Re: Mom's Dairy

[Guest guest]

> The state has blocked them from deliveries, which is why I used the phrase

> 'effectively shut down'.

> There is no evidence of contamination, so I believe the existing statute

> allowing sales directly from the farm still holds.

Isn't all raw milk supposed to be purchased at the farm of origin,

anyway, in order for the sale to be legal?

- Tipper

[Guest guest]

I do buy my food from local sources. And I would even agree that good quality,

local, even raw food would be LESS likely to be contaminated than commercial

products.

I'm simply saying that I don't believe that my purchasing habits protect me 100

percent from possible illness.

-Angie

[Guest guest]

I do buy my food from local sources. And I would even agree that good quality,

local, even raw food would be LESS likely to be contaminated than commercial

products.

I'm simply saying that I don't believe that my purchasing habits protect me 100

percent from possible illness.

-Angie

[Guest guest]

I do buy my food from local sources. And I would even agree that good quality,

local, even raw food would be LESS likely to be contaminated than commercial

products.

I'm simply saying that I don't believe that my purchasing habits protect me 100

percent from possible illness.

-Angie

[Guest guest]

I'm sorry, , but you are quite falsely assuming that those who entertain

the thought that this might not be merely a conspiracy are somehow proponents of

factory farming. That's a false dichotomy.

Like you, I believe that locally sourced and humanely raised animal products are

safer to eat than products from factory farms.

We have no disagreements there.

Nor do we disagree that processed/pastuerzied can be horrible contaminated.

Again, no disagreement.

I'm merely surprised by comments here that seem to suggest that it is almost

unbelievable that raw milk could ever sicken anyone. To me, that seemed like an

odd assumption that has more to do with ideology than fact.

That's all.

-Angie

> > > If you are " somewhat surprised that people take it on blind faith that the

milk could absolutely have not been contaminated " I wonder where you buy your

food- if you shop in a supermarket you take it on blind faith everyday.

> >

> > Well, no. I, for one, do not labor under the delusion that ANY food

> > source is safe. I could grow something in my back yard and it could

> > become contaminated with something-or-other. We take calculated risks

> > when it comes to our food consumption.

> >

> > > You might not trust it- but I can tell you I would a million times over

buy from a farm that I trust and one that I have personally gone to and toured

and I felt comfortable with how the animals were raised. That is why you should

know your farmer!!

> >

> > How the animals are raised has nothing to do with it. They can be

> > raised impeccably and someone can slip up and contamination can

> > happen. It just takes one thing not being cleaned properly. Accidents

> > happen.

> >

> > It's not that I do not trust the entire concept of raw milk. It's that

> > I would not trust raw milk from a farm that has had E. coli-infected

> > milk traced to it, or, at least, not until it's verified that it did

> > not come from there, or the contamination is traced and removed. The

> > whole bit about trusting one's farmer or food provider is not that you

> > trust that it will never, ever be free from contamination. You are

> > trusting that if it does become contaminated, they will own up to it,

> > take steps to remove the contamination, and try their best to ensure

> > that it doesn't happen again.

> >

> > - Tipper

> >

>

[Guest guest]

This " linked " idea is so ridiculous. Think of it this way: My family of 6 has

had an unknown (high number) of servings of milk, cream and butter from the

Hartman's MOM's dairy since May 1st. Multiply that by the number of other

families, the gallons and gallons and gallons of milk and product that have been

consumed from MOM's since then -- and sourced from the same tanks. What do we

all have in common? No ecoli poisoning. I link our health back to the Raw milk,

that's all!

, we are assuming it's safe, for one, because we have experienced it to

be.

Plus, the tanks are cleaned everyday -- any milk that is ever contaminated with

anything at the tank in a dairy – it's a single day thing. Or at the very least

(with the high volume of Mom's especially) it a very short time and the tanks

are cleaned between batches, anyway. Correct me, or clarify this anyone who has

more knowledge of dairy operations.

How is it logically possible that it could be the Hartman's milk that made three

people sick? If their milk was contaminated, way WAY more people would be sick!

