Convinced of its dangers, health officials cry Pasteurize!

[Guest guest]

http://www.newfarm.org/features/2006/0506/rawmilk/shollenberger.shtml

Convinced of its dangers,

health officials cry “Pasteurize!”

Farmers find strong income source

from producing raw milk for health-driven customers despite regulatory

complexity.

By Amy Shollenberger

Photo by Greg Bowman

Cow shares make consumers

owners;

require research for all concerned

In many states, it is illegal to sell raw

milk to consumers. However, some consumers who want raw milk have

worked with farmers to find a structured way to get the raw dairy

products that they desire through a “cow share” arrangement.

In most states, even when a farmer is not

allowed to sell raw dairy products, it is legal for people to consume

raw dairy products from a cow that they own. To care for cows under

this approach, farmers sell shares of cows, and then the people who

actually own the cows are given the milk from their cows. In a

cow-share agreement, consumers pay a boarding fee to the farmer for

their cow, and the farmer has the responsibility of caring for and

milking the cow. The cow-share owner picks up their share of the milk

each week.

A few states (most notably Wisconsin) forbid

even this arrangement, and farmers and consumers in such states have to

go to even greater lengths to stay within the law. In these states,

“farm share” agreements are set up (with the farm becoming

incorporated) and the consumers become owners of the farm itself.

Although this process is more difficult and expensive to set up, it

provides the farmer with the necessary legal protection in these states.

A few states to the south, Apple Family Farm

created the Indiana Cow Sharing Association in 2002. According

to the farm’s website, this association “was born to assure that the

owners made the decisions for their cows and that they would work as a

group to decide key management practices.” Apple Family Farm was also

ordered to cease and desist from selling raw milk in 2002, at which

time they held a series of meetings to find a way to provide their

customers with the products they wanted while remaining within the law.

The farm website notes, “The laws of Indiana

clearly state that ‘every particle of milk or a milk product that is

offered for sale, sold, delivered, or possessed with the intent to sell

or deliver to a consumer be pasteurized’ IC 15-2.1-23-1 and IC

15-2.1-23-8.5(a) According to Indiana code 15-2.1-2-47 the term "sale"

in the dairy stature includes leases, trades, donations, barters, or

any other exchanges. Please understand that the milk that you obtain

from your cow can in no way be sold or distributed under any

circumstance!”

(www.applefamilyfarm.com)

Costs for the cow shares vary, but a typical

arrangement involves an up-front cost for purchasing the cow (or part

of the cow) and bottles, and then a monthly or quarterly boarding fee.

A farm in Virginia offers shares of a cow for $60 each, which results

in one gallon/week, with a $15/month boarding fee, while a whole cow at

Apple Family Farm costs $1000, with a $400/month boarding fee.

– A.S.

Resources

Raw milk proponent Sally Fallon interviewed:

Interview with Sally Fallon

www.acresusa.com/

toolbox/reprints/May

2006_FallonInterview.pdf

Local food promoter Nina Planck’s site

includes stories on whole and raw milk:

www.ninaplanck.com

Ohio HB 534, the “Raw Milk Bill” introduced

March 13, would legalize on-farm sale of raw milk by Grade A dairies

that hold a raw milk retailer license. It would exempt cow-share

ownership from the regulation.

www.wantmilk.org/

forum/index.php

National Raw Milk Use and Safety Summit, May

26-27, Norfolk, Nebraska.

Goal: develop a fact sheet on raw milk use and safety considerations.

www.knox.unl.edu/

files/file060331131801

registration form:

www.knox.unl.edu/

files/file060331132258

The official view on milk safety is

contained in “Got Milk? Make sure it’s pasteurized” from a 2004 edition

of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration’s FDA Consumer magazine

www.fda.gov/fdac/

features/2004/504_

milk.html

Raw milk,

carefully handled, produced by cows grazing on good pasture has

nourished rural populations in the U.S. for many generations.

May 11, 2006: On a recent speaking tour

in Vermont, Dr. Ken , Clinical Director at Integrative Healthcare

Solutions in Dallas, Texas, summed up his beliefs about unpasteurized

milk. “Raw milk is food, and pasteurized milk isn’t food,” he stated to

a crowd of 80 gathered to hear him speak at a local farm.

Dr. was in Vermont for a speaking tour sponsored

by two local farm-advocacy groups and the Weston A. Price Foundation, a

national group that advocates for raw milk sales (www.realmilk.com).

His presentation reflected the beliefs of many in the U.S. and around

the world—that unpasteurized dairy products offer true health benefits

because they are “living food.” In other words, they are enzyme-rich,

full of essential vitamins and other nutrients, and contain “good

bacteria” – qualities which are said to alleviate allergies, arthritis

pain, osteoporosis and diabetes.

There are consumers across the country going to great

lengths to obtain raw dairy products, such as milk, yogurt, kefir,

cheese and butter, in an effort to positively affect their health.

