15 The Safety of Raw versus Pasteurized Milk Safety of Raw versus Pasteurized Milk 265 possession or...

15The Safety of

Raw versus Pasteurized Milk

It is very difficult to get a man to understand something when his

salary depends on not understanding it.

UptonSinclair

Drinking raw milk is like playing Russian roulette with your

health.

JohnF.Sheehan,Director

U.S.FoodandDrugAdministration

DivisionofDairyandEggSafety

SeveralissuesarecentraltotherawmilkcontroversyinAmerica

today. Some are scientific and some essentially legal. Even the scientific

issuesareshroudedin legalitiesandpolitics,butwe’llapproachthem

inastraightforwardandpracticalmanner.Oneissueisthequestionof

safety:Howsafeisrawmilk?We’llanswerthatquestionbyconsidering

thehistoricalrecordsofbothrawandpasteurizedmilkasagentsassoci-

ated with disease, and by looking at scientific evidence delineating the

numerouscomponentsinrawmilkthatkillpathogensandstrengthen

theimmunesystem.

Another scientific issue involves the health benefits of raw milk

263

264 The Untold Story of Milk

comparedtopasteurized—asubjectthathasbeenexploredinmanyof

theprecedingpages.We’lllookatthisissueagaininChapters16-18as

weexplorewhyandhowgreenpasturesandcontentedcowsproduce

nature’smostnearlyperfectfoodforchildrenandadults.

Legal issues surrounding the raw milk controversy are complex

and many of their ramifications are beyond the scope of this book. But

we’llconsideranumberofpracticalquestions.Istheallegedevidence

aboutthedangersofrawmilksostrongthatthegovernmentshouldpro-

hibititsbeingsoldorevengivenaway,asindeedhasoccurredinsome

statesandcountries?Evenmorefundamental,doesourconstitutional

governmenthavetherighttomakelawsoutlawingafoodthathassus-

tainedmuchofhumanity throughout recordedhistory? In the faceof

restrictive and unfair laws, what legal structures exist that may allow

dairyfarmerstolegallymakerawmilkproductsavailabletoconsumers

forreasonablecompensation?Howareproducersandconsumersofraw

milkworkingtogethertochangeexistinglawsthatpreventfarmersfrom

sellingrawmilkanditsproductsontheopenmarket?

Theanswerstothesequestionsareshapingthewayadetermined

minorityofAmericanshasbuiltagrassrootsmovementtomakeaready

supplyofrawmilkandrawmilkproductsavailableforthemselves,their

familiesandanyoneelsewhodesiresit.Thesecommittedindividuals—

farmers,consumers,activists,alternativemedicalpractitionersandtheir

patients,journalists,local,stateandfederalgovernmentrepresentatives

andothersinpubliclife—andthelegalissuestheyareconfrontingare

thesubjectofChapter19.Fornow,weconsideramorestraightforward

matter:thesafetyofrawversuspasteurizedmilk.

Thepositionofthepublichealthandconventionalmedicalcom-

munities on raw milk is unequivocal: they are dead-set against it. In

1986,anFDArulingbannedtheinterstateshipmentofrawmilk,but-

ter and cream across state lines. For many years, officials in every state

havepushedforlawsbanningallsalesofrawmilk,withstrongsupport

fromtheCenters forDiseaseControl (CDC)and theFDA.Within the

lastthirtyyears,legislationhasbannedretailsalesofrawmilkinmost

states and restricted sales to the farm where the milk is produced in

many others. But no state has passed legislation against the purchase,

The Safety of Raw versus Pasteurized Milk 265

possessionorconsumptionofrawmilk.Thisfactalonearguesthatthe

incentivetobanrawmilksalesisbasedoneconomicratherthanpublic

healthconcerns.FDAassertionsthatrawmilkis“inherentlydangerous

andshouldnotbeconsumed”1serveasasmokescreen for legislation

thathelpscentralizethedairyindustryandeliminatecompetitionfrom

smallindependentfarmers.

Health officials frequently draw attention to studies claiming that

rawmilkhascausedillness—mostoftenissuingpressreleasesagainst

rawmilkduringoutbreakscausedbyotherfoods.Howeverasweshall

see,mostofthesepublishedreportsexhibitextremebiasonthepartof

investigators and contain numerous flaws. In fact, many studies claim-

ingthis“inherentlydangerous”foodasacauseofdiseaseactuallyexon-

eraterawmilkasaculprit.

RAWMILKISINHERENTLYSAFE

While government officials have painted raw milk as a dangerous

soupofpathogenicbacteria,agreatdealofobscure,peerreviewedre-

search has revealed a very different picture. After all, raw milk is the first

foodofeverymammalontheplanet.Thecalfthatisborninthemuck

andmanureimmediatelygetsupandbeginstosuckonitsmother’sun-

sanitary teat; likewise, the puppy crawls across filthy bedding to find its

mother’sunwashednipple.Ifrawmilkisaninherentlydangerousfood,

howisitthatthefamilyofmammalshassurvived?

