sick from millions of gallons of pasturized and hundreds get sick from thousands of gallons of raw milk, I see the difference.

When the topic is meat, I'll speak about meat. If the topic is FDA approved drugs, I'll make my comments. If the topic is veggies, lets talk veggies. But I refuse to let the topic of raw milk go on in such a one sided discussion. 

I don't care if you accept the data. But it has been presented to you and you can no longer use the excuse, " Well, I didn't know. I thought it was safe."

I've been at this back to nature lifestyle for a long time. I have discovered that there are reasons for the way things are and that there are no absolutes.
The day of the viable small farmer is over. Lassie isn't waiting at the end of the driveway. 

Mark my words, legalizing raw milk is just a way for big business to get us to stick our necks out so the next disease outbreak can chop it off.


----------



## JeffNY (Dec 13, 2004)

Again, the data you cited was from the FDA. Not the best source to get data, since their stance is against it.



Jeff


----------



## mamadelbosque (Sep 29, 2008)

Another raw milker here But, we're all legal like around here  I have a herd share!! I actually found my source courtesy of the extension office pamphlet on local farms. They advertised "herd shares" and I just so happened to know what that meant  I can *NOT* wait for them to start milking here in another week... we ran out of our frozen stuff a week or so ago, and so I'm reduced to buying horizon organic :sniffle: uke:


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Some data (proof) was from FDA. In an earlier post the information was from Michigan Department of Agriculture, plus others. 
If you said that the sun wasn&#8217;t going to rise in the east and I gave documentation from astrological experts that detailed how the sun was going to rise in the east, I guess you&#8217;d dispute them because they are pro-easterly sunrise people?
Of course the FDA is against raw milk. It has been studied over and over, the data is there. Because I agree that the collection of facts supports their position, I must be labeled &#8220;pro-big government/business&#8221;?

Pick any of the data I posted and detail unbiased factual reports that disprove it. Now don't go cheating and get data from one of your pro-raw milk sources. LMAO


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

As I recall the highest indicence of rejection for tberulosis inflections among immitrants is t was aquired from contaminatee mllk or milk-related products in their home country.


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

Legalized raw milk does not mean that everyone has to drink it.
If you don't want to, then don't.
You aren't going to get sick (if that is the fear) if you don't drink it.
Let it be legal and continue to drink whatever the heck you want to drink.
For me.. I'll stick with raw, thank you very much.
The taste difference is incredible.
Plus, I can make butter!


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> he day of the viable small farmer is over. Lassie isn't waiting at the end of the driveway.


 Actually, the day of the small sustainable farm is just dawning as more and more small farms turn to CSA operations, exploit the Locavore movement and other niche markets..it is exactly the small scale diverse farm that Lassie ran around on that young or new farmers are finding success with. You dont need thousands of acres and $100,000 tractors to be sustainable.

Just because a farm sells raw milk doesnt mean they dont get inspected just like a grade A dairy http://www.sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/current/2csr/2c80-3.pdf. Our fear of all bacteria in this country borders on hysteria.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I think cooking meat takes the important enzimes out of it. I want to be able to buy a raw Big Mac from McDonalds. Should that be allowed?


----------



## sheepish (Dec 9, 2006)

haypoint said:


> I think cooking meat takes the important enzimes out of it. I want to be able to buy a raw Big Mac from McDonalds. Should that be allowed?


No, unless they butcher on the premises. But if your local abattoir sells beef, you should be able to buy it and eat it any way you want.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

So, you should only be able to buy raw milk if you can see it come out of the cow?


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

Do you watch your hamburger cooked now? 

You already stated you want big government to protect us from ourselves so what is the difference if the USDA or state AG Department inspects a farm that pasteurizes or a farm that just produces and sells raw milk? I actually agree with you that government should provide some standards and oversight on non-point of origin sales but it sounds more to me like you are just anti anything that isnt the way its always been.


----------



## springvalley (Jun 23, 2009)

Haypoint I have never known you to be this argumenative. Why is it not the right for some one to drink raw milk if he or she wants to? I am a very big supporter of the raw milk movement. Raw milk never spoils, it just changes form. As long as your cows are healthy, milking practices are sanitary, equipment is clean and sanitary. I have no problem with raw milk consumption. I have alot of big dairies in my area I would never drink milk from, raw or not. You would not believe the amount of people that get REAL milk from me that say their health has improved dramaticly. Haypoit, you have your opinion, and that is your right. Just don`t impose your opinion on all the rest of us. And I have no idea where you get proof of any deaths or serious illness from raw milk. Thanks Marc


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

sheepish wrote, "It is universally agreed that raw milk, straight from the source is the best food for babies." Very true, but please don't trick someone into believing the "source" is a cow. Truth be known, that statement is true only when the source is momma's breast. 
While there is lots to go wrong with raw milk after it has left the cow, dangerous diseases do exist in raw milk straight from the cow. There is no proof that pasturization "compromises the product". None.

salmonslayer put some words in my mouth. I don't see where I said I want big government to protect us. I'm just showing some facts, some of it as recent as this week. "isn't the way it has always been" ? There was a time, not so very long ago, where milk wasn't pasturized, now it is and I think some folks have forgotten why things changed.
I guess I tend to look a bit farther down the road than some of you. If the USDA lets you sell a few gallons of raw milk to your neighbors, they have to forget about and health standards and regulations. These small operations don't have the safeguards built in like the Grade A working daries. Since I don't ascribe to the belief that you can allow a small hobby farm to sell raw milk and close the door on a big dairy when they try to do the same thing. It is too easy to fall into the class-envy trap of selective regulation.

I only seem argumenative when you have a strong opposing viewpoint.
If I'm running a gas station, why should some government thug be allowed to check the accuracy of my pumps. Let the consumer decide. If I'm running a puppy mill, why should some government soft-hearted agent be allowed to require me to provide clean shelters? They are animals after all, aren't they? Let the buyers decide. If I want to drive 150 MPH on the highway, who's business is it how fast I drive? If I die doing twice the speed limit, it should be my right, don't you think? Let the cops go solve some real crime and leave us speeders alone. 
"Raw Milk Movement"? Is there anyone in the "Raw Milk Movement" spreading the facts about the dangers of raw milk? Can you say that everyone in this "Raw Milk Movement" has examined the statistics? I may be wrong, but what I'm hearing from the "Raw Milk Movement" is short on facts and long on, " It ain't kilt me yet." hogwash.

"As long as your cows are healthy" Do you mean to say that you have your cows regularly checked (blood drawn and milk sampled and sent to a Lab) or am I to assume you ascribe to the " they look healthy, are kept well bedded and pastured on lush grass, so they cannot carry disease" theroy? 
You should have an idea where I got my facts about deaths and serious injury. I included the source. You think I just made this stuff up? Go back and read it.
I'm going to express my opinion, just as you have. Just, I'm able to go beyond the "I drink it three times a day and it cured my menstrual cramps" and look at real scientific data. But, that's just me. I don't believe in witching for water either.

You push to legalize raw milk, but recognize the local dairies are filthy. If you are sucessful in getting the Dept. of Ag and Health Departments to turn their backs on raw milk sales regulation, who do you think will be selling raw milk? Yup, those very dairies. Can you see the next step after that? Yup, stricter requirements that the small operation can't meet and the small farmer's illegal sale to his neighbors will become a serious violation. But you won't just leave it alone. 

Are you serious that you admit that you sell lots and lots of raw milk yet have no idea that people get sick and die from raw milk? You've got some homework to do.

You can also look up http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24954041/ and http://www.ourjeet.com/Newsletter/tbcapsule_article.asp?nid=N000000373 and http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/nyregion/16milk.html for some extra credit assignment.


----------



## mamadelbosque (Sep 29, 2008)

We started pasturizing milk when we started keeping cows in confinement and feeding them leftover-sludge, mostly coming from breweries. People suddenly started getting sick from the milk - cause' it was coming from cows who were sick cause' they were eating crap. So, they came up with pasturizing it, so that it would be 'safe'. And they sold it to us hook, line & sinker. And now most people think fresh milk is 'unsafe' - and you know what? Probably it is if its coming from a confinement dairy operation, as most milk does. 

