Law on Raw Milk Should Be Overturned

[Guest guest]

Law on Raw Milk Should Be Overturned

by Sally Fallon, president, Weston A. Price Foundation

_http://www.townsendletter.com/July2009/rawmilk0709.html_

(http://www.townsendletter.com/July2009/rawmilk0709.html)

 

 

Testimony before the Senate Agriculture Committee and the Senate Select

Committee on Food-Borne Illness (April 15, 2007)

 

 

Thank you, Senator Florez, for the opportunity to testify before the joint

committees today. My name is Sally Fallon. I am testifying in my capacity

as the president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, a nonprofit nutrition

education foundation; as the founder of A Campaign for Real Milk, which

advocates the consumption of unpasteurized whole milk from pasture-fed cows;

and as secretary of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, which provides

legal defense of farms engaged in raw milk production and direct

farm-to-consumer sales. Most importantly, I am testifying here today in my

capacity as

a mother.

 

 

And it is as a mother that I will start with three testimonials typical of

those we receive almost every day. One comes from a physician who

prescribes raw milk to his patients, often with remarkably beneficial effects.

One

dramatic case involved a 9-month-old boy who had had three ear infections

in three months. The child had been fed a number of formulas based on

processed cow's milk and soy protein, and the mother had even tried pasteurized

goat milk. With each formula, the child suffered recurrent vomiting,

diarrhea, and failure to gain weight and thrive; and he had been ill with

either

viral or bacterial infections almost continuously since early infancy. After

the mother switched to a formula based on raw goat milk, however, the

diarrhea and vomiting ceased and the child began to gain weight. One year

later, he has normal growth and is perfectly healthy.

 

 

The second comes from a Weston A. Price local chapter leader who reported

on a 2-year-old boy with very serious asthma. After the mother put the boy

on raw cow*s milk, the child went through the entire winter without a visit

to the doctor for any reason and no asthma attacks – except for one, a

serious attack that occurred after the boy consumed pasteurized milk while on

a family trip.

 

 

The third involves an autistic 8-year-old boy who had not spoken a word

since the sudden onset of autism at the age of 2. After two months on raw

cow*s milk, all autistic behavior disappeared, and the child began to babble

as a prelude to speech. The only dietary or treatment change was a switch

from pasteurized to raw milk.

 

 

Now please imagine the joy and relief that raw milk has given to the

families of these children – an end to suffering, an end to worry. Family

life

can be normal and happy again. It is testimonials like these that make us so

passionate about having access to raw milk and so concerned about the

manner in which access to raw milk has been undermined in the state of

California with the stealth passage of AB 1735, a law that mandates standards so

strict that commercial production of raw milk will become impossible. Our

experts here today will testify to the fact that the 10 coliform limit is not

only unnecessary for the safety of raw milk, but would actually make raw

milk more vulnerable to pathogens.

 

 

Make no mistake, those who worked behind the scenes for the passage of

this law, and our opponents testifying today, do not want the sickly,

asthmatic, or autistic child to have access to Nature's perfect healing food.

Although couched in terms of public safety, AB 1735 has nothing to do with

safety and everything to do with protecting California*s annual $4.5 billion

industrial dairy industry, which has to be propped up with an average of $1.6

billion in subsidies every year. This is a modern day example of sacrificing

our children on the altar of Baal.

 

 

The 10 coliform standard is a **test of sterility**, designed not to

ensure the cleanliness of a farm but to verify the effectiveness of a

processing

facility. The Pasteurized Milk Ordinance allows 100,000 coliforms per ml

in raw milk from the dairy farm. This 10 coliform standard was not designed

to test the cleanliness of a farm, but the effectiveness of the

sterilization process at the milk processing plant. It is inappropriate to use a

**test of sterility** on raw milk, which is not a sterile product, but a

probiotic product. Nonpathogenic coliforms are what consumers are seeking when

they choose a raw milk product. Coliforms protect us against pathogens and

produce many important nutrients in the digestive tract. They are our friends,

not our enemies; and they are being increasingly used by doctors to treat

everything from intestinal problems to wounds. Obviously, it is unscientific

to claim, as our opponents do, that these same coliforms in milk are

dangerous. The medical paradigm has changed; germs are no longer the enemy.

 

 

You have, of course heard many arguments painting raw milk as a deadly

poison, one that has no health benefits. These arguments can only be made on

the basis of extreme bias against raw milk, found in numerous articles

published in the scientific literature and on government websites. The committee

needs to be aware of the double standard applied to raw milk compared to

other foods. The most glaring example of this double standard can be found in

the FDA Powerpoint presentation on raw milk prepared by Mr. John Sheehan.