Dr. noted that in Texas he buys dairy products

from a farmer who delivers the milk and other products once a week to

his office for his patients because the farm is located 60 miles away

from the Dallas clinic. A group in Vermont takes turns driving over an

hour to a farm to pick up milk for residents of a housing cooperative.

In Colorado, Guidestone Dairy (www.guidestonefarm.com) has started a “cow share”

program to supply milk (see sidebar).

Although there is no hard data as to how many farmers

are selling raw milk products or how many consumers are buying

it—largely because of the legal limitations around the products—it is

clear that the numbers are growing. In every state, farmers and

consumers are producing and buying these products. The Weston A. Price

Foundation has nearly doubled its membership in one year and has gone

from 90 members at its first conference five years ago to 1,000 at this

past fall’s conference.

Rural Vermont (www.ruralvermont.org), a statewide advocacy group

working for economic justice for family farmers, estimates that at

least 200 farmers are selling raw milk directly to consumers in

Vermont, and the office regularly receives calls from consumers looking

for raw dairy products.

In addition to the perceived health benefits of the

milk, customers who buy farm-fresh products value the visits to the

farms where they make their purchases. Families enjoy teaching their

children about where food comes from, and spending time on the farm.

They can also see how the animals are treated and what kinds of safety

and cleanliness practices are in place.

California dairy leads raw-milk

initiative

Mark McAfee recently visited Vermont to share the story

of his Organic Pastures Dairy with local farmers as part of a speaker

series sponsored by Rural Vermont and the Northeast Organic Farming

Association (www.nofavt.org).

He developed the Raw USA customer-certification program, where farmers

agree to meet listed requirements and customers can inspect to

determine how the listed items are implemented.

The Raw USA website (www.rawusa.org) includes a checklist for a

customer to take to a farm that is in the program in order to do an

“inspection.” The standards include requirements for regular testing of

the milk for pathogens, ethical treatment of animals, regular testing

of the animals for disease, cold storage of milk and cleanliness of

equipment and milking parlors. Raw USA also calls for “24/7

transparencies and verifiable standards for business and production

practices.” McAfee urges that farmers “super-comply” with state laws on

raw milk, using the Raw USA protocol where no regulations exist and to

use them in addition to state law where they do.

McAfee’s bottom line is clear: “We farm by Mother

Nature’s blueprint,” he explained to farmers gathered in a neighbor’s

kitchen. “Keep cold, cold; hot, hot; green, green; and clean, clean,”

he summarizes. His advice to farmers is not to sterilize everything,

but rather just wash it clean because sterility creates an environment

where pathogens can thrive. This violates common organic milk

sanitation practice, but he reasons, “You need the good bacteria to

fight the bad.” He claims seven years of testing without a single human

pathogen – even in his cow’s manure.

Farm

customers walk about the Holsteins at a customer-appreciation day at

Applecheek Farm.

Farmers are realizing that this demand for unpasteurized

milk can mean a fair price for their products – something farmers

rarely see in the commodity market, where milk is shipped to processors

for pasteurization and distribution, and the price is set through a

complicated formula.

Farmers who ship milk in the commodity market get paid

by the “hundredweight” (cwt) – one hundred pounds of milk, or just shy

of 12 gallons. Currently, the conventional (non-organic) milk price is

$12/cwt. Farmers report the cost of production to be anywhere from $13

to $17/cwt, as fuel, fertilizer and feed prices rise.

Double the money, but there’s the law…

Organic farmers who ship on the commodity market report

an organic milk price of approximately $26/cwt. Most farmers claim this

is a fair price that allows them to meet their cost of production and

realize a small profit margin. However, farmers who are selling raw

milk direct to consumers can often receive $5/gallon, not much more

than the price of milk in the store for many consumers, but over

$50/cwt for the farmer. This price means the farmer can have fewer

cows, and support their family without off-farm work in many cases.

So why isn’t this a widely-known phenomenon? Why aren’t

farmers turning away the milk trucks and only selling direct to

consumers? Why is it so difficult to find raw milk products?

In most states, the sales of raw milk are greatly

restricted, if not completely illegal. In some states, raw milk can

only be sold as “pet food,” and in others, farmers can sell only from

the farm and cannot advertise. In California, however, the sale of raw

milk in retail stores is completely legal. Other states vary between

these extremes.

The federal government first adopted the “Pasteurized

Milk Ordinance” (PMO) — first called the “Standard Milk Ordinance” — in

1924. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA),

“activities in the area of milk sanitation began at the turn of the

century with studies on the role of milk in the spread of disease.

These studies led to the conclusion that effective public health

control of milk-borne disease requires the application of sanitation

measures throughout the production, handling, pasteurization and

distribution of milk and milk products.”