But that doesn't mean that raw milk _in of itself_ is dangerous. It means that raw milk from _sick cows_ who are fed sludge is dangerous. I don't get my raw milk from cows fed sludge though, thank-you-very-much. I get my raw milk from cows fed nothing but grass & hay, who are outside on pasture 365 days a year, and are moved from one section of pasture to another every day. From farmers who drink their own raw milk, and make sure it is clean and coming from healthy cows, because they don't want to drink dirty/unhealthy milk either. 

I don't think everyone should drink raw milk. I just don't think it should be illegal to sell it. Thats all. If you don't want to drink raw milk, then don't. Nobody on here is saying that everyone should HAVE to drink raw milk. All most of us are saying is that we should have that choice - and that we shouldn't have to break the law (or circumvent it through herd shares) to do so.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mamadelbosque, you are right on! You have clearly described exactly how I wish the raw milk issue were. I like the idea of evil, disease and filth ridden big agriculture and a countryside of small farms with clean cows, lots of fresh bedding and well drained lush green pastures. I'd like to believe that healthy cows fed healthy diets and plenty of fresh air never get sick. If they were to get sick, the signs would be so obvious we'd see it before it was passed on in the milk.
Then we'd all sit around the supper table and share stories about our day before we go sit around the Zenith and listen to stories about the Shadow. Grandpa Walton hand Timmy the fresh squeezed lemonade. 
My real life experiences have taught me that things aren't so cut and dried.
Milk from sick cows fed sludge is dangerous. But people die from raw milk from healthy looking cows that are fed clean feed and given plenty of fresh air, too.
There are cows in mega-dairies that get covered in filth and don't get much sunlight, but produce clean healthy milk. Just as there are cows in tiny homestead farms that wade through muck around the barn, don't get their bedding changed and are fed grain that has started to mold and produce healthy milk. and Vice versa.
While it is important to properly care for healthy cows, it isn't a guarantee of disease free milk.
The only way raw milk will be legalized is when the USDA and the state Health Departments can be totally blameless and that it is so clearly separated from pasteurized and inspected milk so that public confidence in "store bought" milk isn't harmed.

I don't see that happening. The consumers won't allow it. Not so long ago there was a sample of meat that tested positive for e coli. Most of those millions of pounds of hamburger were not contaminated. The safe way to handle this would be to put a label on every package from this slaughterhouse, "Cook Well before eating". That would have eliminated the danger, but it could have harmed consumer image. So the meat was thrown out. Same for milk. No one wants to risk harming the image of milk over a handful of farmers that want to play "Russian Rolette" with milk sales.
It would be difficult for me to support my position, if all I had to go on were problems from a hundred years ago or speculation of "what if". But there is plenty of current data and plenty of recent instances of people getting sick over raw milk.

If I can get away with selling a few gallons of milk and no one knows, I think that's fine. The risk of losing my farm should someone contract a disease from my raw milk is real. But what I see here is people pushing for legalized raw milk sales on a larger scale and people that believe there are no dangers in raw milk.
There are just too many people, like springvalley, ("And I have no idea where you get proof of any deaths or serious illness from raw milk.â vs. http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/P.../ucm165048.htm )that are selling a product that they know nothing about the inherent pathogen dangers. As long as there are people that want to sell or buy raw milk that are unaware of the variety of diseases that are common to raw milk, we are unprepared for legalized raw milk sales.
Milk production is a huge source of income for farmers in this country. Anything that is likely to tant the image of milk will harm millions of people that produce these safe pasturized products. Who gets hurt first? Yup, smaller farms.


----------



## JeffNY (Dec 13, 2004)

haypoint said:


> Some data (proof) was from FDA. In an earlier post the information was from Michigan Department of Agriculture, plus others.
> If you said that the sun wasnât going to rise in the east and I gave documentation from astrological experts that detailed how the sun was going to rise in the east, I guess youâd dispute them because they are pro-easterly sunrise people?
> Of course the FDA is against raw milk. It has been studied over and over, the data is there. Because I agree that the collection of facts supports their position, I must be labeled âpro-big government/businessâ?
> 
> Pick any of the data I posted and detail unbiased factual reports that disprove it. Now don't go cheating and get data from one of your pro-raw milk sources. LMAO


Contradict yourself when you make a comment "Now don't go cheatin and get data from one of your pro-raw milk sources." Because what you did, was used data from an anti-raw milk source. Why are you so pro big government?


Jeff


----------



## JeffNY (Dec 13, 2004)

mamadelbosque said:


> We started pasturizing milk when we started keeping cows in confinement and feeding them leftover-sludge, mostly coming from breweries. People suddenly started getting sick from the milk - cause' it was coming from cows who were sick cause' they were eating crap. So, they came up with pasturizing it, so that it would be 'safe'. And they sold it to us hook, line & sinker. And now most people think fresh milk is 'unsafe' - and you know what? Probably it is if its coming from a confinement dairy operation, as most milk does.
> 
> But that doesn't mean that raw milk _in of itself_ is dangerous. It means that raw milk from _sick cows_ who are fed sludge is dangerous. I don't get my raw milk from cows fed sludge though, thank-you-very-much. I get my raw milk from cows fed nothing but grass & hay, who are outside on pasture 365 days a year, and are moved from one section of pasture to another every day. From farmers who drink their own raw milk, and make sure it is clean and coming from healthy cows, because they don't want to drink dirty/unhealthy milk either.
> 
> I don't think everyone should drink raw milk. I just don't think it should be illegal to sell it. Thats all. If you don't want to drink raw milk, then don't. Nobody on here is saying that everyone should HAVE to drink raw milk. All most of us are saying is that we should have that choice - and that we shouldn't have to break the law (or circumvent it through herd shares) to do so.



They started pasteurizing because of TB.


Jeff


----------



## JeffNY (Dec 13, 2004)

I also never see the anti-raw milkers say anything against other parts of the system that sicken thousands of people. Like the spinach outbreak, the MASSIVE meat recalls. It seems awfully strange those who are against raw milk, seem pro-big ag or big government. Because those selling raw milk, are usually the smaller guy trying to make more money. Seems ok if the big guy sickens people..


Actions speak louder than words, and they really dont need to say anything, just the way they come off, speaks volumes.


Jeff


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

I read a story saying some company (Whole Foods?) is stopping selling raw milk due to the possibilities of law suits from people getting sick from it.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Any time there is food that causes illness is a serious concern. Proportion is important, just the same.

Spinach from one farm had ecoli in a batch. Everyone in the spinach business was hurt. People stopped buying spinach, even when it was known that the rest of the spinich crop from dozens of states was perfectly safe. Knee jerk reaction.

When a sample of meat tested positive for e coli, as a safeguard, millions of pounds of burger was pulled off the market, just to assure the consumer that the meat in the stores was safe. This huge recall, a couple years ago, caused the consumer to reduce beef purchases. This recall seems large, but it is only a fraction of the daily production in this country. This is proof that a recall of just a tiny portion of a product has serious repercussions. The news media (and aparently you) make it seem there was a MASSIVE amount of dangerous meat on the market. If it wern't for consumer confidence, I would have slapped a tag on that lot of burger, "Cook well". How hard is that?


Does anyone really believe that legalization of raw milk is going to help the small producer? It is likely that if legalized, only the Grade A operations will be able to market raw milk. Around here, the small operations can't afford to go Grade A. It is those huge dairies that are Grade A. 


