Canadian raw milk merchant on trial

[luchog]

I would like to see the raw milk proponents here advocate a general way that contaminated and potentially contaminated food should be treated. Look at all the harmless peanut butter that is getting classed with the contaminated.

False analogy. There is no chance that raw milk could ever be the large-scale industry that peanuts are, simply due to the logistics of storing and transporting such a highly perishable commodity. The fact that milk is available so widely and inexpensively is due predominantly to the pasteurization process, which enables a much longer storage life than is possible with raw milk.

Raw milk could only ever be a cottage industry at this point, and distribution of contaminated products could be easily avoided; and any that did happen would be naturally very limited in scope. Since the milk would either be sold directly to the consumer, or distributed through a small number of co-op and speciality stores, recalls would be easy to handle. They would be subject to the same food-safety regulations as any other producer of food intended for human consumption.

I know this for a fact, because this is exactly how it works in my state. Raw milk is legal, either through a distribution network or through "cow shares" programs; as long as the livestock, storage, and distribution meet health and safety standards, and the milk is properly labled. The standards for raw milk production are higher than for pasteurized milk production. Purity requirements are exactly the same for raw milk as they are for pasteurized, and dairys must have monthly WSDA inspections. They are fully subject to product liability laws and may be sued or prosecuted for distributing contaminated products. There are currently 22 dairies in the state licensed for raw milk (12 cow, 10 goat). There is a lot of information online on the Washington State Department of Agriculture website.

The risk is not high. Nationwide, there are only a few hundred cases of illness, very few of which result in death. There are many more cases of illness resulting from contaminated vegetables than raw milk. The few cases of illness resulting from contaminated raw milk are almost exclusively from unlicensed dairies which do not abide by USDA or WSDA guidelines. The 2005 outbreak of E. Coli was limited to 18 people, and only 2 were serious affected, with no fatalities; and all were the result of a single unlicensed and untested dairy.

Nationwide, 1998 to 2007, there were only 39 outbreaks resulting from raw milk or cheese. Roughly 830 people became ill as a result, 66 were hospitalized, and 1 died; per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That's less than 100 per year becoming ill, 6 hospitalized, and an almost non-existant death rate. By comparision, just last year, 869 people becameill, 167 people were hospitalized, and 1 person died from a single tomato-linked salmonella outbreak. More harm in one year than raw milk has caused in almost 10. The CDC reports an average of 40,000 salmonella outbreaks every year; as well as an average of 73,000 E. Coli outbreaks with 61 deaths. The majority of these outbreaks are linked to meat or vegetable products; very few to raw dairy. (The CDC considers alfalfa sprouts to pose a significant E. Coli risk.) In fact, as many outbreaks are linked to non-food sources -- such as swimning pools, contact with infected reptiles and birds, and contact with animal droppings -- as are linked to raw dairy products. (A recent outbreak of E. Coli in Atlanta Georgia, affecting 19 children, was linked to a wading pool at a city park.)

And the comment about a "black market" in raw dairy products (milk, cheeses, etc.) is not all that far-fetched, since underground markets do exist nationwide in states that ban such products (only half of the states in the US do so). It's the unlicensed "black market" raw dairy providers who are the cause of the vast majority of raw-dairy-linked outbreaks.

 

[ponderingturtle]

In other words, you really don't know anything substantial about it.

In the "early part of the 20th Century", dairy farmers did not have the health standards requirement to meet that they do no; nor did they have the level of veterinary care or antibiotic drugs that are currently available. Sanitation and handling standards and technology are also dramatically different and far advanced from what they were at the beginning of the previous century.

So you think it will not be organic raw milk.

 

[ponderingturtle]

False analogy. There is no chance that raw milk could ever be the large-scale industry that peanuts are, simply due to the logistics of storing and transporting such a highly perishable commodity. The fact that milk is available so widely and inexpensively is due predominantly to the pasteurization process, which enables a much longer storage life than is possible with raw milk.

So the absolute number of sicknesses and deaths is not relevent, but the scale?

And I think you underestimate how people have treated raw milk in the states it is legal.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

My last post on this.