 

 

The Weston A. Price Foundation has presented to this Committee a

slide-by-slide response to this document. In it, Mr. Sheehan cites 15 studies

to

support his statement that **drinking raw milk is like playing Russian

roulette with your health.** In analyzing these studies, we found that not one

of

them proved that pasteurization would have prevented the outbreak. In

almost half the studies, Mr. Sheehan misrepresents the conclusions of the study,

and in fully 80% of the studies, there was no valid positive milk sample to

implicate raw milk. One-third of the studies ignore other more probable

vectors of disease in what constitutes clear examples of bias. In one of the

studies, the *outbreak* blamed on raw milk did not even exist. The public

deserves better from our public servants.

 

 

Lately, we have seen many reports in the media about outbreaks attributed

to raw milk. On inspection, we find a clear pattern of bias, double

standard and possibly even fraud regarding these reports. The modus operandi is

as

follows:

 

-- When testing raw milk, use cultures to promote pathogen multiplication

and highly sensitive milk-testing techniques that find pathogens in

extremely small numbers, levels that would not cause illness. (Any substance

you

test will show pathogens if the test is sensitive enough.)

 

-- Use new rapid testing techniques developed for the food industry, which

err on the side of finding false positives. This method is currently being

used in Pennsylvania to harass raw milk dairies. The Pennsylvania

Department of Agriculture then issues an inflammatory press release, which is

not

retracted with the dairy's own appropriately carried-out tests come back

negative.

 

-- When there is an outbreak, use food questionnaires that leave out

likely vectors of disease but always include raw milk. In a recent outbreak in

Pennsylvania, one member who got sick reported receiving a call from the

health department. The department wanted to know whether she had drunk raw

milk. She replied that she hadn't but that she suspected undercooked chicken

from a local restaurant. But once she replied negatively to the question on

raw milk, the department was not interested in pursuing the questioning

further, not interesting in tracking down the chicken.

 

-- When there is an outbreak, test raw milk products first, and test them

in the home setting rather than from the shelf. If a person is infected and

has handled a raw milk product, the product will test positive for the

organism. Omit testing other foods or raw milk products on the shelf (not

handled by the consumer) but report a positive lab result for the raw milk

product. This method has been used to implicate Mexican-style raw milk cheese in

numerous reports.

 

-- Omit subjects who got sick but did not drink raw milk. The 2001

Wisconsin outbreak cited on the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website is a

good example of this. People who got sick but did not drink raw milk were not

admitted to the hospital and did not become part of the official record.

Ignore equally likely or more likely sources of infection, such as visit to a

farm or petting zoo, tap water, or other foods.

 

-- Assume that statistical association constitutes proof. It is easy to

create a statistical association with raw milk using the above techniques.

 

-- Issue inflammatory press releases accusing raw milk, which are not

retracted but left on government websites when the dairy is exonerated.

 

 

The industry has used these techniques to make raw milk the whipping boy

for outbreaks caused by other foods. It is clear that in recent months

government agencies are making a well-coordinated effort to blame some of their

most serious problems, such listeria and E. coli O157:H7, on raw milk. The

fact that only raw milk was quarantined during the 2006 California E. coli

outbreak attributed to spinach is an excellent example of these biased

tactics.

 

 

Meanwhile, problems with pasteurized milk tend to be glossed over or

underreported. Recently three people died from listeria in pasteurized milk in

Massachusetts. On February 24, 2006, Wal-Mart in Vidalia, Georgia pulled

pasteurized milk from shelves due to foul odor. At least one child was

seriously sickened, a fact that was not reported in news releases. A voluntary

recall was announced three days later – there was no sense of urgency. In

fact, Wal-Mart was applauded by [Department of Agriculture] Commissioner Tommy

Irvin. There were no government recalls, and no warnings to the public to

avoid drinking pasteurized milk. More of the double standard. In 2006,

pasteurized milk caused illness in 1300 inmates in 11 California state prisons,

yet we heard no outcry to remove this dangerous product from the market.

 

 

Another example of the double standard comes from the CDC website, which

warns against raw milk as a source of salmonella. Yet a few points later,

the same document states that unpasteurized milk (in the form of breast milk)

is the safest food for infants and that raw breast milk prevents many

health problems, including infection by salmonella. Everything that we have

learned about the health benefits, immune support, probiotic qualities, and

antipathogenic components of raw human milk over the last 40 years applies

equally to the raw milk of other species. Studies showing that babies given

pasteurized breast milk have more infections, more health problems, and do

not grow as well compared to raw breast milk apply equally to the milk from

other species.

 

 

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) calls drinking raw milk **risky

behavior** A 1999 FDA survey involving 19,356 adults in eight states found

that 50% consumed uncooked eggs, 20% consumed pink hamburgers, 8% consumed

raw oysters, while a mere 1% consumed raw milk. A 2008 study of 4,548 young

college students reported that 53% consumed raw cookie dough; 33% consumed

eggs with runny yolks; 29% consumed raw sprouts; 11% consumed raw oysters,

clams, or mussels; and 7% consumed rare hamburger. The study did not report

raw milk consumption. Yes none of the common **risky behaviors** has

prominence on FDA's website for food safety – only raw milk is singled out –

and

there are no pasteurization requirement for common **risky behavior**

foods.

