The FUTURE is ORGANIC - Raw Dairy Choice

►
►HOME	►Breaking News!
►Emmy McAllister's List of WA Raw Milk Dairies	► State of California vs. Organic Pastures Dairy: Expert Testimony, May, 2008
►David Gumpert's "Complete Paitient" Food and Nutrition Blog	►Legal Complaint: John and Jaqueline Stowers vs. Ohio Dept. of Agriculture, Lorain County General Health District and the Ohio Attorney General in a suit brought with the assistance of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) and the Buckeye Institute's 1851 Center for Constitutional Law
►National Independent Consumers and Farmers Association
►Weston A Price Foundation (Also: WAP Local WA Chapters)
►Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund

"It Used to be a Family with One Cow had a Business!"
Lora Lea Misterly
Quillisascut Farm
Rice, WA 99167
www.quillisascutcheese.com

Note: For your convenience, this site provides multiple formats for viewing and saving the documents listed.

PLEASE NOTE: This "cow share" agreement, although it is in use in Tennessee, is provided here as a sample only for educational purposes. The language of shareholder dairy contracts continues to evolve. Language usually must be tailored to fit within different states' legal environments. Raw Dairy Choice is researching shareholder dairy contracts and we are putting together a web page devoted to this crucial area. The page is under construction. Click HERE to see what we have up so far.

14) State of California vs. Organic Pastures Dairy: Expert Testimony, May, 2008

The Weston A. Price Foundation
The Weston A. Price Foundation is a nonprofit, tax-exempt charity founded in 1999 to disseminate the research of nutrition pioneer Dr. Weston Price, whose studies of isolated non-industrialized peoples established the parameters of human health and determined the optimum characteristics of human diets. Dr. Price's research demonstrated that humans achieve perfect physical form and perfect health generation after generation only when they consume nutrient-dense whole foods and the vital fat-soluble activators found exclusively in animal fats.

RealMilk.com
What's needed today is a return to humane, non-toxic, pasture-based dairying and small-scale traditional processing.
This site provides technical and legal information on the Shareholder Dairy Model. Visiting this site is a "must".

Right to Choose Healthy Food (rawmilk.org)
a not-for-profit organization formed by Aajonus Vonderplanitz and citizens, educates people about laws enacted or pursued that have, or will, severely limit people's choices regarding health that order people to follow a path toward disease.

Natural Milk.org
This website provides information concerning the initiative to legalize the sale of raw milk in Ontario.

FDA Pasteurized Milk Ordinance
This is the regulatory beast that makes small-scale dairy unattainable by most producers who'd want to try.

SmallDairy.com
Established in 1998 to assist small commercial dairies in finding information about on-farm and artisan processing, this site now also serves homesteaders, suburban kitchen cheese makers and food-lovers seeking sources of wholesome dairy foods and the tools to produce them.

WSDA Small Farm & Direct Marketing Program
The Small Farm & Direct Marketing Program works to improve the status of small farms in Washington by, among other things, addressing regulatory barriers to small farm market access.

Ten to twenty-five per cent of Vitamin B1 may be destroyed [by pasteurization]. Known approximate losses are as follows: pyridoxine – 0-8%; cobalamine <10%; folic acid <10%; ascorbic acid 10-25% (Renner, 1983; Porter, 1975; Kay et al., 1953 in Hall and Trout’s book ). If the milk is exposed to air during pasteurization, about half of the ascorbic acid may be lost (Lampert, 1947).

Heating milk alters the molecular properties of casein and reduces its ability to keep calcium soluble.

The whey proteins, which are of much higher nutritional value, are also denatured by heat treatment (Rolls and Porter, 1973; Levieux, 1980). Homogenization has a further destabilizing effect (Sweetsur et al., 1983)

A number of enzymes have bactericidal properties and are, together with lactoferrin, involved in the immune system.

When the milk is pasteurized, these antimicrobial agents indigenous in milk are inactivated. The milk becomes more susceptible to later spoilage. The anti-infective function of the anti-microbial agents upon consumption is thus lost.