Raw milk isn't safe
The Province
Published: Friday, December 19, 2008

Regarding The Province's support for raw milk, there is good reason for not allowing its sale in Canada. Unpasteurized milk isn't always safe.

Several studies and tests confirm raw milk can contain a number of disease-causing organisms.

While raw milk is sold legally in 29 of 50 U.S. states, this doesn't mean it is safe to consume.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that, between 1998 and 2005, there were 39 outbreaks in the U.S. and Canada caused by raw milk or raw milk cheese.

Those 39 outbreaks caused 831 illnesses, 66 hospitalizations and one death.

All states allowing raw milk sales subject producing farms to testing and inspection, but outbreaks and recalls of certified raw milk products occur regularly.

Even though the consumption of raw milk in B.C. is small, there have been several outbreaks caused by the consumption of raw milk. Sadly, some of these illnesses occurred in children who were given raw milk by well-intentioned parents.

There is no credible or scientific evidence that raw milk produces any measurable health benefits.

Pasteurization of raw milk simply heats the milk to kill disease-causing bacteria, exactly the same process as when one cooks poultry or meat. Pasteurization of raw milk has prevented thousands of illnesses and deaths and is one of the great advances of public health of the 20th century.

Dr. Perry Kendall,

B.C. Provincial Health Officer
© The Vancouver Province 2008

http://www2.canada.com/theprovince/news/letters/story.html?id=44aa8db2-2925-4c98-85b4-e35e8700f1e8

Health Canada Reminds Canadians About the Risks of Drinking Raw Milk
Information Update
2008-123
August 06, 2008
For immediate release

OTTAWA - Health Canada would like to remind Canadians not to drink raw (unpasteurized) milk because it could contain bacteria that can make you seriously ill.

Several different kinds of bacteria that could be found in raw milk, such as Salmonella, E. coli and Listeria, have been linked to food-borne illness. These bacteria can lead to very serious health conditions ranging from fever, vomiting and diarrhea to life-threatening kidney failure, miscarriage and death. Children, pregnant women, the elderly and individuals with compromised immune systems are particularly at risk.

Because of these health concerns, Food and Drug Regulations require that all milk available for sale in Canada be pasteurized. Pasteurization kills the organisms that cause disease while keeping the nutritional properties of milk intact. Raw milk has not been treated to make it safe.

Milk is an important food and contains many nutrients essential for good health, especially calcium and vitamin D.

Unpasteurized milk has historically been linked to many serious diseases. However, the number of food-borne diseases from milk has dramatically decreased since pasteurization of milk was made mandatory by Health Canada in 1991.

The sale of raw milk is strictly prohibited under the Food and Drug Regulations. Raw milk cheese is allowed for sale and considered safe because the manufacturing process for cheese helps to eliminate many pathogens found in raw milk.

Although raw milk is not allowed to be sold in Canada, people have become ill after drinking raw milk when visiting farms. Some dairy farmers are also consuming milk from their own animals. While pasteurized milk is now the standard, there are some Canadians who continue to prefer raw milk because of perceived health benefits. However, any possible benefits are far outweighed by the serious risk of illness from drinking raw milk.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/_2008/2008_123-eng.php

My country. Our laws.

 

[Rolfe]

I have to say I'm very much coming round to Luchog's point, in a way. Small-scale, properly regulated and licensed raw milk sales, properly labelled with the appropriate warnings, are probably perfectly justifiable in the grand scheme of "things it is legal to sell".

I just sigh about yet another product that is likely to be way over-promoted with ridiulous woo-woo claims, by people who have no bloody idea what they're talking about.

Rolfe.

 

[fuelair]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hlHi3D4I14h_aQROMkNHpQRJZg1w



It is illegal to sell raw milk in Canada. The farmer in this case, Michael Schmidt, feels the law is unjust and that people should have the freedom to purchase raw milk if they wish. He claims raw milk is safe and healthier than pasteurized milk (conveniently ignoring the science behind pastuerization, and the statistics that show its benefits). Based on my limited understanding of Canadian case law, I doubt Mr. Schmidt will be successful.