, our experience also of an overreaching gov't is not conspiratorial

thinking -- it's real life. They keep trying and we keep fighting back. I could

give you example after example, but I'd suggest you, for a start, go to

http://farmtoconsumerfoundation.org/ and ask them what their impression is of

the many government agencies they've dealt with. See if you don't come to the

same conclusion of trusting the farmer over the claim by the gov't as you are

encountering here.

I'm so very thankful for the Hartman's -- we are truly blessed to have access to

their milk. This access should not be exceptional, it should be commonplace.

But, if we let it happen, this access could not be at all. Open your eyes and if

your eyes are open, open your mouths people. It's only we who know and letting

others know too that has and will stop their attempts to control every part of

our lives! That and some very brave people who get the brunt of it and still

stand, like the Hartman's, God bless 'em!

Please continue to pray for the Hartman's!

[Guest guest]

The Supreme Court case also dealt with a farmer's right to sell their

products without a license, which is broader than just meat vs. milk.

Here is the actual statute:

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=32.393 & year=2003

32.393 Limitation on sale.

Subdivision 1. Pasteurization. No milk, fluid milk products, goat milk, or

sheep milk shall be sold, advertised, offered or exposed for sale or held in

possession for sale for the purpose of human consumption in fluid form in

this state unless the same has been pasteurized and cooled, as defined in

section 32.391; provided, that this section shall not apply to milk, cream,

skim milk, goat milk, or sheep milk occasionally secured or purchased for

personal use by any consumer at the place or farm where the milk is

produced.

I find no reference in the statutes requiring consumers to supply their own

containers. Based on this, it would be a mistake to conclude that the

Hartmann's or any other raw milk farmer making deliveries have done anything

illegal.

The Associated Press is now running this story. Interesting exercise in

semantics to see the changes from the strib version earlier today:

" The Department of Health has definitely linked three cases of E. coli to

unpasteurized milk from Hartmann Dairy Farm near Gibbon in southern

Minnesota. The department says the fourth case matches the same DNA

fingerprint but has not been definitively linked to the dairy. "

Stronger language, but the key terms remain unchanged and undefined.

http://www.startribune.com/local/95044099.html

>

>

> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Greg

<gmiller99@...<gmiller99%40gmail.com>>

> wrote:

> > My understanding is that what defines on the farm sales was the basis of

> the

> > Supreme Court case, and since no ruling was ever issued, it would seem

> that

> > the Hartmann's interpretation that their delivery truck is an extension

> of

> > their farm makes raw milk deliveries legal.

>

> The Supreme Court case dealt with meat, not milk. Here's the full

> court verdict, for anyone interested:

> http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mn-supreme-court/1081314.html I might've

> missed it, but I don't think there was any contention that the

> delivery truck was part of their farm and therefore any deliveries

> were legal, unless they were taken to court under another issue as

> well.

>

> According to this website (http://www.realmilk.com/happening.html#mn):

> The Department of Agriculture prohibits the sale of raw dairy with the

> exception of " milk, cream, skim milk, goat milk, or sheep milk

> occasionally secured or purchased for personal use by any consumer at

> the place or farm where the milk is produced. " The farmer cannot

> advertise and customers must bring their own containers. The state

> interprets " occasionally secured or purchased for personal use " to

> mean that farmers cannot sell raw milk to regular customers on a

> routine basis.

>

> I suppose whether or not someone wants to break the law in order to

> obtain or sell raw milk is up to them, but it wouldn't really be fair

> to say that the government is effectively shutting them down by not

> allowing them to deliver milk when it's not legal to do so in the

> first place.

>

> - Tipper

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> I find no reference in the statutes requiring consumers to supply their own

> containers. Based on this, it would be a mistake to conclude that the

> Hartmann's or any other raw milk farmer making deliveries have done anything

> illegal.

Hey, I got that information from a raw milk activism site. Do you not

trust their information? In any event, the statute clearly states that

raw milk for human consumption (I suppose the loophole is selling it

as pet food) cannot be purchased anywhere but directly on the farm.