Scott and Erf (1931) conducted feeding experiments on rats with certified (unpasteurized) milk and pasteurized commercial market milk over a period of months. Those fed the unpasteurized milk were all in good condition with sleek coats, clear eyes, playful and of gentle disposition, while those fed upon the pasteurized milk were dull, listless, irritable with rough coats and dull eyes. The weight curves and blood counts also showed variations. Those fed unpasteurized milk had higher weight gains and an average gain of about 2.3 million red cell count. Those fed pasteurized milk had an average loss of 1.7 million red cell count over the same period. Three repeat experiments duplicated the results: retarded growth and very anemic rats fed pasteurized milk.

It is interesting that the growth rate of Listeria (and presumably other pathogens) in milk is a function of degree and extent of milk treatment. The fastest rate of growth is observed in UHT ["Ultra-Pasteurized"] milk, followed by HTST [Pasteurized], heat-treated and raw milk (Donnelly, 2001).

In our research we had seen comparative food poisoning charts showing that each year, a certain number of people became ill from all classes of foods, both processed and raw, and including poisonings from pasteurized milk products (www.magma.ca/~ca/rawmilk/graph.htm). We also discovered, quite surprisingly, that the largest outbreak of food poisoning in modern times was caused by pasteurized milk (http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~mow/salice.html) and that the largest number of deaths in a single outbreak was caused by pasteurized cheese (www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000562.htm).

Government policy on raw milk has gone to extremes to protect uneducated consumers from harm. The real agenda may be to support the processed foods industry. In so doing, the government has seriously infringed on the rights of educated raw milk consumers. But, the rights and safety of all raw milk consumers can be respected and protected by other means.

On the other hand, in an on-farm production environment where the raw milk comes from one specific farm and is not pooled, where educated consumers buy directly from known producers, and where producers are conscientious about making raw milk intended for drinking, then raw drinking milk becomes as safe as any other food. In fact an estimated quarter of a million Canadians are now safely consuming raw milk under these conditions, according to the Senate evidence discussed below.

2) SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT IN FAVOR OF RAW MILK (TO: Each Los Angeles County Board of Supervisor)
BY DR. WILLIAM CAMBELL DOUGLASS JR., M.D.
Aajonus Vonderplanitz, Scientific Nutritional Researcher

DHS [Los Angeles County Department of Health Services] Report, p.4, ¶ 6, cited the UCLA statistical Assessment of the Excess Risk of Salmonella dublin Infection Associated with the Use of Raw Milk, Public Health Reports, Vol. 103, No. 5. DHS Report stated, “37% of reported Salmonella dublin infections were acquired from raw milk. The assessment was a statistical guest-imation based on many unknown variables. Dr. Nancy Mann, PhD Biostatistics, UCLA 1965, Exhibit B, refutes the statistics. She indicates that the conclusion that any milk caused the sporadic 241 cases studied was improbable. She states that if milk had been the cause, there would have been an epidemic. There was no epidemic; only sporadic incidences.

In nearly 40 years, millions of people drank over 3 billion glasses of Alta Dena Dairy raw milk and there was not one epidemic, not one proved case of foodborne illness because of it.

A review the cases DHS cited in their Report, p. 4, shows a total of 156 cases from 1973 until 1992, but no outbreaks or epidemics attributed to raw milk. Let’s say that that figure was valid, although it is not, as explained above: 156 cases ¸ 19 years = 5.6 cases each year attributed to raw milk. That is the lowest incidence of any animal product produced. However, there is extensive evidence showing that pasteurization is a great health risk to the public, having caused numerous epidemics. One pasteurized-milk epidemic involved 200 people, another 468 people, another 1,492, another 16,284, another 17,000, and another 197,000 people. In each incident the product was from a single source producer. In the years 1978-1997 there were 232,485 people who suffered due to outbreaks from pasteurized milk.

Raw milk, if produced with a modicum of cleanliness, is safe because of built-in safeguards (that would be destroyed by pasteurization). (p.14-16, 21.) It is clear that the testing requirements for Grade A raw milk are more than is required to produce safe raw milk.

“The dairy cow has been sadly maligned by the dairy and food industry in general. She has been pictured as a veritable 'Typhoid Mary' for all of the ills of man, including the common cold, when actually, the reverse is true.”