Mammals including humans have survived because raw milk

contains multiple, redundant systems of bioactive components that

canreduceoreliminatepopulationsofpathogenicbacteriawhilealso

strengtheningtheimmunesystemofthesucklinginfant.

Earlyresearchersrecognizedfactorsresponsibleforthegermicidal

propertyofrawmilk,asdescribedinthe1935textbookFundamentals

of Dairy Science.2In1938,researchersfoundthatrawmilkwouldnot

supportthegrowthofawiderangeofpathogens,notingthatheatedmilk

supportsthegrowthofharmfulbacteriabyinactivating“inhibins.”3

Todaywehavedetailedknowledgeaboutthese“inhibins.”Thetwo

majorcomponents,which formthebackboneof thisamazingsystem,

are the enzymes lactoperoxidase and lactoferrin. The lactoperoxidase


enzymeusessmallamountsoffreeradicalstoseekoutanddestroybad

bacteria.4 It is found inallmammaliansecretions including tearsand

saliva.5Levelstendtobehigherinanimalmilk—goatmilkcontainsten

timesmorelactoperoxidasethanhumanmilk.6Soeffectiveislactoper-

oxidase at killing pathogens that officials in other countries are explor-

ingthepossibilitiesofusinglactoperoxidaseforensuringthesafetyof

otherfoods,andevenasanalternativetopasteurization.7

Peroxidase enzymes such as lactoperoxidase are common in the

livingtissuesofplantsandanimalsandplayanimportantroleininnate

immunitytoinfection.Theyareharmlesstoanimalandplanttissuebut

stronglyinhibitthebacterialmembraneenzymesthatarecriticaltobac-

terialsurvival.Theseenzymesinitiatetheproductionofpowerfuloxidiz-

ingagents(peroxides),whicharebasedonsulphurgroups.

Lactoperoxidase was discovered in milk one hundred years ago

when cheesemakers observed that at certain times of the year start-

erbacteriaadded tomilkwouldnotwork.This tookplaceduring the

bloomingofcertaingrasseshighinsulphurcompounds,whichareread-

ilyoxidizedtothiocyanatesbylactoperoxidase.Thethiocyanatesformed

aresostronglyantimicrobial,theyinhibitnotonlythepathogenicand

spoilagebacteriabutalsothelacticacidbacteriausedbythecheesemak-

ers.8

Thesecondmajorantimicrobialenzymeinmilkislactoferrin,which

worksbystealingironawayfrompathogensandcarryingitthroughthe

gutwall intothebloodstream.Thus,thisenzymedoesadoubleduty,

killingoffawiderangeiron-lovingpathogenswhilehelpingtheinfantto

absorballtheironcontainedinthemilk.Inaddition,lactoferrinstimu-

latestheimmunesystem.9

AccordingtoarecentreviewintheJournal of Experimental Ther-

apeutics and Oncology, lactoferrin exhibits fungistatic, bacteriostatic,

bactericidalandantiviralpropertiesandinhibitsthegrowthofparasites.

It is effective against E. coli, S. typhimurium, Bacillus subtilis, Pseu-

domonas aeruginosa,Vibrio cholerae,Haemophilus influenzae,S. au-

reus,Klebsiella pneumoniae,Candida albicans,Candida crusei,Tinea

pedis, Toxoplasma gondii, Plasmodium falciparum, Herpes simplex,

hepatitisCvirus,humanpapillomavirusandvariousotherpathogens.


It is not effective against beneficial bacteria such as bifidobacteria and

lactobacillusspecies.10

One of the main iron-loving pathogens is the tuberculosis bacil-

lus. In a study involving mice bred to be susceptible to tuberculosis,

treatment with lactoferrin significantly reduced the burden of TB or-

ganisms.11 Another iron-loving microorganism is Candida albicans, a

yeastubiquitouslypresentinthedigestivetract,whichcancauseserious

health problems when conditions favor its overgrowth. Mice injected

withCandida albicanshad increasedsurvival timewhentreatedwith

lactoferrin.11Otherresearchindicatesthatlactoferrincanbeusedtocut

visceralfatlevelsbyasmuchasfortypercent,andthatthecompound

has many other health benefits.12Youcanevenpurchaselactoferrinasa

supplement—or benefit from its actions simply by drinking raw milk.

In 2004, the FDA approved lactoferrin for use as an anti-

microbialspraytocombatvirulentE. coli O157:H7contaminationinthe

meatindustry!TheFDApressreleasepraisedtheproductasaninnova-

tivewaytoprotectthenationfromfood-borneillness.“Innovativetech-

nologyisacriticalbuildingblockinpreservingthestrongfoundationof

theU.S.foodsupply,”saidDr.LesterCrawford,DeputyCommissioner

of the Food and Drug Administration. “We must continue to encour-

age scientific research and new technology to maintain this nation’s safe

foodsupply.”13

Since the dawn of mammalian history, nature has provided this

“innovative technology” to nursing infants to protect their vulnerable

andsensitivedigestivesystemsfromtheinsultsofinvadingpathogens.