- Tipper

[Guest guest]

I agree with this comment, Angie.

We have to be objective and not lose sight of reality in our idealism.

I am mostly worried about the baby who is sick with E.coli. Imagine if that

happened to your baby. You wouldn't care where it came from or the politics of

it. You would just want that baby to survive!

I think we should stop arguing about the details and stop making it about *us* ,

and just hope that everyone comes out of this alive and that the farm survives

this tragedy.

dell " wrote:

>

> I'm somewhat surprised that people take it on blind faith that the milk could

absolutely have not been contaminated.

>

> Although I understand a desire to support the farm and continue consuming raw

milk products, I don't understand the belief that raw milk is impervious to

contamination. It is simply a food that exists in the real world and is handled

by real people (producers and consumers).

>

> It's not a miracle product.

>

> I guess I'm confused by the fact that people feel comfortable forming

conclusions before all the facts are available.

>

> -Angie

>

>

> >

> > Sounds like the best thing would be to make a Memorial Day trip to the farm

and buy as much as possible!

> >

> > Kathy

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I just talked to and asked what he needed...he said to pray for the

child..... is a good man...

-- Sent from my Palm Pre

Kathy.jo

On May 27, 2010 4:43 PM, & lt;lisa_landen@... & gt; wrote:

& nbsp;

I agree with this comment, Angie.

We have to be objective and not lose sight of reality in our idealism.

I am mostly worried about the baby who is sick with E.coli. Imagine if that

happened to your baby. You wouldn't care where it came from or the politics of

it. You would just want that baby to survive!

I think we should stop arguing about the details and stop making it about *us* ,

and just hope that everyone comes out of this alive and that the farm survives

this tragedy.

dell " & lt;angela.lindell@... & gt; wrote:

& gt;

& gt; I'm somewhat surprised that people take it on blind faith that the milk

could absolutely have not been contaminated.

& gt;

& gt; Although I understand a desire to support the farm and continue consuming

raw milk products, I don't understand the belief that raw milk is impervious to

contamination. It is simply a food that exists in the real world and is handled

by real people (producers and consumers).

& gt;

& gt; It's not a miracle product.

& gt;

& gt; I guess I'm confused by the fact that people feel comfortable forming

conclusions before all the facts are available.

& gt;

& gt; -Angie

& gt;

& gt;

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; Sounds like the best thing would be to make a Memorial Day trip to the

farm and buy as much as possible!

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; Kathy

& gt; & gt;

& gt;

[Guest guest]

> , we are assuming it's safe, for one, because we have experienced it to

be.

If you regularly drink milk from that dairy, you may have developed

immunity. Plus, we all have different immune systems.

> How is it logically possible that it could be the Hartman's milk that made

three people sick?  If their milk was contaminated, way WAY more people would be

sick!

That's how many are sick enough to be in a hospital and thus reported.

E. coli and other food poisoning isn't necessarily so severe that you

end up on the news.

> , our experience also of an overreaching gov't is not conspiratorial

thinking -- it's real life. They keep trying and we keep fighting back.

Oh, I don't doubt that the government is overreaching in many aspects

of our lives. However, I think that if this is some sort of " the

government is just out to get them " thing, there are far more

efficient ways to " get " them. I can't fathom being afraid of an entity

that, if this is how they " get " someone, does so in such a long,

drawn-out, inefficient, and ineffective matter. Maybe it's like my old

nightmare of a room-sized Slimey-the-Worm coming to get me, but he was

going so slowly I was begging JUST EAT ME, PLEASE, and the terror of

the big, bad government coming to destroy raw milk is worse than the

actual reality.

- Tipper

[Guest guest]

It looked like they made a mistake, so I verified it by going directly to

the source.

Semantics again, is a farm delivery truck not an extension of the farm?

Raw milk sales in FL are pet food only.

>

> Hey, I got that information from a raw milk activism site. Do you not

> trust their information? In any event, the statute clearly states that

> raw milk for human consumption (I suppose the loophole is selling it

> as pet food) cannot be purchased anywhere but directly on the farm.