"Seems ok if the big guy sickens people.." If you believe anyone is getting a pass while you are punished, is an example of class envy.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

JeffNY said:


> Contradict yourself when you make a comment "Now don't go cheatin and get data from one of your pro-raw milk sources." Because what you did, was used data from an anti-raw milk source. Why are you so pro big government?
> 
> 
> Jeff


You cut off the "LMAO" that followed my sentence. Perhaps you'd have understand this better: :smiley-laughing013:
If you recall, you were discounting my data because it was from the FDA, known by you to be anti-raw milk. 
I was laughing at the abserdity of that argument. You don't want me to use a source you believe to be anti-raw milk, but feel free to rely on pro-raw milk sources. How silly this has become.:kissy:


----------



## springvalley (Jun 23, 2009)

well Haypoint, I guess you and the rest of us are just going to disagree. By the way I am a small producer and I am also a grade A dairy. I am inspected twice a year by my state. And I adhear to the regulations they make me fallow. And yes I am still going to sell REAL milk as long as I can keep doing so. I would rather drink raw milk, than buy it up town from the store, coming from who knows where. I have no idea if the jugs they bottle their milk in have been tainted, or if the truck that hauls it refrigeration unit has worked properly all the way to the store, I also don`t know if the store has left it sit on the unloading dock longer than they should have, or if someone with dirty, contaminated hands has handeled my cartons before I get them. I know how I milk my cows, cool my milk, wash my equipment, feed my cows, test my cows, care for my cows 365 days a year,(not by an employee that doesn`t care) move the fence for my pasture,bale the hay, plant and pick the corn I feed,take the extra effort it requires to supply a great product. If the day comes I am not allowed to sell REAL milk, I will stop milking cows all togeather and only keep one or two for my own use and say the heck with the fight for freedom to choose what ever "WE" choose to do with our own health. I am saddened to see so many of our rights taken away in this great country of ours, Like the right to pick and choose my own health care, for one. So I guess we are going to agree to disagree, and I hope you understand most states have not had a case of disease born of cattle in years. Not saying it can`t happen, it can , it may. But when I am in control of my own food sources, I feel safer. What happens when the day comes when they say you can`t grow your own vegtables anymore, because you might make yourself sick, you won`t like it. So don`t let the government rule our lives. Thats all for now. Thanks Marc.


----------



## PAcountry (Jun 29, 2007)

Pa has legalized raw milk and you dont see people lined up at the hospital keeling over or at the lawyers suing everyone in site.

Pa you can sell direct from the farm with no inspection or if you want to sell raw milk in a store you must have inspection.
Win win for everyone as a small operator can sell direct to his customers. There by knowing if a problem happens. Or a big guy (like where I get my milk from has a herd of 300) they have to be inspected just like the pasteurize people. I know the risk just like I know there is a risk in every food I eat.
I am willing to take the risk with the benefits it provides me. My right my freedom. I dont go around pouring raw milk down peoples throat all I ask is for the same freedom to chose what I put in my body


----------



## gone-a-milkin (Mar 4, 2007)

haypoint said:


> So, you should only be able to buy raw milk if you can see it come out of the cow?


Basically, this is the only way I would ever consider consuming ANY milk product that is raw. 

Haypoint, I thank you for taking the time to remind everyone of the risks involved in consuming raw dairy products. I think you got your facts across just fine. 

As a mother I can tell you that is not a decision to be made lightly, giving your small children any questionable food stuff. The moms I have seen on these boards are not "oh, everybody else is doing it, it must be fine" types of ladies. These people are milking their own cows and goats or they are buying that milk from someone they trust. 

Just like many generations before us have done. 

Truth is, I agree with you that across-the-board raw milk sales would not be a good idea. I have worked in dairies most of my life. I think the 'herd share' method is adequate. It eliminates the lawsuit stuff, and the contract states that you are consuming at your own risk. 

I do drink raw milk from cows that I milk myself. I wash all my own equipment and know precisely how fresh it is and how it has been handled. My children drink it too. We are lucky to be in a place where that is possible, w/o breaking any laws. 

For the city dwellers to have that same situation? I do not see how that could be done safely on a large scale. In that regard the regs we have make sense to me. 

You will never hear me say "I haven't died from it yet." (though obviously that is true). & I believe that the 'magic food' thing is an exaggeration.

People do need education on the issue. It does bother me that most consumers do not really ever think about where their food comes from and how it has been handled. They just assume the govt has it all fixed up for us to be 'safe'. 

I think that is what the 'pro-raw' people are attempting to convey with their citings of other food sicknesses.

Everyone needs to think for themselves.
& of course we will never change anyones mind on this topic.


----------



## JeffNY (Dec 13, 2004)

haypoint said:


> You cut off the "LMAO" that followed my sentence. Perhaps you'd have understand this better: :smiley-laughing013:
> If you recall, you were discounting my data because it was from the FDA, known by you to be anti-raw milk.
> I was laughing at the abserdity of that argument. You don't want me to use a source you believe to be anti-raw milk, but feel free to rely on pro-raw milk sources. How silly this has become.:kissy:


So whats so absurd about it? The government has all of the answers? Your a big government kinda guy. There isn't any data, that comes from an unbiased source saying one way or the other. When you have the big milk company lobbyists behind the FDA's claims, along with the AMA, and other LARGE conglomerates, what do you expect?


The FDA released a press release on march 1st 07. All of the very organizations that would be HURT by raw milk, the ones who make MILLIONS off of peoples plight, signed that press release. Lets see, DFA posted a 65 million dollar profit. Why? They were ripping the farmer off. So what if a farmer wants to sell some milk on the side? Are you against said farmer making some money to help pay for things? Because you certainly do come off being against the little guy, as raw milk is not sold by the big guy. Your VERY biased, and its why every big government plan that is hatched, you are the first one to defend it. Whether it be NAIS (beneifts the large farmer) or raw milk being banned (hurts the small guy). Your there to show how right the FDA is, and how wrong the small farmer is.


Jeff


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Thank you for the sweet breeze of sanity, gone-a-milkin.


I didn't say the government has all the answers, they don't. I don't believe the government is perfect, nothing is ('cept God's Love). There is a thing called "reportable diseases". When a Vet or Lab runs into a reportable disease, it becomes a part of a record about diseases. When a person gets sick, the doctors try to cure the person and tries to locate a source. That's how they zeroed in on the tainted spinich a few years ago. Records are kept on all sorts of illnesses. I'm sure your local Health Department can tell you if STD are on the rise in your town. 

Maybe illnesses from raw milk or milk products is rare in your neck of the woods, but in Michigan, we've had a couple cheese plants with recalled cheese and a couple days ago a bunch of people got sick enough to go to the hospital from drinking raw milk. 


In Michigan we have a NAIS system for cows. Most of the farms in Michigan that have cows are small, especially up north. The EID is an important part of the TB eradication program. It helps keep small farmers in business, by keeping our interstate markets open. You have it backwards. But that's a dead horse, isn't it?

In Michigan, raw milk sales are against the law. It doesn't help or hurt the small farmer or the large operation. If it were legalized in Michigan (or any place else, I guess) those of us with a stool and milk pail still won't be allowed to sell, would we? Once the larger dairies are allowed (which would involve licencing, inspections and regulation) to sell raw milk, do you think they'll sit still while the small, "wink and a nod" raw milk sales continue? Of course not. Legalize raw milk sales and you shut down the little guy selling (illegally) to his neighbors.

In Michigan there aren't any government agents combing the countryside rooting out illegal raw milk sales. Legalize it and see how fast that changes.

If you are going to believe that lobbyists fed AMA and FDA false data, I guess this is where the discussion ends. I don't simply jump on board with every government plan. I study it, I check around. I see how it works and how it effects the small farmer. I do see a lot of folks spreading myths. I guess it is normal human behavior. In Africa, thousands believe AIDS is a myth. In Haiti, many believe sex with a virgin cures AIDS. 
In New York, some folks believe you can find underground water with a stick and the small farmer is in a war with the people that own more than 100 cows and all government employees are lackies for big business. 

But this thread is about what a hot issue raw milk is. I guess so. 

I get around, I see, I learn. Last week, for example, I attended a Commercial Vegetable Gardening class put on by Michigan State University. I attended a large Draft horse Auction. I visited several Amish families. I toured a 3,000 cow dairy farm. I interviewed for a job as Farm Manager for a new CSA. I visited a couple hoophouse growing operations. I published two newsletters. I attended a couple Feeder Calf Auction sales. I have talked to many farmers, people that are out there facing the challenges of farming in the 21st century. If I want to know what a word means, I look in a dictionary. If I want to know how many people died last year from tainted raw milk, I check the FDA web sight. If I want to know how the government is tracking my chickens, I check the noNAIS web site. It pays to keep in touch.