A fatal blow was dealt to the raw milk producers by Charles Speakes who was Secretary Treasurer of the American Association of Medical Milk Commissions, the national organization responsible for maintaining the standards, educating the public, and encouraging milk producers to produce clean pure raw milk. Unbeknownst to the Milk Commission, he was also the Executive Secretary of the Milk Foundation that was dedicated to the eradication of raw milk and closely aligned with Dr. Milton J. Rosenau. By the time the raw milk producers and commissioners realized that they were subverted, too much damage had been done. At the time Speakes was fired in Washington DC, two telephones sat on his desk, one for the Milk Commission and one for the Milk Foundation. While in office, Speakes had taken over the editorship of the official journal Certified Milk Magazine and the word “raw” was rarely mentioned.

Dr. Milton J. Rosenau had created a momentum and it continued with deceptive reports. “Raw Milk Can Kill You,” was the headline of an article that appeared in the May 1945 issue of Coronet Magazine. It continued, “Crossroads, U.S.A., is in one of those states in the Midwest area called the breadbasket and milk bowl of America. Crossroads lies about twenty-five miles from the big city on a good paved highway ... What happened to Crossroads might happen to your town ... might happen almost anywhere in America.” Coronet's expert Dr. Harold Harris then went on to describe in livid detail the epidemic of undulant fever in Crossroads that infected 25% of the population and killed one in four. Case histories were then given to show how subtle and debilitating the disease could be. Investigation revealed the town of “Crossroads” does not even exist. The entire article, because of the harm it did to the raw milk industry, and indirectly to the health of the American people, was as irresponsible as yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre.

The barrage of present-day bacterial misinformation thrust upon the public is predominantly unscientific speculation regarding raw milk and not based on empirical examination.

With proper understanding of milk, and its destructive effects when heat-treated and the remarkable therapeutic effects when used raw, we can cut billions of dollars off our medical bills, make ourselves infinitely healthier, and actually raise the I.Q. of our children. With smarter children we will add greatly to our scientific and cultural wealth. I do not consider it an exaggeration to say that the nation's destiny will be affected by what we do about milk. Adults and their children should have the choice and right to develop natural immunity as well as reap the health benefits of raw milk and avoid the bacterial and health hazards of pasteurized milk.

Originally Published by The Soil Association. This Paper was written by
DR. B. M. PICKARD
The Department of Animal Physiology and Nutrition The University of Leeds

In addition to the fact that untreated milk contains anti-microbial agents which function after its ingestion, it also has components which inhibit the proliferation of bacteria before it is consumed. In one sampling study, bacterial counts were measured in 48 samples, the bacterial counts did not increase significantly over the two-day period and in 5 of these the count actually fell

Once milk has been pasteurised or otherwise heat-treated, the ability to restrict bacterial growth is lost or severely curtailed (17,23). The enzymes and other infective agents are destroyed to varying degrees. This means that bacteria contaminating milk after pasteurisation (e.g. from filling machines, from the air, or even entering under the bottle cap) can grow more rapidly than they would in untreated milk.

There is no doubt that heat-treatment is detrimental to milk. Evidence shows that untreated milk has a higher nutritional value providing more available vitamins and minerals than pasteurised milk. It contains anti-infective agents which can both restrict the growth of contaminating bacteria in the milk and give the consumer protection. Not at least, it has a better flavour, with none of the deterioration in quality caused by heat treatment.

Whilst it is eminently reasonable to stamp out any significant cause of disease and to penalise those whose conditions of hygiene are poor, it is unjust to suggest that all untreated milk should be pasteurised, because of isolated outbreaks of infection, whether or not they have been conclusively linked to untreated milk consumption.

Barbara Hruska, director of the Consumer Protection Division, updated the Board on changes in the proposed amendments that have been made since the initial draft was presented to the Board last month. She stated that after a very thorough and extensive review and consideration, the department has removed the proposed exemption for Guidestone Dairy to continue to sell raw milk. She stated that it is not safe to consume raw milk...

Dr. Barkett welcomed the individuals attending the hearing, as well as those participating in the hearing via satellite video conference from Fort Collins and Durango. He stated that the Board has received a large volume of information, including written materials and e-mails, concerning this issue, and that these materials are now part of the public record.