 

 

Government officials also insist that raw milk provides no health benefits

compared to pasteurized and ultrapasteurized milk. (It should be pointed

out that most milk today is ultrapasteurized, a process that rapidly takes

the fragile milk proteins to a temperature well above the boiling point.)

The evidence for the superior health benefits of raw milk comes in the form of

scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals, and it

corroborates the hundreds of testimonials that we have received on the benefits

of raw

milk from young and old, some of which you will hear today. Opponents of

raw milk are uniformly condescending towards individual testimonials,

dismissing them as anecdotal. Yet for the individuals and families involved,

these testimonials are pure science – objective conclusions drawn from

before-and-after observation of conditions incumbent on a single variable, the

addition of raw milk to the diet.

 

 

The second document presented to the committee is a Powerpoint

presentation prepared by the Weston A. Price Foundation, which addresses the

safety,

health benefits, and economic considerations of raw milk. This document is

fully referenced and contains all the scientific studies that we know about.

In it, we provide the math for that $64,000 question – what is the safety

record of raw milk vs. pasteurized and vs. other foods on a per-serving

basis? The CDC estimates that on a per-serving basis, one is ten times more

likely to become ill from Listeria monocytogenes from eating deli meats than

from consuming raw milk – and this estimate is based on the exaggerated and

biased reports mentioned earlier, which blame raw milk but do not prove

that it caused an illness. Here we have yet another example of the double

standard applied to raw milk. Where are the FDA*s charges that deli meats are

**inherently dangerous and should not be consumed?** Where is the FDA*s

exhortation to **everyone charged with protecting the public health** to

**prevent the sale of deli meats to consumers** ?

 

 

By our calculations, pasteurized milk is 1.1 and 15.3 times more dangerous

than raw milk on a per-serving basis. Even using government statistics

that inflate the danger of raw milk, it is easy to calculate that one is over

2,000 times more likely, on a per-serving basis, to contract illness from

other foods than from raw milk. In fact, the only way to reduce the risk of

food-borne illness to zero is to stop eating and die of starvation … or to

consume raw milk on a regular basis to ensure immunity to pathogens.

 

 

Our Powerpoint presentation details the health benefits of raw milk in

studies going back over 80 years. Raw milk is superior to pasteurized milk in

building strong bones, preventing tooth decay, supporting normal growth and

development, preventing asthma and allergies, and providing protection

against infectious and chronic disease. The latest study comes from Europe,

where investigators found, in a study of 14,893 children aged 5 to 13, that

consumption of raw milk was the strongest factor for reducing the risk of

asthma and allergy, whether the children lived on a farm or not. The benefits

were greatest when consumption of raw milk began during the first year of

life. About 5 million children are afflicted with asthma, and 5,500 people

in the US die from asthma each year. About 1,250 people in the US die from

food-borne pathogens from all sources with virtually no deaths from raw

milk. Thus, the risk of dying from asthma is over four times greater than the

risk of dying from food-borne pathogens from all sources, and infinitely

greater than the risk of dying from raw milk. Yet defenders of the dairy

industry insist that children should not have the right to consume raw milk,

even hinting that parents who love their children enough to give them raw milk

are guilty of neglect.

 

 

Our opponents today will insist that raw milk is inherently dangerous and

that there is no way to make it safe. These arguments are based on

40-year-old science and a discredited medical paradigm. Raw milk is inherently

safe, safer than any other food, and we have the technology and knowledge today

to get safe raw milk to children in every part of the country. Our

opponents will insist that raw milk has no health benefits compared to

pasteurized. They will omit mention of the many studies that show that

pasteurization

destroys the vital qualities of milk, reduces nutrient assimilation, and

renders it allergenic and difficult to digest. In response to this, I quote

Sinclair Lewis: **It is very difficult to get a man to understand something

when his salary depends on not understanding it.** **

 

 

A final argument against raw milk goes like this: if raw milk results in

an outbreak, this would cause people to stop drinking milk altogether and

adversely affect the whole milk industry. I hope your intelligence is not

insulted with such an argument today. The industry does its best to publicize

any possible problem caused by raw milk in an effort to staunch the

declining sales of pasteurized and ultrapasteurized milk, a product that fewer

and

fewer consumers can tolerate.

 

 

In summary, I urge the joint committees to work towards overturning AB

1735 and doing everything in their power to support raw milk in California.

Opposition to raw milk is illogical, it is unscientific, it is expensive, it

is heartless and cruel. The child who benefits from raw milk – perhaps even

whose life is saved by raw milk – may be your own child, or your own

grandchild, or even a child or grandchild of our opponents – our efforts are

dedicated to all children. We have the knowledge and technology today to get

safe raw milk to every child who needs it, and we ask that you work with us,

not against us, to achieve this important goal.

 

 

 

** Editor*s note: Actual quote was by Upton Sinclair, **It is difficult to

get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not

understanding it!**