Proponent of big government? Hardly. Realist, you bet.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu/artic....com/news/foodpoisoning/listeria-pa-milk.html

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000104.htm

http://www.campylobacterblog.com/tags/raw-milk/

http://www.pritzkerlaw.com/campylobacter/hendricks-farm-campylobacter.html

http://www.pritzkerlaw.com/section-foodborne-illness/listeria/pennsylvania-raw-milk-recall.html

http://www.pritzkerlaw.com/section-foodborne-illness/listeria/listeria-listeriosis-miscarriage.html

http://www.salmonellablog.com/2008/...ania-testing-of-raw-milk-turns-up-salmonella/

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/rawmilk.html

http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/B...heese_Consumption_---_Pennsylvania_2007.shtml

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/health&id=6395381

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/10/raw-milk-risks-and-benefits-explained.php

http://dchealth.dc.gov/doh/cwp/view,a,1370,q,603690.asp

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...ut-raw-milk-sold-in-york-county-52756617.html

http://www.boston.com/news/health/blog/2008/12/raw_milk_poses.html


----------



## JeffNY (Dec 13, 2004)

The government is also against Moonshine. Not because of safety, the government really doesn't care about safety. It has all to do with control and taxes. They cant tax it, they dont like it.


Why are some drugs illegal? Yet they sell the equivalent in pill form. Likely due to taxes.


The government doesn't like something they cant control, but due to your bias nature, you will never wrap your mind around that.



Jeff


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Raw milk, raw milk. This thread is about Raw Milk becoming Contentious. "The government is out to get me" could be a topic all by itself. Give it a shot and I might be able to discuss that belief, without telling you what you can comprehend and what you can't. Just not here.

If you believe selling raw milk is going to save the small farm, I disagree. Selling raw milk is a quick way to a law suit and the verdict could involve giving up the farm.

If you believe there is no health risks connected with raw milk, I disagree. I have cited numerous sources to support my stand.

If you believe that the only reason the government has restricted public sales of raw milk is both their need to tax it and to protect the fat cats in the dairy industry, I disagree. I have tried to show how the USDA, FDA and state departments of agriculture need to restrict products known to cause disease from entering the food chain. I've tried to explain how a loss of consumer confidence hurts all farmers, big and small.
If there were no tainted foods entering the food chain, their jobs would be done, but as they continue to set standards, test and inspect and recall, a tiny percentage does make it to consumers. That makes big news. 

It is often easier to hate something or find fault with things that you know little about or only view from afar and with great prejudges.

Timothy MacVey saw the Raco fiasco from afar. He viewed the government as a single evil entity. When he bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, he didn&#8217;t see people doing their jobs, helping this country and its citizens. He murdered them, not as fellow humans, but to prove a point that the &#8220;Government&#8221; must be punished for what the Government did (or what he thought the government did). He didn&#8217;t see it as an attack; he said it was retaliation. Normal society sees him as a crazy murderer. He&#8217;s dead now.

Please be careful about non-specific blanket hatred/distrust towards any group, including the people that provide services for the great citizens of this country.

I don&#8217;t like the way big business has expanded the dairy industry. But it does produce a lot of safe healthy products. I will admit that I&#8217;ve seen both clean and dirty cows at big dairies. But, as hard as it is for me to admit, I&#8217;ve seen some filthy small dairies. There are a few that meet my idealized view of what a small farm could be like, but way too few. Promoting raw milk is easy if all large farms were poorly operated, fed low quality feed and failed to maintain their equipment and all smaller farms were picture perfect. But that is far from reality.

If raw milk rarely produced illnesses and we had to look back decades to cite outbreaks, I&#8217;d have to concede that I&#8217;m over reacting. But when there is a disease outbreak from raw milk this very week, in the same state I live in, I think you&#8217;ll have to admit that raw milk is a risk we can live without.


----------



## mullberry (May 3, 2009)

I grew up on fresh milk, its all we had . I never had any store milk untill I got drafted & ended up in a mess hall in Ft. Dix . I can't remember any differance other than you didn't have to shake store milk , never had to feed bessy to get some, no flies in the pail, I started dodging bullets instead of bessies tail. oh well I need some cream so as I can make butter in my maytag.


----------



## JeffNY (Dec 13, 2004)

As I said, you are having a difficult time wrapping your mind around the real reason why the government is against Raw milk. IT IS NOT SAFETY. They dont care, they really dont know how certain pathogens get in the milk, in fact its mostly a guessing game where it came from to start an outbreak, what exactly caused it.


As I said, and will keep saying because it seems like your kevlar, nearly impossible to get through. If they really cared about safety, they would not allow products on the market that kill thousands of people. Drugs is the biggest, etc.

Moonshine as I said is not legal due to taxes. Thats not a conspiracy, its fact. You cant even brew your own liquor legally without a license. They dont want you selling stuff without them knowing, hence, collect a tax. They sell methadone, the same effect as heroine. But because they can regulate it, make money off of it, they allow the sale of the same stuff/different name.


Coccaine was made illegal, and was the FIRST thing the FDA banned. At that time it was the Food and Drug Act, or something similar. It had nothing to do with what it did, it was because they wanted to market something similar with the same effect, TAX...


You think the government is all soo great. Your a big government guy, anti-small farmer.


jeff


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

A pied piper that knowingly leads people into something without revealing the dangers is morre harmful that one who risks his reputation to expose the truth so that open-minded folks can decide based on truth.
When people are confronted with undenyable truth that undermines their position, it is common to move the topic. While I am tempted to accept your detour, I'll save it for the proper thread. This thread, ass I see it is about strongly differing stands on the issue of raw milk.


----------



## JeffNY (Dec 13, 2004)

haypoint said:


> A pied piper that knowingly leads people into something without revealing the dangers is morre harmful that one who risks his reputation to expose the truth so that open-minded folks can decide based on truth.
> When people are confronted with undenyable truth that undermines their position, it is common to move the topic. While I am tempted to accept your detour, I'll save it for the proper thread. This thread, ass I see it is about strongly differing stands on the issue of raw milk.


Naa Im in support of small farms, the ones who want to sell raw milk, make a little extra money, something your against. Instead you want it so that the small farmer can't make extra money, and big government has their way. But that's ok, because the small guy finally won something, they voted the other day to pass a bill 8 to 1, that allows raw milk sales in Wisconsin. This benefits the small guy, but I am sure you would be against this, and point out the dangers from a un-biased source such as the FDA .

I used other examples, you interpreted it as changing the subject. I pointed out that the government cites "safety" When in fact its for other reasons. But you are like a lemming, follow the government blindly where it leads you.


Jeff


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Personally I have no problem with people buying or selling raw milk. As long as each side have enough insurance or cash to cover any cost the pops up when or if someone gets sick from the milk and to pay any cost of a recall.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Not so fast, my internet protaginist. It isn't legal in Wisconsin yet, far from it.
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/1310ap_wi_xgr_raw_milk.html
So, I can't see how NAIS puts the small farmer out of business and helps the factory farms and I can't see how the legalization of raw milk helps the small farm. Maybe for a few months, but as soon as the larger farms see a way to capitalize on raw milk, they'll be right in there, taking over this profitable venture. Insurance is going to have more of an effect anyway. Plus there'll be regulation, inspection and licencing. 

When I wanted to do a sleigh ride business, I planned a Saturday and Sunday operation for three months. The only way any insurance companies would sell liability insurance was for the entire year and it would have cost $3,000. If I operated in an area where I could draw business seven days a week and used sleighs and wheeled buggies, the insurance cost was the same. Obviously, the "big guys" could divide their costs over a much higher number of riders. The small operation couldn'y compete.

For a few years, I bought large quanities (500 to 1000) of bare root fruit trees. I ordered them months before delivery and used that time to pre-sell the trees to friends and neighbors. I had to buy a nursery license and pay for an annual inspection even though the trees came from a licensed nursery. But the law requires anyone selling rooted plants retail must be licensed. My license and inspection cost me the same as what WalMart pays for the thousands of products they sell. This tends to put the smaller operations at a disadvantage.

So, how does the legalization of raw milk sales help the small farmer? Is there a requirement in the bill that raw milk cannot be sold by large operations?

A few years ago, mostly small farmers wanted to be able to sell organic foods. No one wanted big business slapping the organic label on their products. So, regulations and standards were set up to insure that everything labeled organic truly was organic. In no time the big farms geared up and now the small farmers must compete with multi-state growers. Local farm producers are not getting into many grocery stores and are left with the mostly non-profitable farmers markets to sell their home grown products.

You believed NAIS would hurt the small farmer, until MI and WI mandated it and it is working out just fine. So, I guess once the Dairy State legalizes (if they ever do) raw milk you will be able to see how the large dairy operations squeeze out the little guy, once again.