During the period 2000 through 2004 there were several listeria-related food recalls in California associated with pasteurized milk products and ice cream. During this same period more than 12 million servings of Organic Pastures [raw milk] products were consumed and not one person complained of illness and not one pathogen was ever found either by the state, FDA or Organic Pastures.

As an American we can buy raw eggs, raw meat, raw fresh juices, so why not raw dairy products? Show us one case of disease related to natural raw dairy products in Colorado or California. They are very hard to find. They are nearly all related to pasteurizer failure not raw dairy products intended for consumption.

Mark Anderson, the area Standard Process representative, focused his testimony on pasteurized milk as an adulterated food. He pointed out that the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the FDA Modernization Act of 1997 (revised 1/20/99) defines any food as adulterated (1) if any valuable constituent has been in whole or in part omitted or abstracted therefrom; or (2) if any substance has been substituted wholly or in part therefore; or (3) if damage or inferiority has been concealed in any manner. He then enumerated all the ways that commercial pasteurized milk is adulterated, including enzymes destroyed (and their functions), protein alterations, homogenization and its effect, synthetic vitamin fortification, and naturally occurring vitamin destruction.

THE ACQUISITION OF RAW MILK FROM COWS OR GOATS BY A CONSUMER FOR USE OR CONSUMPTION BY THE CONSUMER SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE THE SALE OF RAW MILK AND SHALL NOT BE PROHIBITED IF ... THE OWNER OF A COW, GOAT, COW SHARES, OR GOAT SHARES SHALL RECEIVE RAW MILK DIRECTLY FROM THE FARM OR DAIRY WHERE THE COW, GOAT, OR DAIRY HERD IS LOCATED ... [AND] THE MILK IS OBTAINED PURSUANT TO A COW SHARE OR A GOAT SHARE.

6) Certified Medical Milk - Methods and Standards
These standards are also unattainable by most small-scale producers, but they are informative. I am searching for the original Medical Milk standards that date from the early 1900's as a possible technology-appropriate model for small-scale shareholder dairies.

The Methods and Standards for the Production of Certified Milk of the American Association of Medical Milk Commissions, Inc. is to be used as a general guide for the production of the finest milk and milk products available anywhere. Local Commissions are to establish methods, procedures or guidelines to ensure that the finished product reaching the consumer meets those standards.

Boarder and Association acknowledge that the sale of raw milk may, at any time, be prohibited by the State of Tennessee. Under no circumstances shall either Boarder or Association transfer the ownership or possession of any raw milk production from the Herd in any transaction that would constitute a sale of milk in violation of the statutes of the State of Tennessee. Boarder and Association each agrees to indemnify and hold the other harmless for any liability, loss, damage, expense or penalties which are incurred by the other because of a breach of the provisions of this Section by the indemnifying party. Under no circumstances can the acquisition of any owner’s share of the milk production be construed to be a milk sale. An owner cannot buy from himself what he already owns.

“We’ve only been doing it for a couple of months and we’ve already sold 40 shares,” said Woodland, Wash., dairy farmer Anita Puckett. About a third of her shareholders are from Portland. She said that one share equals one gallon of milk a week; she says her Jersey cows produce about 30 gallons a week. Other types of cows produce different amounts.

“The cow-share program really saves us,” said Skamakaway, Wash., dairy farmer Lonnie Praski, who serves more than 100 shareholders — 80 of whom reside in the Portland area. “We’re not technically selling the milk to customers, so legally that falls in our favor.”

Cow shares definitely make the legality of raw milk a little fuzzy, agreed Jim Pressley, Washington Department of Agriculture’s food safety program assistant manager. Washington, like Oregon, has no specific laws against cow sharing.

Lisbeth Goddick, an extension dairy specialist and professor for Oregon State University’s Department of Food Science, is quick to point out that “no studies have demonstrated a meaningful difference in nutritional value between raw and pasteurized milk. In contrast, plenty of studies have established that raw milk can transmit infectious diseases.”