Perhaps this is one reason why responsibly handled raw milk rarely

leadstogenuinecasesoffood-borneillness.

Physiciansfromearliertimesoftenreferredtomilkaswhiteblood,

adesignationthatmodernscienceprovestobecorrect.Akeyplayerin

raw milk’s anti-microbial and immune support system is white blood

cells,orleukocytes,exactlythesameasthosefoundinblood.Leukocytes

formthebasisofmilk’ssafetynet,consumingforeignbacteria,yeasts

andmolds.Theyalsoproducehydrogenperoxidetoactivatethelacto-

peroxidasesystemandanaerobiccarbondioxide,whichblocksaerobic

microorganisms.14 Raw milk contains B-lymphocytes, a type of white


blood cell that aids the immune system by producing specific antibodies;

macrophages,whichengulfforeignproteinsandbacteria;neutrophils,

whichkillinfectedcellsandstimulatetheimmunesystem;T-lympho-

cytes,whichmultiplywhenbadbacteriaarepresentandproduce im-

mune-strengtheningcompounds;andimmunoglobulins(IgM,IgA,IgG1

andIgG2),orantibodies,whichtransferimmunityfromtheanimalpro-

ducingthemilktotheanimalorpersonconsumingthemilk,especially

incolostrum.15

Many other components in raw milk play the dual roles of fighting

pathogensandsupportingtheimmunesystem.Theseincludepolysac-

charides,whichencouragethegrowthofgoodbacteria in thegutand

protectthegutwall;oligosaccharides,whichprotectothercomponents

inrawmilkfromdestructionbyenzymesandstomachacidswhilepre-

venting bacteria from attaching to the gut lining; medium-chain fatty

acids,whichdisruptthecellwallsofpathogenswhilestrengtheningthe

immune system; lysozymes and other enzymes that disrupt bacterial

cellwalls;hormonesandgrowthfactors,whichstimulatematurationof

gut cells and prevent “leaky gut;” fibronectin, which increases the anti-

microbial activity of macrophages and helps repair damaged tissues; B12

-

bindingprotein,whichinhibitsbacterialgrowthinthecolonbyreducing

levels of vitamin B12

, while also helping the infant absorb all the B12

inthe

milk; glucomacropeptide, which inhibits bacterial and viral adhesion,

suppresses gastric secretion and promotes the growth of beneficial bac-

teria; bifidus factor, which promotes the growth of Lactobacillus bifidus,

oneofthehelpfulbacteriafamiliesthatcrowdoutdangerousmicroor-

ganisms;andthelactobacillithemselves,whichproliferateinrawmilk

overtimeandcrowdoutbadbacteria.16

Allthesefactorsworktogethertoinactivatepathogens“individu-

ally,additivelyandsynergistically,”asoneresearcherputit.17Thesepro-

tective factors“cantargetmultipleearlysteps inpathogenreplication

andtargeteachstepwithmorethanoneantimicrobialcompound.”At

thesametime,thesecompoundsworktostrengthentheimmunesystem

andthegutwall.

Ofcourse,thismarveloussynergisticsystemcanbeoverwhelmed

if milk is produced in filthy conditions, but when the cows are healthy


andtheproductionmethodsclean,theyensureaproductthatisinher-

entlysafe.

Pasteurization largely wipes out these numerous protective fac-

tors,inactivatingthevariousleukocytes,antibodies,enzymesandbind-

ing proteins, while reducing the activity of medium-chain fatty acids,

lysozymes, oligosaccharides, hormones and growth factors, and benefi-

cial bacteria. Ultrapasteurization—most milk is ultrapasteurized these

days—inactivateslysozyme,andallbutthemediumchainfattyacidsare

inactivatedininfantformula.18

Lactoperoxidaselosesbiologicalactivityat178degreesFahrenheit.

Itthereforesurvivespasteurization(about160degreesFahrenheit)but

nottheultra-highheattreatment(UHT)of230degreesFahrenheitused

in the production of today’s long-life milks. However, even at regular

pasteurizationtemperatures,lactoperoxidasewillbegreatlyreducedin

potencybecausepasteurizationpartiallydestroysthehydrogenperoxide

presentinthemilkandalsodestroysthetwosystemsthatgeneratehy-

drogenperoxide,namelyleukocytesandlacticacidbacteria.19

Inapublicationdenouncingtheconsumptionofrawmilk,theFDA

citesonestudyclaimingthatpasteurizationdoesnotinactivatelactofer-

rin.20 But the authors of this study used not milk but purified lactoferrin,

with its iron component removed. Although lactoferrin is more heat-

stable when the iron is removed, accomplishing this removal of iron

requires incubating purified lactoferrin with citric acid at 41 degrees

Fahrenheit for twenty-four hours and running it through a gel filtration

system.Sucha“lactoferrinproduct”bearsverylittleresemblancetothe

lactoferrininrawmilk.