I hate it, I hate it. But I'm open minded to see a little farther down the road.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

haypoint said:


> A pied piper that knowingly leads people into something without revealing the dangers is morre harmful that one who risks his reputation to expose the truth so that open-minded folks can decide based on truth.
> When people are confronted with undenyable truth that undermines their position, it is common to move the topic. While I am tempted to accept your detour, I'll save it for the proper thread. This thread, ass I see it is about strongly differing stands on the issue of raw milk.


When I was young, I spent alot of time preaching what I called the "truth". Found out years later it wasn't. I now try to avoid the word, and have little trust of anyone that uses it. For someone so open-minded, I wouldn't think I knew it all.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

haypoint said:


> A pied piper that knowingly leads people into something without revealing the dangers is morre harmful that one who risks his reputation to expose the truth so that open-minded folks can decide based on truth.
> When people are confronted with undenyable truth that undermines their position, it is common to move the topic. While I am tempted to accept your detour, I'll save it for the proper thread. This thread, ass I see it is about strongly differing stands on the issue of raw milk.


When I was young, I spent alot of time preaching what I called the "truth". Found out years later it wasn't. I now try to avoid the word, and have little trust of anyone that uses it. You're trying to keep others from being close-minded while you act like you know it all.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

When I was young, I spent alot of time living what I believed was the "truth". Found out years later that it wasn't. Now I try to explain to others that follow this same truth, that it is not as simple as one might hope. There are twists and turns, contradictions to everything. It is easy to "preach" about a world as you wish it to be. I don't repeat that, it is already well known. I support my explaination that things are not as we might want them to be with facts. 

Sorry if the facts I list make me sound like a know-it-all.

I wish there were many small farms in every community. I wish they all had a variety of clean healthy livestock in clean dry housing, fed wholesome feed and water. In this wishful world, the family was always happy and always had time to care for eachother and their animals. On the other side of town was a huge factory farm. The place was dirty, filled with disease and the animals poorly taken care of. The crops were sprayed with Monsanto products and every year the crops failed.

Just taint so simple, is it?


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

That is the joy of being able to choose to buy from a small producer.
Choices. Responsiblility.
I sell stuff from my farm.
I see and talk to the people that buy it from me.
If they were to ever be unhappy for some reason, we are on a first name basis.
They could call and let me know that there is a problem.
They can call with requests or suggestions. (hey, can you grow this ... can you package this way for me...?)
And so can I about the stuff I buy from other first name folks.
There is accountability.
Thank goodness.


----------



## JeffNY (Dec 13, 2004)

The more you keep trying to explain yourself away haypoint. The more you label yourself as anti-small farmer, pro large commerical dairy. Everything your for, helps the big guy. Everything your against, hurts the small guy.


Jeff


----------



## sheepish (Dec 9, 2006)

The different arguments illustrate a principle well know in statistical science. 

You can't take a fact that applies to a large population and apply it to an individual.

-A downturn in the economy may explain why the unemployment rate is high, but it doesn't explain why your irresponsible BIL lost his job.

-A flu virus sweeping the community doesn't explain why one individual in the family got the flu and another didn't.

- Houses are being foreclosed in record numbers, but you are a careful money manager and have not bought over your ability to repay. You are not any more likely to lose your house.

- An increasing proportion of the country claims hispanic ancestry. You are no more likely to be hispanic than you were 20 years ago.

- Milk mixed in a bulk tank from many sources is likely to contain pathogens. The larger the volume, the more likely this is. It doesn't make milk from a particular farm with good husbandry and hygiene any more likely to contain pathogens than it has already, based on its past record.

Any individual (person, or jar of milk) has significant reasons for being the way it is. These are different from the significant reasons a large population has for being the way it is. Treating small farms that control the quality of their milk in a small number of individual jars the same way that you treat mass market sources does not make scientific sense.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

So, can we have laws that make products produced by one person legal, yet illegal for others? While the idea of buying or selling milk between friends or neighbors feels safer and the idea of buying milk from a large dairy feels more risky, I'm not sure that is factual. Even if it were, how do you design laws to permit opening the doors of opportunity to a person with 5 cows, but closing the same door to a farmer with 20 cows?
If raw milk was safe 99% of the time, the person that gets sick or dies from the 1%, doesn't care how nearly safe it is. To them, is is 100% unsafe.

Just how do you allow small farms that control the quality of their milk to sell their product when there is no agreement on what those controls are? If you set standards for those small farms, how do you keep larger farms from meeting those same standards?


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

The same standards are being proposed for all producers - namely being certified as a Grade A dairy and the milk put into a per-sterilized container, with apparently no middle-man sales.

Admittedby the cost of being and retaining certifiied as a Grade A dairy is likely to go down per unit of production.

Some folks get around this by turning the entire milk production into cheese.

If you get The Cooperator, monthly publication of the Tennessee Farmer's Cooperative, this issue has a quite interesting article on a family who turns sheep milk into four favors of cheese. (WWW.locustgrovefarm.net)


----------



## JeffNY (Dec 13, 2004)

haypoint said:


> So, can we have laws that make products produced by one person legal, yet illegal for others? While the idea of buying or selling milk between friends or neighbors feels safer and the idea of buying milk from a large dairy feels more risky, I'm not sure that is factual. Even if it were, how do you design laws to permit opening the doors of opportunity to a person with 5 cows, but closing the same door to a farmer with 20 cows?
> If raw milk was safe 99% of the time, the person that gets sick or dies from the 1%, doesn't care how nearly safe it is. To them, is is 100% unsafe.
> 
> Just how do you allow small farms that control the quality of their milk to sell their product when there is no agreement on what those controls are? If you set standards for those small farms, how do you keep larger farms from meeting those same standards?


20 cows is still a small dairy, 50 cows is still a small dairy. The dairies that want to sell milk, are those that have 50-60 cows on down. The majority of those who do not care, are the ones with hundreds of milk cows. The milk laws do not effect them, that is why its not an issue to you. The large guys also get breaks, they get a break on grain, they get a break on semen, they get a break on other things as well. Not only that, some of those big guys write semen contracts and do quite well with that, the small guy is not looked at.


Again, what is so hard for you to understand the small guy wants to be able to sell milk, make money on the side. But you seem so darn dead set against that. Sure regulate it, but the way they treat it, is as if its some toxic waste, or cocaine. Why is it legal to sell drugs that kill 100's of thousands of people per year. Yet they want to BAN raw milk sales? Seems awfully one sided. Again its because the milk companies DO NOT WANT IT. They have a monopoly on the market (which is a FACT). And competition they do not want, they want milk all to themselves.

Why the heck does the interstate milk haulers act so concerned over safety, signing that press release 3/1/07? Yet if you could only see and only knew what goes into that milk, and how its handled at some of those large dairies, and even some small dairies. You would think twice about drinking store bought milk.

Sure not just ANY farm should sell raw milk, but if its a nice clean, well run operation, they should be able to see a product that makes up for the short fall. But you seem against that.


You need "I like Big farms, Monsanto and all big government things" in your signature.


Jeff


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

You do realize that the pasteurization laws went into effect back when there weren't mega dairies.....Seems small doesn't always equal ideal.
You say big operations aren't affected by milk laws...how do you figure? 
I think the majority of the big guys do care. They hire managers, they hire calf care people, they pay bonuses for low cell count and so forth. I do agree that there are some that probably don't care but I could show you one small guy for every big guy that doesn't care. Size has little to do with the problem.

You seem to have some envy issues.


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)

I was raised on it.... a few years back a friend who was long out of the grade B business decided he missed the cows too much and so raise a Jersey and two Gurnseys and when they freshened were milked by hand and milk was refrigerated in gallon glass cider jugs.... Boy after all these years of drinking store milk in plastic I finally had a treat.

Don't have anything more for this thread but would enjoy a thread on BGH if someone initiates one


----------



## JeffNY (Dec 13, 2004)

sammyd said:


> You do realize that the pasteurization laws went into effect back when there weren't mega dairies.....Seems small doesn't always equal ideal.
> You say big operations aren't affected by milk laws...how do you figure?
> I think the majority of the big guys do care. They hire managers, they hire calf care people, they pay bonuses for low cell count and so forth. I do agree that there are some that probably don't care but I could show you one small guy for every big guy that doesn't care. Size has little to do with the problem.
> 
> You seem to have some envy issues.