Dairy farmer Barbara Spinola said that she is extremely careful when it comes to milking her two cows for her 15 shareholders. “I do worry about keeping things very clean. I use a lot of bleach and iodine to clean the bottles, equipment — everything... But raw milk is the way God made it, so maybe that’s the way we should consume it.”
Local dairy farmer Anita Puckett thinks along the same line. “I don’t really fear an outbreak or any fallout from one. We have a loyal customer base, and they know how we do everything. They sign a seven-page contract so they are aware of the potential dangers. But I come from a family of microbiologists; I have confidence in my product.”

...The Stueve family has been selling raw milk and later raw certified milk in California, since June 1, 1945. During that time, over 56 years, our customers have consumed billions of glasses of raw milk and raw certified milk without an outbreak of illness caused by either raw milk or raw certified milk.

While all fresh foods may contain organisms that may be harmful to certain persons, raw milk is the only fresh food that actually carries a label warning the consumer of that fact.

RAW MILK CARRIES A WARNING LABEL ADVISING CONSUMERS OF THE VERY CONCERNS THAT SOME HEALTH DEPARTMENTS EXPRESS IN THEIR POSITION AGAINST RAW MILK. REMEMBER RAW MILK IS NOT PURCHASED BY ACCIDENT. IT COSTS MORE MONEY. MANY BELIEVE AS I DO THAT RAW MILK WITH ITS NUTRIENTS UNALTERED IS HEALTHIER......

It is well established that, "SOURCES OF FOODBORNE PATHOGENS ARE UBIQUITOUS" and that, "FOOD AND FOOD PRODUCTS WILL ALWAYS BE CONTAMINATED WITH LOW LEVELS OF PATHOGENS. AT LOW LEVELS PATHOGENIC MICROORGANISMS CAUSE NO PROBLEMS."*

* Snider, O.P. and Poland, D.M. "America's Safe Food", Dairy, Food and Environment Sanitation, Vol. 10, No. 12, pp. 719-724 (December 1990) and pp. 14-20 (January 1991)

Even though foodborne pathogens are ubiquitous, there are few food and food products, other than raw milk, that carry a warning label advising the consumers that their product may contain disease causing micro-organisms...

...The LARGEST OUTBREAK OF FOODBORNE ILLNESS IN MODERN TIMES RESULTED FROM THE CONSUMPTION OF PASTEURIZED MILK. The FDA estimates that over 200,000 people became ill because of an infection caused by Salmonella typhimurium in pasteurized milk. This Salmonella bacterium is the serotype of Salmonella that most often causes illness in humans, according to Dr. Werner of the California Department of Health Services.

Salmonella typhimurium occurs not only in pasteurized milk but also in many other food sources, including vegetables, fruits, meat, and poultry.

In August of 1984 approximately 200 persons became ill with a Salmonella typhimurium infection from pasteurized milk produced in a plant in Melrose, Ill. The regulators did not report this outbreak. Without evidence they concluded that the culprit was raw milk that didn't get pasteurized.

However, again in November of 1984, another outbreak of Salmonella typhimurium occurred in persons consuming pasteurized milk bottled in this same plant. Again the regulators kept it a secret!

But in March of 1985, 19,660 confirmed cases of Salmonella typhimurium illness resulted in people who consumed properly pasteurized milk bottled in the same plant in Melrose, III.

The FDA estimated that over 200,000 persons actually became ill with Salmonella typhimurium from consuming this pasteurized milk. After investigation, it turns out that raw milk was not responsible for this contamination. The milk was properly pasteurized as indicated by the bacterial and coliform counts...

14) State of California vs. Organic Pastures Dairy: Expert Testimony, May, 2008

Excerpt: "If you inoculate 10,000 Listeria into raw milk, then in 48 hours they're all killed. That's at body temperature".

15) Legal Complaint: John and Jaqueline Stowers vs. Ohio Dept. of Agriculture, Lorain County General Health District and the Ohio Attorney General in a suit brought with the assistance of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) and the Buckeye Institute's 1851 Center for Constitutional Law

Excerpt: "The haphazard entry included a failure of the officers to announce and identify themselves as police officers. This failure is compounded by the fact that the lead officer serving the search warrant was wearing black military fatigues, rather than a standard police uniform, and had his weapon drawn."

The Future is Organic Raw Dairy Choice Campaign

Defending the Rights of Washingtonians to Readily Obtain Raw Milk and Raw Dairy Products

Resources and Information