>

>

[Guest guest]

It looked like they made a mistake, so I verified it by going directly to

the source.

Semantics again, is a farm delivery truck not an extension of the farm?

Raw milk sales in FL are pet food only.

>

> Hey, I got that information from a raw milk activism site. Do you not

> trust their information? In any event, the statute clearly states that

> raw milk for human consumption (I suppose the loophole is selling it

> as pet food) cannot be purchased anywhere but directly on the farm.

>

>

[Guest guest]

From the MN Constitution:

Sec. 7. NO LICENSE REQUIRED TO PEDDLE. Any person may sell or peddle the

products of the farm or garden occupied and cultivated by him without obtaining

a license therefor.

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/cco/rules/mncon/Article13.htm

And the Minnesota Statutes

AGRICULTURE

CHAPTER 32 DAIRY PRODUCTS

32.393 Limitation on sale.

Subdivision 1. Pasteurization. No milk, fluid milk products, goat milk, or sheep

milk shall be sold, advertised, offered or exposed for sale or held in

possession for sale for the purpose of human consumption in fluid form in this

state unless the same has been pasteurized and cooled, as defined in section

32.391; provided, that this section shall not apply to milk, cream, skim milk,

goat milk, or sheep milk occasionally secured or purchased for personal use by

any consumer at the place or farm where the milk is produced.

> > I find no reference in the statutes requiring consumers to supply their own

> > containers. Based on this, it would be a mistake to conclude that the

> > Hartmann's or any other raw milk farmer making deliveries have done anything

> > illegal.

>

> Hey, I got that information from a raw milk activism site. Do you not

> trust their information? In any event, the statute clearly states that

> raw milk for human consumption (I suppose the loophole is selling it

> as pet food) cannot be purchased anywhere but directly on the farm.

>

> - Tipper

>

[Guest guest]

Yes, let's pray for a quick and full recovery for this child!

Also comfort for the parents.

Tipper and all, I think the reason why we're skeptical about this government

intervention and pinpointing of MOM's Dairy as the culprit, is that in practice,

we have seen raw milk falsely implicated as the cause of disease.

At the recent Raw Milk Hearing in WI, there was a college student who got up and

spoke, saying that her little brother had become sick. When he went to the

doctor, he had every risk factor in the book, including drinking raw milk.

Without any testing, it was decided that raw milk was the cause, even though he

played down by the river, had contact with domestic pets, ate chicken and

lettuce, etc., etc.

So this is how it becomes a statistic.

Can raw milk become contaminated? Sure. It does have some built-in protection

factor, not to mention that the person drinking it may be healthier and more

resistant. And as I said, I would be surprised to find E. coli O157:H7 in

grass-fed cattle, but anthing is possible.

And we can't expect a 100% guarantee with anything.

The reason I would be willing to buy products from the Hartmann's, even now, is

that I assume that it is their intention is to stay in business. They could not

afford (in any sense of the word) to sell contaminated products and make anyone

sick. I'm pretty sure has been consuming these products himself and he's

apparently not sick. At least the majority of their customers are not sick.

You realize, don't you, that the powerful " modern " dairy industry doesn't want

this niche market to exist. It cuts them out and shrinks their market. And, as

Governor Doyle has pointed out, the goal is to protect big business.

Also did you know that there used to be a Milk Cure that was used successfully

for the treatment of various diseases, at the Mayo Foundation, forerunner of the

Mayo Clinic in the early 1900s? This is a nourishing, healing product that

becomes a processed food in the hands of the commercial dairy industry.

It is SO important that we maintain our right to food freedom. We do that by

supporting those who provide that food- in good times and bad.

I don't look at the world thru rose-colored glasses (anymore). There are always

risks. But we can't have it if they can't sell it and he can't sell it if he

can't make a living doing it. I choose to trust , trust the product and

trust my own body.

Kathy

[Guest guest]

> If you regularly drink milk from that dairy, you may have developed

> immunity. Plus, we all have different immune systems.