You call up to sixty cents per hundred weight a bonus? That is really going to make the farm? Most of those large dairies don't have low enough cell counts to qualify for the bonus. It also takes into consideration the PI count and bacteria count. If those counts are not low enough, your quality bonus takes a hit too. Usually its 20/40 and 60 cents. That does not make enough, to make a difference. So your quality bonus reference is a failed attempt.

And size does have to do with the problem. The large farm is HURTING the small guy. The small guy is going out, I am not seeing many big guys going out, because they know when the small guy is gone, the big guy remains..

The mentality that big is fine, and small is no different is not the best.


Jeff


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Johnny, there have been a couple threads on bGH. I think you'll find it in a search.

If the raw milk standard requires Grade A, that cuts many small farmers out of this market. Price a bulk tank and stainless steel piping. In this area, when Grade A standards went up, everyone went to Grade B. When the cheese plant closed, they lost their market and had to switch to beef or make a huge investment to go Grade A. To cover this investment, they had to get big.

"20 cows is still a small dairy, 50 cows is still a small dairy. The dairies that want to sell milk, are those that have 50-60 cows on down. The majority of those who do not care, are the ones with hundreds of milk cows. The milk laws do not effect them, that is why its not an issue to you. The large guys also get breaks, they get a break on grain, they get a break on semen, they get a break on other things as well. Not only that, some of those big guys write semen contracts and do quite well with that, the small guy is not looked at." 
Oh, boo hoo. We cannot have a real discussion of the issues if we can't get that chip off your shoulder over the evil big farmers. The belief, some real and some not, that the large dairy farmer is at a great and unfair advantage over the small farmer, clouds your judgement.

If the small farmer is allowed to sell raw milk, how do you expect to keep the big dairies from doing exactly the same?

The drugs in this country that save the lives of millions each month have side effects. Through rare situations, reactions and misuse of these drugs people die. Since individual reaction to a wide variety of drugs is so very different than the unknowing sales of ecoli and diseased milk, please start a thread on the drug topic. It doesn't fit here. Thanks.

"Seems awfully one sided. Again its because the milk companies DO NOT WANT IT. They have a monopoly on the market (which is a FACT). And competition they do not want, they want milk all to themselves."

Way back when organic food was a tiny segment of the market, mostly small farmers, people claimed the big companies were trying to keep their products off the market. Rules and standards were adopted, not by USDA or FDA, but by privately controled organizations. Eventually USDA adopted those standards to create a uniform standard. Now folks are crying foul because the "big guys" are meeting those standards and competing with the small farmer. 

The same is sure to happen with raw milk. You don't have to be pro-big farms to see the advantages to big dairies.
It seems reasonable to require each batch of milk be tested for infection and disease. I don't know how extensive the required test might be, so can't guess at the lab cost. For the sake of discussion, lets imagine the test is $40. Who is at a disadvantage, the guy selling 100 gallons a day or the guy selling 1,000? This isn't a trick or an unfair government. It is called economy of scale.

" Yet if you could only see and only knew what goes into that milk, and how its handled at some of those large dairies, and even some small dairies. You would think twice about drinking store bought milk."

So, you admit that with all sorts of rules, regulations, standards and inspections, there is filth in the milk that goes to processing plants. Yet you think that opening the door to milk from small dairies, with less government oversight, and a removal of a vital germ killing prossess, is somehow the solution to safe milk?

I wonder how anyone could draw such a conclusion. But the closing statement tells all:
"Sure not just ANY farm should sell raw milk, but if its a nice clean, well run operation, they should be able to see a product that makes up for the short fall. But you seem against that."

So, the thousands of Lab.Tech. around the country can expect to lose their jobs. Suddenly, we can check milk for infection, disease and bacteria by looking at the cows and understanding the intention of each farmer. Oh, yes, also by measuring the size of the farm. A clean cow in a clean barn, owned by a person with good intentions is a good start for clean safe milk. But it is only a start. It is not the whole picture by any means. You'd have to be living in a dream world for your "standard" to be effective. It is simular failed thinking that allows milliions of people to contract STD from "nice people from good families, living in good neighborhoods". Just STOP with that failed reasoning.

I do not fear big farms because they are big. I do not fear Monsanto because they invest in the development of various products that they sell to willing customers at a profit and I see the USDA as a part of the infrastructure that gives us the freedom to market our products. I don't waste much time with "I like..." or "I don't like". I prefer to look for ways, in the real world, to grow and exist. 

I am not a big farmer and I have no friends that are big farmers. I prefer organic and am not a customer of Monsanto. I do not work for USDA and have no friends that are USDA employees. I prefer small government. But I still won't join your war on class.


----------



## JeffNY (Dec 13, 2004)

Your nut understanding the point. The large dairies have no desire to sell milk out of the bulk tank. The majority of them are owned by someone, but managed by others. Some are managed by the owner, but those I know of make money off of contracts via sire companies, and selling animals. They don't make the bulk of their money off of milk. They don't have the time to sell milk on the side. The small guy does, because the majority of the small guys do not have sire companies visiting them, because of the size of their herd. I know this quite well, because I am quite involved in the registered market.


Name how many farms that are big, that sell raw milk.. Then we can talk.



Jeff


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

"Your nut understanding the point. The large dairies have no desire to sell milk out of the bulk tank. The majority of them are owned by someone, but managed by others. Some are managed by the owner, but those I know of make money off of contracts via sire companies, and selling animals. They don't make the bulk of their money off of milk. They don't have the time to sell milk on the side. The small guy does, because the majority of the small guys do not have sire companies visiting them, because of the size of their herd. I know this quite well, because I am quite involved in the registered market.
Name how many farms that are big, that sell raw milk.. Then we can talk."

When it becomes legal, I'll send you a list. 

Unlike you, the dairies that I know of make their money selling milk, go figure.

The mega dairies, known in Michigan as Dutch Dairies, just milk. These recent Dutch immigrants do not raise their replacements, they sell week old calves, all of them and then buy soon to freshen heifers. They don't grow any crops. They contract daily delivery of all feed. They pay for a place to pump their manure. They milk over 5000 cows. I doubt they'll sell raw milk. But 99% of the dairy farms in Michigan are much smaller and many are near urban areas that could easily sell raw milk.

In farming, everyone moves to the products that make the most money. When ethonol production was expected to buy up lots of corn, farmers expected corn prices to rise. The price shot up and everyone plowed up hayfields and planted corn. This increased production held down the price of corn. Every time the forecast is for soybeans to jump in value, farmers, in an attempt to cash in on this profitable crop, over plant and the price stablizes. 

A few years ago, hunters started baiting deer with piles of apples, sugar beets and carrots. This has become more profitable than producing a higher quality product for human consumption. Sales have gone flat while production increases, driving down prices in that once profitable market. Christmas trees once was a great way to make a fortune, but so many have begun growing Christmas trees and others that incrreased their production, many trees won't get cut at all.

So, as soon as a big farmer sees that you are getting $3.00 a gallon (or more) for your on-farm milk, what is to stop them from doing the same? It is more costly for you to set up a legal bottle sanitizing line than it would be for a large producer to buy a simple blow-mold plastic milk jug machine. That's called economy of scale.

Once the bigger farms flood the market with safe raw milk, the price will drop below the point of profit for the less efficient small farms. I'm not being critical of small farms, just that because of economy of scale, it costs us more to produce a pork chop, an egg and a gallon of milk than those awful factory farms. As soon as raw milk is legal, everyone that has been quietly selling unlicensed, un-inspected, un-taxed raw milk will be snitched out by the legal operations. 

You can stand in your front yard and pump your fist in the air, but nothing changes.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> everyone that has been quietly selling unlicensed, un-inspected, un-taxed raw milk will be snitched out by the legal operations.


 Its already legal and inspected in many areas and the raw milk movement is growing. Just like with NAIS your on a sinking ship crying over spilled....milk! If the bigger farms sell raw milk and bring the price down so be it, the smaller farms attract buyers because of the connection they have with their farms, customers, animals and treatment there of....something you just dont understand. 

I do find it interesting though that most of the pro-NAIS and anti Raw Milk posters here have been from Michigan and Wisconsin where there are already restrictions and governmental control over many aspects of life that some of us have an aversion to. Maybe you just get used to it after a while and its not really that bad but man I just cant see living in fear of all of these potential calamities that the government has to protect us from...after all 2 whole people have died from raw milk since 1993.