In1977,researchersshowedthattheoriginallower-temperature,

longer-timepasteurizationofhumanmilkat145degreesFahrenheitfor

thirty minutes destroys sixty-five percent of the lactoferrin.21Theydid

not evaluate the antibacterial efficacy of the remaining thirty-five per-

cent,whichmayhavebeendamagedorcompletelydestroyed.Heating

human milk to 185 degrees Fahrenheit for fifteen minutes caused ninety-

sixpercentdestructionofitslactoferrin.Again,wedonotknowwhether

theremainingfourpercentretaineditsantibacterialpotency.(Remem-

ber,ultrapasteurizationtakesmilktoevenhighertemperatures.)


Thus,pasteurizationlargely inactivatesrawmilk’sbuilt-insafety

system.Proofofrawmilk’santi-microbialpropertiescomesfromwhat

areknownas“challengetests,”wherepathogensareaddedtorawmilk

andthenmonitoredovertime.Forexample,whenthepathogencam-

pylobacter is added to raw milk, the levels decrease—in chilled milk

from thirteen thousand per milliliter to less than ten per milliliter in

ninedays.Atroomtemperature,thedeclineisevenmorerapid.22Inone

study,researcherscreditedtheactionoflactoperoxidaseinkillingadded

fungalandbacterialagents,butdecline inpathogennumbers ismost

likelydue to thewholecomplexofantimicrobial factors.23Recently in

California, Organic Pastures Dairy Company subjected their raw milk

andcolostrumtochallengetestsmonitoredbyanindependentlabora-

tory.Pathogencountsdeclinedover timeand insomecaseswereun-

detectable within a week. The laboratory concluded, “Raw colostrum

andrawmilkdonotappeartosupportthegrowthofsalmonella,E. coli

O157:H7orListeria monocytogenes.”24

Milk’santi-microbialpropertiescanbeveryfrustratingtoresearch-

ers.In1985,ateamofscientiststriedtoblamerawmilkforanoutbreak

ofCampylobacter jejuniinavillagewherevirtuallyeveryonedrankraw

milkfromasinglefarm.Theyfoundtheorganisminrubbishheapsand

watering holes, but not in the milk or milk filters. Frustrated with this

result,theyculturedsamplesrightonthefarminsteadofcarryingthem

in sterile containers to a sterile working space in the laboratory as is

usually done, and the milk and milk filters proved contaminated. They

claimedthereasontheyhadtoculturethemilkonthefarmwasbecause

theC. jejuniwasunable to tolerate the“naturalantibacterialeffectof

freshmilk”fortheseveralhoursittooktotransportthemilktothelab,

buttheyofferednoexplanationofhowthemilkcouldhavemadeany-

onesickifalltheC. jejuniwithinitdiedwithinhoursofmilking.When

they tried quantifying two of the positive samples after some unspecified

time,themilkturnedupnegative.Whentheytriedsubtypingtwoother

samplessoonaftercollection,theyfailedbecausethebacteriacouldnot

survive long enough for them to finish the procedure.25

Pasteurizedmilkwillnotpassthesechallengetests.Shouldpatho-

genscontaminatepasteurizedmilk,verylittleoftheprotectivesystem


remainstokeepthemincheck.Andsincepasteurizedmilkcomesfrom

largefactorieswithwidedistributionnetworks,contaminatedpasteur-

izedmilkoftenresultsinhundredsifnotthousandsofillnessesandeven

afewdeaths,asweshallsee.

RAW VERSUS PASTEURIZED BREAST MILK

Muchoftheresearchthathasrevealedtheamazinganti-microbial

andimmunesupportivepropertiesofrawmilkhasbeencarriedouton

humanmilk.However,thesediscoveriesapplytothemilkofallmam-

mals;infact,aswehaveseen,protectivecomponentssuchaslactoper-

oxidaseareoftenhigherinthemilkofanimals.

Human milk requires the same antimicrobial system as animal

milk because human milk is not pathogen-free. The notion that hu-

maninfantssuckledasterileproduct,asscientistsformanyyearsbe-

lieved,hasgivenwaytotherealizationthathumanmilkcontainsmany

pathogens.Forexample,scientistsinFinlanddetectedseveralstrainsof

Staphylococcus aureus,“knownasacausativeagentofmaternalbreast

infections and neonatal infections” in human breast milk samples.26

Scientists in Canada report that breast milk “is a body fluid capable of

transmittingblood-bornepathogenswheningested.”27

Infact,inascreeningprogramforexpressedbreastmilkinChina,

testingrevealed“thealarmingfactthatourstudygrouphadthehigh-

est rate of contamination ever reported.”28 Pathogenic bacteria in the

milk included enterococci and Staphylococcus aureus. The research

teamspeculatedthatthehighrateofcontamination“couldbeduetothe

Chinesetraditionofavoidingbathingforonemonthafterchildbirth.”