Really? Wow an immunity to ecoli? Another benefit to drinking raw milk!

Seriously, of course our hearts go out to the family of all sick children

everywhere and this child in particular that has been brought to our attention,

how could we not care?. Hartman is a class act and super nice guy and

since there is that tiniest of a possibility it is true that the ecoli was from

their dairy that is the appropriate response.

But the State's assumption is not my assumption. I don't trust their approach in

these situations -- they've trained me not to. It's nice for you that

you haven't had the experiences that so many farmers have that lead to the

perspective that you have such disdain for. Please respect what the farmers do

for their customers and consider looking into the extent to which they have to

fight with varying governmental agencies. It is not the gov't as a whole, the

gov't is made of people and some people do not think raw milk should be a

choice. These people are in local and the federal gov't. They don't just hold

this belief they act on it, over and over until finally they make some progress.

Does it happen fast? Well shutting down an individual dairy is fast -- putting

them out of business doesn't take much time. One dairy at a time seems to be the

approach. But they try and succeed at passing laws (or blocking laws) and tweak

the regulations plenty too!

Do we have our head in the sand (or are just " idealogical " )for our first

reaction of the Hartman's aren't at fault in this? Or is yours and others in the

sand for not being suspicious of the government in this?

[Guest guest]

> Really? Wow an immunity to ecoli? Another benefit to drinking raw milk!

Well, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, right?

> Well shutting down an individual dairy is fast -- putting them out of business

doesn't take much time. One dairy at a time seems to > be the approach. But they

try and succeed at passing laws (or blocking laws) and tweak the regulations

plenty too!

The contention, though, is that the government has been out to get the

Hartmanns for a decade. Why did it take them a decade to invent some

sort of E. coli outbreak in order to shut them down? I think it's a

more logical assumption that there was, unfortunately, some

contamination, and hopefully we'll find out exactly when, where, and

how soon. When I say there may be contamination it's not from a place

of judgment. Potential contamination is a reality with any food

product. Liking the farmer and his practices isn't anti-microbial.

> Do we have our head in the sand (or are just " idealogical " )for our first

reaction of the Hartman's aren't at fault in this? Or is yours and others in the

sand for not being suspicious of the government in this?

What is the mechanism by which you're assuming this is the

government's fault? Did they invent the whole scenario and there

actually is no contamination? Did they sabotage the farm? Is there

some other scenario I'm not envisioning?

- Tipper

[Guest guest]

seriously what is your purpose at the moment? This is not worth the

time.........Please ...................UGG! I don't think I am alone.

>

>

> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 6:05 PM, marasou <marasou@...<marasou%40aol.com>>

> wrote:

> > Really? Wow an immunity to ecoli? Another benefit to drinking raw milk!

>

> Well, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, right?

>

>

> > Well shutting down an individual dairy is fast -- putting them out of

> business doesn't take much time. One dairy at a time seems to > be the

> approach. But they try and succeed at passing laws (or blocking laws) and

> tweak the regulations plenty too!

>

> The contention, though, is that the government has been out to get the

> Hartmanns for a decade. Why did it take them a decade to invent some

> sort of E. coli outbreak in order to shut them down? I think it's a

> more logical assumption that there was, unfortunately, some

> contamination, and hopefully we'll find out exactly when, where, and

> how soon. When I say there may be contamination it's not from a place

> of judgment. Potential contamination is a reality with any food

> product. Liking the farmer and his practices isn't anti-microbial.

>

>

> > Do we have our head in the sand (or are just " idealogical " )for our first

> reaction of the Hartman's aren't at fault in this? Or is yours and others in

> the sand for not being suspicious of the government in this?

>

> What is the mechanism by which you're assuming this is the

> government's fault? Did they invent the whole scenario and there

> actually is no contamination? Did they sabotage the farm? Is there

> some other scenario I'm not envisioning?