----------



## springvalley (Jun 23, 2009)

Amen, salmonslayer!! Thanks Marc


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

salmonslayer, how astute of you to notice that the anti-raw milk and pro-NAIS viewpoints come from places that raw milk is illegal and NAIS is a fact of life.

All I know is the news reports of people in Michigan that got sick from the raw milk they bought a couple weeks ago. I don't know how Michigan regulations over raw milk would be. I know the USDA and the Michigan Department of Agriculture won't permit it unless there is better oversight or there is a way to absolve MDA of responsibility over it. What I write is educated speculation.

However, my knowledge of NAIS is not based on the noNAIS web site. It is based on being a part of the cattle business and seeing how it works and helps the small farmer. 

You and I disagree that raw milk is a safe way for the small farmer to succeed and NAIS is puting small farmers out of business.

I get my perspective on raw milk from scientists from a major Agricultural University and a number of practicing Veterinarians. Those that base their opinions on scientific facts.
I get my perspective on NAIS by seeing how it works and understanding the USDA process of reinstating Michigan&#8217;s TB-free status and negotiating free trade with Wisconsin. 
In my heart, I agree with you. What you believe is mostly how I wish the world was. I want good intentions to be an effective way of diseases control. I want small farms to carve out a place that big business can&#8217;t compete with. 

But, just like NAIS, the raw milk debate is far from over. You and I are mostly bystanders on both of these issues. I believe more legalization of raw milk will lead to more illnesses that will lead to more restrictions. I believe that bit by bit, NAIS is here to stay. The last word is a long ways away.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> But, just like NAIS, the raw milk debate is far from over. You and I are mostly bystanders on both of these issues.


 Well we certainly agree on this one.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

In Michigan, about three years ago, Mr Hebron was buying raw milk from David Hochstetler in Indiana and illegally selling it in Michigan. Mr Hebron was in violation of a number of Michigan laws. David Hochstetler was in violation of federal interstate commerce prohibitions on raw milk
Now in March 2010, it has been reported that a number of people in Michigan have ingested enough bacteria to render them ill, found in the raw milk that was imported from Indiana.

And on and on it goes.

Someone asked to know about any deaths caused by raw milk. From FDA&#8217;s web site: &#8220; From 1998 to 2008, 85 outbreaks of human infections resulting from consumption of raw milk were reported to CDC. These outbreaks included a total of 1,614 reported illnesses, 187 hospitalizations and 2 deaths. Because not all cases of foodborne illness are recognized and reported, the actual number of illnesses associated with raw milk likely is greater.&#8221;

It is interesting that many of the people that are buying raw milk through the purchase of &#8220;shares&#8221; look at it as a legal loophole, when what they are really doing is absolving the Health Department of their safe food obligation, while absorbing all the responsibility themselves.


http://www.foodpoisonjournal.com/tags/campylobacter/

&#8220;Kalee Prue, a 29-year old Connecticut mother of one, says she believed in the benefits of raw milk but became ill soon after drinking some purchased at a Whole Foods in Connecticut linked to the E. coli outbreak.
She was eventually diagnosed with hemolytic uremic syndrome, which can be caused when an E. coli infection produces toxic substances that destroy red-blood cells and damage the kidneys. She has undergone blood transfusions and is at risk for long-term kidney complications that may require a transplant. Her attorney, William Marler, says she has incurred over $230,000 in medical bills, and he is in discussions with Whole Foods to see if the matter can be resolved without a suit. 
Ms. Prue, for her part, says even if there are healthy properties in raw milk, "there are other ways to get the benefits that raw milk has to offer, and it just isn't worth the risk."


If your customers know and understand the various pathogen and bacteria risks, they have little recourse if you poison them.

If you educate your customers only in the mythical benefits of raw milk without addressing the real health concerns, your income is tainted with deceit.


----------



## JeffNY (Dec 13, 2004)

It is a big concern when you have americans that are against the small guy. They are against things that would help the small guy stay afloat. The large dairies don't care about raw milk, they do use other things to make money, and they don't have time to be bothered with raw milk.


Why are those against raw milk, show little concern over all of the deaths resulting from other things the government approves. Yet this one, the government is against and some are against it to. That is because they are big government. They don't care about the little guy..


Thats why they also use data from a source that is against raw milk, that seems a little out of touch.


Jeff


----------



## JeffNY (Dec 13, 2004)

haypoint said:


> Someone asked to know about any deaths caused by raw milk. From FDAâs web site: â From 1998 to 2008, 85 outbreaks of human infections resulting from consumption of raw milk were reported to CDC. These outbreaks included a total of 1,614 reported illnesses, 187 hospitalizations and 2 deaths. Because not all cases of foodborne illness are recognized and reported, the actual number of illnesses associated with raw milk likely is greater.â


Do you know if in fact those are all FROM raw milk? Over 300,000 die per year from prescription drugs. Where is the cry against that? Wait wait, I forgot, the big guys you like so the pharmaceuticals get the pass.


Jeff


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> &#8220; From 1998 to 2008, 85 outbreaks of human infections resulting from consumption of raw milk were reported to CDC. These outbreaks included a total of 1,614 reported illnesses, 187 hospitalizations and 2 deaths.


 Ya might actually want to do a little more research on those CDC stats you are quoting. The study actually spanned 13 years and points out that raw milk from large commercial dairies were a concern because a single glass of milk could contain the milk from hundreds of cows....I am surprised you now seem to be supporting the small farmer like that but we appreciate it. It seems that those 2 deaths represent a risk of oh...about .015 persons a year and those reported illnesses? Well, the study failed to mention that most of the reported illnesses were minor and that there are almost the same percentages of people reporting illness from pasteurized milk.

Do you realize that selling raw milk in one form or another is legal in 28 states and ALL G8 Counties except Canada? Why isnt everyone dropping like flies?

Fear and paranoia over raw milk is no more convincing or valid than those that claim miracle health properties for raw milk. Raw milk tastes good, pasteurization has its merits for long term storage and shipment of milk and for large dairies where cows are fed corn and kept confined, and the simple addition of a label identifying potential health concerns solves your issue. 

I can quote you any number of stories of some terrible calamity that befell someone from eating just about anything or doing anything......its called life.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I just post verifiable events as reported recently in the news.
I found it interesting that the Amish dude in Indiana that the feds were after 3 years ago ends up being the sourse of the most recent raw milk caused sicknesses.
If you own a "share" and your cow makes you sick, who are you going to complain to?


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> If you own a "share" and your cow makes you sick, who are you going to complain to?


 You just illustrated a fundamental difference between your world view and ours...we believe in personal responsibility and freedom while you want someone to take care of and provide for you. In other words, you look for someone to complain to while we accept responsibility for our own actions.

I dont think any of us are advocating doing away with pasteurized dairy or citrus products, we just find that the whole raw milk hysteria is unfounded and we want the choice. I suspect that if both were offered most would still choose pasteurized, particularly if it was cheaper, and no one is suggesting doing away with your right to have pasteurized milk. 

But I will leave you with this since you provided the Amish example for raw milk; here is a link to a case in Mass where milk from a dairy selling pasteurized milk was found to have killed 3 people through Listeria contamination. Big government cant protect you from everything. http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/2409


----------



## springvalley (Jun 23, 2009)

Amen Salmonslayer,Thanks Marc


----------



## PAcountry (Jun 29, 2007)

If you walk into a daycare and start licking all of the toys, who are you going to complian to when you get sick.
Or do you just figure that was the risk in licking the toys.

Sort of the same when I drink raw milk. I know the risks, I am will to accept them. If I got sick then I would call the place I get my milk from. That way they know.
But honsetly I just got sick form eating easter meal with my family.
I was up all night with bad stomach probems so was most of my family.
Sould we go through and figure out what all we ate and call the govenment QUICK!!!!
No we all had a bad night and it was over.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

You may know the risks, but raw milk is being touted as the cure all for a lot of stuff..a panacea for everything.
There are probably a lot of folks who have heard nothing but the good stuff about raw milk, and probably a lot who do not have the sense of personal responsibility of some around here.