Apparently,mother’smilkpicksupnumerouspathogensfromtheskin;

andonetheoryholdsthatimmunesignalsforpathogensarealsotrans-

ferredtobreastmilkviaductsthatconnectwiththedigestivetract.29

Theprotectivefactorsinmilkinhibitnotonlyexistingpathogens

butalso“anticipatenewmutationsandnewpathogens...”30Theimmu-

nological factor IgA, for example “appears to reflect long-term maternal

immunologicmemory.”31ThisexplainstheChinesewisdom—shocking

toinvestigators—ofnotbathingforamonthaftergivingbirth.Whenthe

infantsucklesmilkcontainingpathogens,theimmunologicalfactorsin


thatsamemilkcanprogramtheinfantforprotectionagainstamyriad

ofpathogens,andcanprotecthimforlife!Thesestudiescanonlyinspire

aweandwonderattheexquisiteprocessesthatsupportbiologicallife.

Otherstudiesonhumanmilkshowthatheatingreducestheability

ofmilktoprotectagainstinfections.In1984,researchersinIndiacar-

riedoutarandomizedcontrolledtrialinvolvingtwohundredtwenty-six

high-risknewborns,givencombinationsof formulaandrawandpas-

teurizedhumanmilk.Thehighestrateofinfectionoccurredinthegroup

given pasteurized human milk plus formula (thirty-three percent).

Thosegivenrawhumanmilkplusformulahadasixteenpercentrateof

infectionandthosegivenpasteurizedhumanmilkalonehadjustovera

fourteenpercentrateofinfection.Thelowestrateofinfectionwasabout

tenpercentinthegroupgivenrawhumanmilkonly.32

Scientists in Africa looked at ways of storing human milk. No

growthofpathogenswasobservedinrawhumanmilkstoredfourhours

at high temperature (eighty-six to one hundred degrees Fahrenheit),

eight hours at room temperature (fifty nine to eighty-one degrees Fahr-

enheit)andtwenty-fourhoursatrefrigeratortemperature(thirty-nine

to fifty degrees Fahrenheit).33 They concluded that “although freezing

temperature(thirty-twotothirty-ninedegreesFahrenheit)seemedsaf-

estforbreastmilkstorage,short-termstorageinafreezerwasnotrec-

ommendedduetothelikelyhazardsofthethawingprocess.”Another

studyfoundthatrawhumanmilkwassafeforhumanconsumptionfor

uptoseventy-twohoursrefrigerated.34Longer-termstoragebyfreezing

didnotcausesafetyproblems.

Unfortunately,humanmilkdonatedtobreastmilkbanksisrou-

tinelypasteurizedbeforefreezing,therebydestroyingthemanyprotec-

tivemechanismsthathumanmilkcanconferonprematurebabies.And

accidentsdohappen.ArecentoutbreakofPseudomonas aeruginosain

aneonatalintensivecareunitcausedbyacontaminatedmilkbankpas-

teurizerresultedinthirty-onecasesofinfectionandfourdeaths.35

Pasteurizationnotonlycompromisesthesafetyofbreastmilk,it

alsocompromisesitsnutritionalvalue.Forexample,researchersin1986

publishedarandomizedcontrolledstudytoassesstheeffectofpasteur-

ization of breast milk on the growth of very-low-birth-weight infants.