>

> - Tipper

>

>

--

Kathy-jo

c.

ebay store: http://stores.ebay.com/Uptown-rags

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/MNBlueSkyGuideExchange/

[Guest guest]

Just jumping in from a medical perspective. It's very possible that if there is

an E.coli contamination that only 3 out of hundreds that got that day's milk

would come down with severe E.coli poisoning. E.coli is a very prominent

bacteria in our fecal matter of all animals, including humans. We have all most

likely ingested some amount of E.coli in our lives, and when you milk a cow -

sometimes you are going to get some fecal matter in there. However, we have

awesome GOOD bacteria in our stomach that I'm sure many of you know about that

will fight off the E.coli. So if there was some amount of E.Coli in the milk,

and it wasn't a severe amount, then most of the people would have fought it off.

Only a few would have come down with E.Coli poisoning if their systems couldn't

fight it. Obviously, if you are drinking raw milk you have probably already

educated yourself on the matter and know E.coli and other harmful bacteria are

always going to be a risk with unpasteurized dairy products. It's part of the

risk you take, and not really a way to get around it without pasteurizing.

Now, how if it's sold away from the farm or at the farm could change the

contamination rate so much that there needs to be a law, I can't fathom.

However, it seems that it clearly is a law from what Tipper stated so if they

broke it, there would be consequences. Hopefully not too severe, but

consequences none the less.

Just my 2c,

a

[Guest guest]

> Do we have our head in the sand (or are just " idealogical " )for our first

reaction of the Hartman's aren't at fault in this? Or is yours and others in the

sand for not being suspicious of the government in this?>

Are those the only two choices?

The " you're either with us or you're against us " mentality of some on this group

is disturbing.

To participate in this discussion, it seems as though I have to be pegged as

thinking that either:

1). Farmers are infallible, raw milk is a panacea and the government is evil.

OR

2). Farmers are trying to sell contaminated products, raw milk is dangerous and

the goverment will save us.

Well, I guess I just don't think in black and white. And when I posted my

comment earlier today it was because I was surprised that so many people on this

board seemed to be doing just that.

And it's really too bad.

[Guest guest]

That's just it Lynn. If the contamination comes from a buffet, or Subway

(where I got food poisoning) or some a non organic spinach farm, it is all

an unfortunate accident. But not before at least one good organic farm or

raw milk dairy farm is slandered in the process. And if it can not be done,

it is brushed under the carpet by our lovely health department, who exists

to protect Monsanto and pharmaceuticals, NOT the people. But yes, speaking

of blind faith, let's mindlessly trust the FDA and the health department and

persecute the hartmans without due process and proper investigation.

Absolutely (mind boggling) logical.

Carol

Lynn Hackbarth wrote-

My dh had a very serious case of food poisoning several years ago, due to

several complications, it put him out of comission for almost 2 months. We

had been out of state for a number of days and and he first started to feel

sick just as we got back so we know it couldn't have been from any of our

own personal sources of food.

My dh went to the doc. No tests were done. The Dr " confirmed " food poisoning

(probably from a restaurant buffet) and prescribed an antibiotic. Turns out

that since no testing was done, the antibiotic didn't kill the bad bacteria,

just destroyed his normal gut flora and he became horribly, horribly ill.

Then the Dr finally did a test and found out exactly what the bad critter

was in his system.

We never heard from the dept of health or any agency of any sort even though

the dr. reported it. I have no respect for, nor do I trust how the dept of

health or ag will handle this ..ahem.. " outbreak " .

Lynn

[Guest guest]

Please reread the posts, I and others have never said that raw milk

contamination at MOM's or elswhere is impossible. I have said over and over

that the chances are low, that it is improbable.

I also don't know what you, Angie, and are trying to achieve -- your

reading of the posts is skewed negative.

We need to be supporting the Hartman's at this time.

I think someone mentioned taking the approach: innocent until proven guilty. And

if you don't want to drink the milk from Hartman's you don't have to -- please

don't try to convince me not to.

[Guest guest]

Are you joking woman???? You really do not think that the FDA has not

wanted to shut down every raw dairy in the united states? Every month is it

some other poor farmer in any particular state they target and almost ALWAYS

the farm is cleared, but not before ruining their reputation and getting a

public and irrational mob going, which you are apparently part of. Get on

the band wagon with Monsanto and the corrupt FDA, but the idea that this has

not been a goal of the FDA is ludicrous and has nothing to do with

conspiracy but fact.