You really need to have a wider view of things past your own backyard.....This will involve a lot more than homesteaders.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I wrote:"If you own a "share" and your cow makes you sick, who are you going to complain to?" 

To which salmonslayer wrote, " You just illustrated a fundamental difference between your world view and ours...we believe in personal responsibility and freedom while you want someone to take care of and provide for you. In other words, you look for someone to complain to while we accept responsibility for our own actions."

Once again, I must state, " Oh, how I wish the world were how you imagine it to be."

Do you really think that the woman mentioned in the following article would be interested in taking responsibility for her quarter of a million plus medical bills that are the result of drinking raw milk? Just call Sam.

All that fairy tale belief in personal responsibility and freedom goes right out the window when those medical bills pile up as you try to avoid the funeral director. 

http://www.foodpoisonjournal.com/tags/campylobacter/

&#8220;Kalee Prue, a 29-year old Connecticut mother of one, says she believed in the benefits of raw milk but became ill soon after drinking some purchased at a Whole Foods in Connecticut linked to the E. coli outbreak.
She was eventually diagnosed with hemolytic uremic syndrome, which can be caused when an E. coli infection produces toxic substances that destroy red-blood cells and damage the kidneys. She has undergone blood transfusions and is at risk for long-term kidney complications that may require a transplant. Her attorney, William Marler, says she has incurred over $230,000 in medical bills, and he is in discussions with Whole Foods to see if the matter can be resolved without a suit. 
Ms. Prue, for her part, says even if there are healthy properties in raw milk, "there are other ways to get the benefits that raw milk has to offer, and it just isn't worth the risk."


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

From your 2+ year old "listeria in pasturized milk kills 2", http://www.marlerblog.com/tags/milk/ 
please note: "Historically, there have been bacteria outbreaks tied to pasteurized milk, but the outbreaks seem tied to under-pasteurization or post-pasteurization contamination."


Well, what do you think about that? Pasturized milk is dangerous when it is really raw milk. Who'd a thunk?

Now how can this be?

The article continues:
"According to press reports this morning, the pasteurization process at Whittier Farms, the central Massachusetts dairy connected to a deadly outbreak of a bacterial illness, appears to be working properly. Dr. Alfred DeMaria, the state director of communicable disease control, said that could mean the listeria bacteria that sickened four people, killing 2 adults and an unborn child in Massachusetts, entered Whittier Farms' milk supply after it was pasteurized. DeMaria said the Massachusetts outbreak is believed to be just the third ever in pasteurized milk in the United States.
Three seemed low to me, so I spent a few hours today surfing the web looking for other outbreaks of bacterial or viral illnesses that have been tied to pasteurized milk or milk products. What I was able to find from other sources and a CDC chart summarizing Pasteurized Milk Outbreaks by State and pathogen - 1966 &#8211; 2000. I did not find any other outbreaks tied to pasteurized milk or milk products (*although lots from unpasteurized*)." 

"Whittier Farms is located in the historic and picturesque town of Sutton, Massachusetts. The farm is presently owned and operated by the fourth and fifth generation of the Whittier Family. The farm consists of two locations, which oversee each other from the tops of two hills with rolling fields nestled between them, depicting a true New England countryside."

I thought if we cared about our cows and raised them right and were a family farm, we would have safe milk? Guess not.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

> I thought if we cared about our cows and raised them right and were a family farm, we would have safe milk? Guess not.


 You are the only one with that mantra. Its not hard to get e-coli or Listeria contamination in any dairy..surprised you didnt know that haypoint.



> Do you really think that the woman mentioned in the following article would be interested in taking responsibility for her quarter of a million plus medical bills that are the result of drinking raw milk? Just call Sam.


 Nope, under your Utopian ideal she should have someone hold her hand, calmly reassure her that it is really the government that is to blame and she has no personal responsibility what-so-ever. 


> What I was able to find from other sources and a CDC chart summarizing Pasteurized Milk Outbreaks by State and pathogen - 1966 &#8211; 2000. I did not find any other outbreaks tied to pasteurized milk or milk products (although lots from unpasteurized)."


 I guess Michigan Google is sanitized for your protection...cant be having the proletariat getting too nosey now can we?

I actually find some of your insistent arguments kind of sad. I fully understand the risks, I have lived all over the world, and I am not against pasteurized milk. I just dont believe its this big evil boogy man and I dont live in abject fear of everything like some of you seem to. Poor Kaylee Prue.....I posted the article about the 3 dead from pasteurized milk to show you how silly is it to cherry pick like that. Go google yourself some more paranoia and look up ground beef and e-coli, spinach, apples, citrus juice...me, I am going to go have a rare hamburger with unpasteurized cheese, a glass of raw milk and a spinach salad with a light vinaigrette. :grin:


----------



## cjb (May 2, 2006)

We're beating a dead horse (cow?) for sure but I have to say, I wouldn't want the choice taken away from me to drink raw milk. We produce, milk, filter our own and have been feeding it to our kids (including an infant at the time) for a few years. I am maniacal about sanitation.

I am not one to tout miracle cures and am very skeptical about many natural cures. However, I know that, since I started drinking raw goat's milk, the numerous warts I had on my hands went away (previously, they were chronic and would come back when burned off etc), I went from taking Nexium every day for G.E.R.D. to taking none and I have no heartburn ever and my allergies seem to have disappeared.

I went off of the goat's milk for a few months and started getting the warts and the heartburn back. A friend of mine has worse GERD than I had, has been drinking our goat's milk and is now at 1/2 his previous dose of the meds.

My personal experience tells me that at least the goat's milk has some healing properties.

All that said, having been as up close and personal as I have with my cow, I would probably never drink raw milk that someone else has. The possibilities are really vomitous.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I wrote: 
I thought if we cared about our cows and raised them right and were a family farm, we would have safe milk? Guess not. (obvious sarcasim)
Salmonslayer replied:&#8221;You are the only one with that mantra. Its not hard to get e-coli or Listeria contamination in any dairy..surprised you didnt know that haypoint.&#8221;

In this little discussion, several posts indicated that raw milk from small family run operations were always safe. I have disagreed with that. Here are a few of the comments made by people that seemingly believe that virus, bacteria and disease can be seen and cows that look healthy, are.


JeffNY: Sure not just ANY farm should sell raw milk, but if its a nice clean, well run operation, they should be able to see a product that makes up for the short fall.

Springvalley: As long as your cows are healthy, milking practices are sanitary, equipment is clean and sanitary.

Mamadelbosque:&#8221;I get my raw milk from cows fed nothing but grass & hay, who are outside on pasture 365 days a year, and are moved from one section of pasture to another every day. From farmers who drink their own raw milk, and make sure it is clean and coming from healthy cows, because they don't want to drink dirty/unhealthy milk either.

Ross: &#8220;&#8230;and we did cow calf for over 10 years so I know what a sick cow looks like and have milked in a over regulated dairy operation too)

Ana Bluebird:&#8221; I don't drink milk any more unless I can get it from a farmer that knows his cows personally---what they eat, how healthy they are, and how clean the barn and equipment is.&#8221;

Pyrenees:&#8221; If I were getting raw milk from a farmer I knew and who's production methods I was familiar with...then I would have no problem with it.&#8221;

Looking at a cow or looking at a glass of raw milk isn&#8217;t going to warn you of a deadly disease. I believe that the folks on HT are better educated than the average person. If there is a belief that being careful or looking healthy is an assurance of clean disease free milk, among this group, then the average consumer is a long way from being able to make an educated decision on the safety of raw milk.


----------



## salmonslayer (Jan 4, 2009)

haypoint, I see all of those statements by those posters as valid and thats why we will never probably agree. I too believe that if you are familiar with your milk's source, how the animals are raised, what they eat, the farming practices of the dairy, cleanliness of the handling and collection etc. that you will be much better off and have a much healthier and safer product whether your buying raw milk or pasteurized. The reason I posted the article about the three death from pasteurized milk was to illustrate that no milk is totally safe and I actually agree with you that if anyone thinks drinking raw milk is always safe they would be misguided...but I still have never seen anyone post that. And in my state, they inspect dairies selling raw milk just like dairies that pasteurize.

But the bottom line in all this is that no one is forcing you to drink raw milk and increasingly those of us who are so inclined arent being forced to drink pasteurized milk from mega dairies...and thats a good thing.


----------