I'm of the viewpoint that allowing people the "freedom" to engage in unhealthy, irrational behavior like purchasing and consuming raw milk has a cumulative negative effect on society, especially in a country where the taxpayers share the burden of health care. As we all know, there are people who let ideology cloud their judgment. Also, this is a rather petty "freedom" and is inconsequential when put into context. But enough about what I think, what about you? Do you think the government is right to restrict the sale of raw milk, or is this more unnecessary government intrusion?

I'm fine with individuals purchasing and drinking it themselves, but I also support a law making the feeding of it to children prima-facie evidence of intent to murder if the child dies from it. No trial, no lawyers, straight to jail.

 

[BPSCG]

I drank raw milk once. It made me want to rape and kill.

 

[Beerina]

In Canada, where the health-care system is State-funded, the people do pay the consequences.

My mother taught me as a child that, if you do something nice for someone, unasked, it is wrong to then use that to lord over them for any reason.


But Vox Populi, Vox Dei. So sayeth the growing meme. All hail the meme!

 

[luchog]

So you think it will not be organic raw milk.

In my state, organic milk is subject to the same rules and restrictions for safety as any other. They can sell it as organic, but it still has to meet the same purity testing and handling standards as any other; which means that it's highly unlikely to be allowed on the market.

So the absolute number of sicknesses and deaths is not relevent, but the scale?

Try reading the post.

1) There is no way to guarantee an absolute zero. There will still be mistakes made, and people who are allergic. Everything you do is a risk. More people die in auto accidents in a day than die from contaminated milk in a decade. Autos could be made orders of magnitude more safe than they are; but at the expense of fuel economy, utility, maneuverability, and speed. Everything is a trade-off, risk vs. benefits.

2) The vast majority of illnesses resulting from contaminated milk are from unlicensed and uninspected dairies.

And I think you underestimate how people have treated raw milk in the states it is legal.

I have no idea what this means. Please clarify.

I have to say I'm very much coming round to Luchog's point, in a way. Small-scale, properly regulated and licensed raw milk sales, properly labelled with the appropriate warnings, are probably perfectly justifiable in the grand scheme of "things it is legal to sell".

I just don't see that the risk is high enough, under those conditions, to justify prohibiting it when so many other non-essential things with much higher risks are commonly available.

I just sigh about yet another product that is likely to be way over-promoted with ridiulous woo-woo claims, by people who have no bloody idea what they're talking about.

They already are, my friend, they already are. I see it every time I set foot into the co-op's dairy section.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

More people die in auto accidents in a day than die from contaminated milk in a decade.

Because we did something about it! Namely pasteurization. You cannot compare the deaths occurring now to deaths that occurred before pasteurization, and say that because so few are dying now, the pasteurization is a waste of time! You also can't compare deaths due to unpasteurization to auto accidents, and claim that because people die in cars, we shouldn't try to keep them from being poisoned by milk. Have you no sense of scale?

 

[ponderingturtle]

In my state, organic milk is subject to the same rules and restrictions for safety as any other. They can sell it as organic, but it still has to meet the same purity testing and handling standards as any other; which means that it's highly unlikely to be allowed on the market.

But the animals are not as healthy, you can't use the anti biotics and such mentioned as why our herds are healthier. Ask Rolfe about organic dairies.

1) There is no way to guarantee an absolute zero. There will still be mistakes made, and people who are allergic. Everything you do is a risk. More people die in auto accidents in a day than die from contaminated milk in a decade. Autos could be made orders of magnitude more safe than they are; but at the expense of fuel economy, utility, maneuverability, and speed. Everything is a trade-off, risk vs. benefits.

2) The vast majority of illnesses resulting from contaminated milk are from unlicensed and uninspected dairies.

Why are millions of dollars of suspected contaminated peanut butter pulled but as all raw milk should be suspected contaminated it is fine?

I just don't see that the risk is high enough, under those conditions, to justify prohibiting it when so many other non-essential things with much higher risks are commonly available.

So should in outbreak conditions like tomatoes and such, should they be pulled from the shelves or is there not enough risk?

I want to see what standards you think should be used to judge products that there is always a risk of contamination and products suspected of being contaminated. Explain how you determine which group.