Infants bottle fed untreated milk from their own mothers grew more

rapidlythanthosefedpasteurizedpooledpretermmilk.36Anotherstudy

carriedoutinthesameyearalsofoundreasonsforconcernabouttheef-

fectofheatsterilizingbreastmilk.Researcherscomparedtheresultsof

feedingpooledpasteurizedbreastmilkwiththeirownuntreatedmoth-

er’s milk to very-low-birth-weight babies. Those receiving unpasteur-

ized human milk had significantly more rapid weight gain. Researchers

attributedthelowerweightgaininbabiesfedpasteurizedhumanmilk

tothedestructionoflipase,anenzymeneededtoutilizemilkfat.37

Fromastudypublishedin1977welearn:“Humanmilkwassub-

jectedtoheattreatmentsofgradedseverityandexaminedforitscontent

of immunoglobulins, lactoferrin, lysozyme, vitamin B12

-andfolate-bind-

erproteins,andlactoperoxidase.Holderpasteurization[146degreesF

for30minutes]reducedtheIgAtiterby20percent,anddestroyedthe

smallcontentofIgMandmostofthelactoferrin.Lysozymewasstable

to this treatment,butwithan increase in temperature therewaspro-

gressive destruction, to near 100 percent at 212 degrees F. The same

wasbroadlytrueofthecapacityofmilktobindfolicacidandprotectit

against bacterial uptake; with vitamin B12

thebinderwasmorelabileat

167degreesFthanat212degreesF.The[heat-treated]milkcontained

nodetectablelactoperoxidase.”38

Government officials widely support giving raw milk to infants—as

longasthatrawmilkishumanbreastmilk.Accordingtoadocument

postedattheCentersforDiseaseContolwebsite,“Mother’smilkisthe

safest food for young infants. Breastfeeding prevents salmonellosis and

manyotherhealthproblems.”Yetthesamewebsitecontainsthefollow-

ingwarningagainstsalmonella:“Cookpoultry,groundbeef,andeggs

thoroughlybeforeeating.Donoteatordrinkfoodscontainingraweggs,

orrawunpasteurizedmilk.”39Formotherswhoareunabletobreastfeed

forwhateverreason,orwhosimplychoosenottodoso,thelogicalalter-

nativeishomemadeformulabasedonrawmilkfromanothermammal,

but official government policy adamantly opposes giving raw milk from

animals to infants, recommending manufactured formula instead, a

product that is highly synthetic and which has its own safety issues. Be-

tween 1982 and 1994 alone, there were twenty-two significant recalls of


infantformulaintheUnitedStatesduetohealthandsafetyproblems.40

(Formoreoninfantformulabasedonrawmilk,seeChapter16.)

Thus,whileresearchonhumanmilkhasrevealednumerouspro-

tective components in raw milk, the bureaucrats in our government

agenciesaremiredinforty-year-oldscience.Nexttimeoneoftheseun-

enlightenedsoulstellsyouthatthemilkyougiveyourchildrenhastobe

pasteurizedfortheirprotection,askthemwhetherthepathogen-loaded

breastmilkmothersgivetheirinfantsneedstobepasteurizedaswell.

THEDANGERSOFPASTEURIZEDMILK

Public health officials claim that pasteurization is “the only way to

ensurethatmilkissafetodrink.”Indeed,milkingeneral—bothpasteur-

izedandraw—isaparticularlysafefood.Forexample,in1997,milkand

milkproductsaccountedforonlytwo-tenthsofonepercentofallreport-

edcasesoffood-borneillness.41Barring post-pasteurization contamina-

tion,residualamountsofprotectivefactorsthatremainafterpasteuri-

zationareprobablyadequatetocombatmostheat-resistantpathogens

foundincommercialmilk.

Nevertheless, pasteurized milk sometimes causes illness, and

when it does, the outbreak usually involves many individuals. A 1976

outbreakofYersina enterocoliticafrompasteurizedchocolatemilksick-

enedthirty-sixchildren,sixteenofwhomrequiredappendectomies.42In

1982,thesameorganismsickenedseventeenthousandpasteurizedmilk

consumersinseveralstates.Thetaintedmilkwastracedtoapasteur-

izingplantinMemphis,Tennessee.43A1983outbreakofListeria mono-

cytogenessickenedforty-ninepeopleinMassachusettsandcausedfour-

teendeaths.44Almosttwohundredthousandindividualsmayhavebeen

sickenedfromtheoutbreakofSalmonella typhimuriumthattookplace

intheMidwestin1984-85,45discussedinChapter12.

Duringthe1990s,themostseriousincidentsincludedanoutbreak

causing over two thousand Salmonella enteritidis illnesses from pas-

teurizedicecreaminMinnesota,SouthDakotaandWisconsin46andan

outbreakofYersina enterocoliticainpasteurizedmilkthatsickenedten

children,threeofwhomwerehospitalized.47

Andtherehavebeenrecentoutbreaksaswell.In2000,Salmonella


typhimurimfrompasteurizedmilksickenedalmostonehundredindi-

vidualsinPennsylvaniaandNewJersey.48Campylobacter jejunifrom

pasteurized milk sickened two hundred inmates in a Colorado prison

in 200549 and almost sixteen hundred inmates in a California prison

in2006.50 In2007, threepeople inMassachusettsdied fromListeria

monocytogenesinpasteurizedmilk.51YetnoonefromtheFDAorother

governmentagenciesdescribespasteurizedmilkas“inherentlydanger-

ous”orcallsforitsremovalfromthemarketplace.

THEDANGERSOFOTHERFOODS

AccordingtoaCenterforScienceinthePublicInterest(CSPI)re-

port,between1990and2004thefollowingoutbreaksoccurred:

31,496illnesses,639outbreaksfromproduce

16,280illnesses,541outbreaksfrompoultry

13,220illnesses,467outbreaksfrombeef

11,027illnesses,341outbreaksfromeggs

9,969illnesses,984outbreaksfromseafood

The largest percentage of outbreaks came from seafood (thirty-

threepercentofthetotal)whilethelargestpercentageofillnessescame

fromproduce(thirty-eightpercentofthetotal).Whiledairyfoods(both

pasteurizedandraw)contributetolessthanonepercentofallreported

food-borneillnesses,theriskfromotherfoodsislarge.52

AccordingtoRobertTauxe,CDCChiefoftheFood-borneandDi-

arrhreal Diseases Branch, food-borne pathogens such as campylobacter,

E. coli O157:H7, Yersina enterocolitica, cryptosporidium and listeria,

have emerged only within the past twenty-five years. In contrast, the

five pathogens that plagued the early decades of the 1900s, when pas-

teurization was implemented, those causing brucellosis, botulism, ty-

phoidfever,trichinosisandcholera,combinedaccountforonlyoneone-

hundredthpercentoffood-borneillnessestoday.Mostofthoseareas-

sociatedwithforeigntravel.53

Tauxereportsthatthirteenrecentlyemergedpathogensarerespon-

sibleforamajorityoftheseventy-sixmillioncasesoffood-borneillness,


three hundred thousand hospitalizations, and five thousand deaths an-

nually,andheestimatesthatoneinfourAmericansexperiencesafood-

borneillnesseveryyear.Thefollowingaresomemajorpathogensand

theirreportedcasesperannum:

Campylobacter 1,963,000

Salmonella 1,342,000

E. Coli O157:H7 92,000

Yersina enterocolitica 87,000

Listeria 2,000

The majority of food-borne illness is caused by Norwalk-like vi-

ruses(noroviruses),whichaccountforoverninemillioncasesperyear.

Thesevirusesareresistanttobothfreezingandhightemperatures.CDC

currentlydoesnotconductactivesurveillancetomonitoroutbreaksof

gastroenteritiscausedbynoroviruses.

Many factors common to modern life explain the emergence of

thesenewpathogens—overuseandmisuseofantibiotics,crowdedfeed-

lots,low-qualityandlow-costanimalfeed,globalizationofthefoodsup-

ply,andreducedhumanimmunityduetopoornutrition.

TheCSPIstatisticsmaybeanunderestimation.Eggscontaminat-

edwithsalmonella—welookedathownearlyalleggsareproducedin

Chapter11—aresaidbysomeauthoritiestosickenthreehundredthou-

sand and kill hundreds of Americans each year.54 A nationwide study

publishedbytheUSDAin1996foundthatoversevenpercentofground

beef samples taken at processing plants were contaminated with sal-

monella and almost twelve percent were contaminated with listeria.55

Incontrastwiththesituationinthiscountry,Swedenbeganaprogram

overfortyyearsagotoeliminatesalmonellafromitslivestock,andonly

aboutone-tenthofonepercentofSwedishcattleharborsalmonellato-

day.SalmonellahasalsobeenalmostcompletelyeliminatedfromSwed-

isheggs.56

It’snotjustsalmonellaandlisteriathattaintAmericanmeatand

processed foods. Thirty percent of ground beef samples taken at pro-

cessing plants were contaminated with the pathogen Staphylococcus


aureus andoverhalfwithClostridium perfringens.“Allofthesepatho-

genscanmakepeoplesick,”wroteEricSchlosserinFast Food Nation.

“Food poisoning caused by Listeria generally requires hospitalization

and proves fatal in about one out of every five cases. In the USDA study,

78.6percentofthegroundbeefcontainedmicrobesthatarespreadpri-

marily by fecal material. The medical literature on the causes of food

poisoning is full of euphemisms and dry scientific terms: coliform levels,

aerobic plate counts, sorbitol, MacConkey agar and so on. Behind them

liesasimpleexplanationforwhyeatingahamburgercannowmakeyou

seriouslyill:Thereisshitinthemeat.”57

Andit’salsoinwhitemeat.Overseventypercentofchickensam-

plestestedinWashington,DCgrocerystoresin1999-2000cameback

positive for campylobacter; almost fifteen percent of turkey samples

contained the pathogen. By contrast, the same survey found that less

thantwopercentofporksamplestestedpositivefortheorganismand

onlyone-halfpercentofbeefsamples.58

Organisms that cause illness are ubiquitous—and tenacious.

E. coli and Salmonella enteritidis can survive on coins for a week or

more,andSalmonella enteritidis can survive on glass or Teflon for up to

seventeendays.59

Milk substitutes also harbor pathogens. A 1998 survey found five

typesofmicroorganismsinfourbrandsofstoredsoymilksamples.Dur-

ingstorageatforty-onedegreesFahrenheit,microbialcountsincreased

sharplyaftertwotothreeweeks.60Dry,powderedfoodsarenotsafeei-

ther.A1978survey foundsalmonella inmany“health food”products

including soy flour, soy protein powder and soy milk powder.61

The same thing that contaminates our meat and eggs—manure

from confinement animal operations—is also a major source of con-

tamination in fruitsandvegetables.Documentedoutbreaksofhuman

infections associated with consumption of raw fruits, vegetables and

unpasteurizedfruit juiceshaveincreaseddramatically inrecentyears.