If you do not support raw milk and if you do not support traditional foods,

why are you here? Just to stir poop?

I am not saying the contamination did not come from the Hartmans, but I will

wait for facts and not hype and lies and half truths from a fictitious star

tribune article. In the mean time, why should anyone persecute a pioneer in

the health food movement because of accusations that have not been proven?

You know, when I was in Australia, I met a farmer who traveled around the

world the hartmans farms to learn first hand how to do it right? Yes,

accidents happen, but this is a good farm and good people and we should not

be persecuting them without due process. And if all the big companies can

get away with their accidents, why should we not give the same benefit to

the little farmer????

Carol

Tipper wrote-

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Greg <

wrote:

> The state has been trying to shut down Hartmann Dairy for at least 10

years.

> It's not a conspiracy, the state would like to ban raw milk sales, and

the

> Hartmann's are probably the most vocal and visible raw milk dairy farmers

in

> MN.

If they wanted to shut them down, for real, it would take a lot less

than 10 years, and a lot less than a few people becoming infected with

E. coli. It's the very definition of a conspiracy theory to make a

jump from this E. coli outbreak to " the government is trying to shut

them down. "

> Reread the strib article. There is no reference to any statement like 'we

> tested the milk and found it contaminated'.

> The article is about how Hartmann Dairy is 'linked' to an outbreak. What

> does 'linked mean? It is not defined.

" Linked " implies that they linked it to that particular dairy. They

linked it by comparing the DNA of the E. coli in the individuals and

the food they had in common, which was apparently raw milk from this

dairy. No article needs to spell this out explicitly.

> Until I see some hard evidence of an issue at the farm, my conclusion is

> that this is just the latest chapter in the harassment saga.

OK. I invite anyone who goes out and buys raw milk from them to report

back about any symptoms they experience. Keep us in the loop.

- Tipper

[Guest guest]

Ecoli bacteria is present in all human and animals fecal matter because it

belongs there. It does not cause illness.

Ecoli bacteria is responsible for the final stages of protein digestion and this

protein is responsible for feeding and

nourishing the nervous system. You can learn more about this through the work

of Aajonus Vonderplanitz author of We

Want To Live

www.wewant2live.com

God bless you.

In ,

Sheri

_____

From: trad-foods-MN [mailto:trad-foods-MN ] On

Behalf Of eowynmn

Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 6:29 PM

To: trad-foods-MN

Subject: Re: Mom's Dairy

Just jumping in from a medical perspective. It's very possible that if there is

an E.coli contamination that only 3 out

of hundreds that got that day's milk would come down with severe E.coli

poisoning. E.coli is a very prominent bacteria

in our fecal matter of all animals, including humans. We have all most likely

ingested some amount of E.coli in our

lives, and when you milk a cow - sometimes you are going to get some fecal

matter in there. However, we have awesome

GOOD bacteria in our stomach that I'm sure many of you know about that will

fight off the E.coli. So if there was some

amount of E.Coli in the milk, and it wasn't a severe amount, then most of the

people would have fought it off. Only a

few would have come down with E.Coli poisoning if their systems couldn't fight

it. Obviously, if you are drinking raw

milk you have probably already educated yourself on the matter and know E.coli

and other harmful bacteria are always

going to be a risk with unpasteurized dairy products. It's part of the risk you

take, and not really a way to get around

it without pasteurizing.

Now, how if it's sold away from the farm or at the farm could change the

contamination rate so much that there needs to

be a law, I can't fathom. However, it seems that it clearly is a law from what

Tipper stated so if they broke it, there

would be consequences. Hopefully not too severe, but consequences none the less.

Just my 2c,

a

[Guest guest]

Speaking of the farm to consumer foundation, have they issued a statement

this afternoon for at least their members? I am waiting for their official

statement and would assume it be more valid than any garbage we read in the

tribune.

Carol