As such, the federal government approved the milk

ordinance for voluntary adoption by state and local milk-control

agencies. The FDA indicates that the “recommended Grade 'A' PMO is the

basic standard used in the voluntary ative State-USPHS/FDA

Program for the Certification of Interstate Milk Shippers, a program

participated in by all fifty (50) States, the District of Columbia and

U.S. Trust Territories.” (www.cfsan.fda.gov/~ear/pmo03.html#foreword)

“Slop milk” spurs control efforts

In the 19th century, as the industrial revolution

demanded concentrated populations of workers, grazing land was lost as

cities grew. Yet, demand for milk in the cities was very high. At the

same time, another sector was growing as well – whiskey distilleries.

Ron Schmid explains what happened next in his book, The Untold Story of Milk.

Schmid explains that dairymen began keeping their cows

in confinement, next to the distilleries, in order to take advantage of

the waste products, called “distillery slop,” to feed to the cows.

Schmid reports an estimate “that about 18,000 cows produced over five

million gallons of slop milk each year for the consumption of New

Yorkers – mostly New York’s children.” (p. 34) Schmid also outlines the

sorry conditions in the cow quarters, and the high death rate among the

animals because of the poor nutritional quality of the slop feed, as

well as the high production rate and crowded conditions in the dairies.

All of this led to poor quality milk, with many human pathogens, and

thus, sick people (especially children). Soon enough, health

professionals realized that bad milk was the cause of much of the

sickness in the cities. However, there was much debate about how to

deal with the problem.

Schmid explains that Henry Coit, M.D. created the first

milk certification program to ensure the safety of raw milk for human

consumption. His “Medical Milk Commission” established standards for

producers to meet in order to provide a pure product for city dwellers.

However, on the other side of the debate was Strauss, who was a

proponent of pasteurization as a means to kill the pathogens and thus

make milk safe for humans to drink. In the end, Strauss won the battle,

and pasteurization became common practice in the U.S.

Proponents of pasteurization, including most public

health officials, believe that drinking raw milk is a dangerous act,

especially for people with compromised immune functions. This is

because pathogens can be present in raw milk if conditions on farms are

not up to appropriate protocols.

Pasteurization heats milk to a very specific temperature

for a specific time (the higher the temperature, the less time is

needed), without allowing “recontamination” of the milk after the

heating occurs. The heating kills the bacteria and other pathogens in

the milk, thus making it “safe” to drink. However, opponents claim that

the heating also destroys valuable enzymes, such as phosphatase. In

fact, the test to see if milk is adequately pasteurized is the test for

the absence of this enzyme.

FDA: raw milk is too risky

Jr. checks udder condition on an Applecheek Farm cow.

Many health officials point to various outbreaks of

disease that are allegedly linked to consumption of raw, unpasteurized

milk. The FDA, for instance, has the following position: “FDA and other

federal and state health agencies have documented a long history of the

risks to human health associated with the consumption of raw milk.

Clinical and epidemiological studies from FDA, state health agencies,

and others have established a direct causal link between

gastrointestinal disease and the consumption of raw milk. The microbial

flora of raw milk may include human pathogens present on the cow's

udder and teats. Further, the intrinsic properties of milk, including

its pH and nutrient content, make it an excellent media for the

survival and growth of bacteria.”

On August 10, 1987, FDA published in 21 CFR Part

1240.61, a final regulation mandating the pasteurization of all milk

and milk products in final package form for direct human consumption.

In this Federal Register notification, FDA made a number of findings

including the following: "Raw milk, no matter how carefully produced,

may be unsafe;" and “Opportunities for the introduction and persistence

of Salmonella on dairy premises are numerous and varied, and technology

does not exist to eliminate Salmonella infection from dairy herds or to

preclude re-introduction of Salmonella organisms." (www.cfsan.fda.gov/~ear/mi-03-4.html)

Michigan was the first state to require, in 1948, that

all milk sold to consumers be pasteurized. The state’s website urges,

“Michigan consumers deserve the public health benefits provided by safe

and wholesome pasteurized dairy products. The state’s pasteurization

requirements have successfully protected our consumers for over 50

years and the Michigan Department of Agriculture strongly urges all

consumers to drink only milk that has been safely pasteurized.” (www.michigan.gov/som/0,1607,7-192-29941_30586_30677-94782--CI,00.html)

Because most dairy studies have focused on pasteurized

milk for many years, it is difficult to disprove these claims at this

time, except through anecdotal evidence. (Rural Vermont is seeking

funding to compare pathogen levels in milk produced for raw consumption

with milk produced for pasteurization.)

However, despite this apparent lack of current science,

many consumers still believe that raw milk is good for them. As such,

they are working with farmers across the country to create systems to

buy and sell raw dairy products. Although some farmers report feeling

like drug dealers in these arrangements, consumer demand is high, and

the price is right for the perceived superior value of the milk.

Time will tell whether consumer-driven market demand, if

it continues at its current growth trajectory, will create a change in

public-health policy or in how states seek to restrict raw milk sales.