AccordingtotheCentersforDiseaseControlandPrevention,intheU.S.

the number of reported produce-related outbreaks per year doubled

betweentheperiod1973-1987and1988-1992.Theseincludesalmonel-

losislinkedtotomatoes,seedsprouts,cantaloupe,applejuice,andor-


angejuice;Escherichia coli O157:H7 infectionassociatedwithlettuce,

sproutsandapplejuice;enterotoxigenicE. colilinkedtocarrots;shig-

ellosislinkedtolettuce,scallionsandparsley;choleralinkedtostraw-

berries;parasiticdiseases linkedtoraspberries,basilandapplecider;

hepatitisAviruslinkedtolettuce,raspberriesandfrozenstrawberries;

andNorwalkorNorwalk-likeviruslinkedtomelon,saladandcelery.62

In1997,fruits,vegetablesandsaladcontributedtothirty-sixoutbreaks

comparedtoonlynineforchicken,threeforeggsandtwoformilk.63

Inthefallof2006,aparticularlyvirulentoutbreakofE. coli O157:

H7tracedtospinachgrowninCalifornia’sSalinasValleysickenedover

twohundredindividualsandcausedthreedeaths.61Thiswasfollowedby

alettuceoutbreakthatmadeseventy-onepeopleill.65Inbothoutbreaks,

manypeopleendedupinthehospital,mostwithbloodydiarrhea,but

in a few cases, the bacteria released toxins into the bloodstream that

causedthekidneysandotherorganstoshutdown.

Investigators noted that potential environmental risk factors for

E. coli contamination at or near the fields included the presence of wild

pigs,theproximityofirrigationwellsusedtogrowproduceforready-to-

eatpackagingandsurfacewaterwaysexposedtofecesfromcattleand

wildlife.66In other words, infected manure from animals and wildlife

wasthelikelycauseoftheoutbreak.Andthemostlikelysourceofin-

fectedmanure—whichisusedasfertilizerandalsoendsupinwellwater

and irrigation water—is confinement animal operations, including con-

finement dairy operations.

The Centers for Disease Control cites increased consumption of

fruits and vegetables, which Americans are urged to eat as “part of a

healthydiet,”asafactorinthehugeincreaseinfood-borneillnessfrom

plant foods. There are no requirements for pasteurizing these foods

we’re supposed to eat more of; in fact, consumers are encouraged to

eatthemraw.FDAadvisesconsumersthatallproduceshouldbethor-

oughlywashedbeforeitiseaten,butinthelatestoutbreaks,washingthe

producewouldnothavepreventedillness.That’sbecausethesebacteria

cangrowinsidetheleavesoflettuce,spinachandothervegetablesand

fruit,wheresurfacetreatmentscannotreach.Inaddition,microbescan

organize themselves into tightly knit communities called biofilms,which


coatfruitsandvegetablesandprotectthebacteriafromwaterandanti-

microbialsolutions.67

Therawmilkmovementprovidesarealsolutiontotheproblemof

food-borneillness—becauserawmilkconsumersmakesuretheirmilk

comesfromsmall,pasture-basedfarmsandhealthyanimalsunlikelyto

harborpathogensandunlikelytocontributetowaterpolution;andbe-

causerawmilkbuildsimmunitytodisease-causingorganismsthatare

simplyanaturalpartoftheworldinwhichwelive.

REPORTS OF ILLNESS FROM RAW MILK: A HISTORY OF BIAS

Soifrawmilkisinherentlysafe,whydowesooftenhearthatraw

milk causes illness? What about all the reports in the scientific literature

linkingoutbreaksofdiseasetorawmilk?Theanswerliesintheattitude

of bias against raw milk held by most scientists and government offi-

cials. So ingrained is this prejudice that researchers may not even be

awareoftheirlackofimpartiality.Yetacarefulreadingofthepublished

literaturerevealsalonghistoryofunfoundedassumptions,inappropri-

atesamplingtechniquesandtorturedconclusionsusedtobuildacase

against raw milk. Often a single biased report that finds an association

ofrawmilkwithillness—andanassociationisnotthesameasaproven

cause—serves as justification for shutting down a raw milk dairy or pass-

ingmorerestrictivelaws.Infact,thepatternofrawmilk“incident”lead-

ingtorestrictionofaccesstorawmilkhappenssofrequentlythatsome

rawmilkactivistshaveraisedthespectreofdeliberatesabotage.

Formanyyears,thestateofGeorgiawasarawmilkstate,duein

largeparttothepersistenceofMathisDairyinDekalb,oneofthelast

certified raw milk dairies in the country. Numerous attempts to pass

legislationagainstrawmilkinthestatehadfailed,thankstothepopu-

larity of the dairy and its iconic mascot, Rosebud the cow. But a 1983

outbreakofcampylobacterinAtlantagaveauthoritiestheammunition

theyneeded.Rawmilkwasbanned inGeorgiaasa resultof the inci-

dent.Thereportontheoutbreak,publishedintheAmerican Journal of

Epidemiology, noted that “extensive testing failed to find campylobacter

oranyotherpathogensinanymilkproductsfromthedairy.Allsafety

measureshadbeenfollowedfaithfully.”Yettheauthorsconcluded,“The


onlymeansavailabletoensurethepublic’shealthwouldbeproperpas-

teurizationbeforeconsumption.”68Ironically,thisstudywaspublished

shortly before the massive 1984-85 outbreak traced to a pasteurizing

plantinMelrosePark,Illinois,inwhichalmosttwohundredthousand

midwesternersweresickenedbysalmonellafrompasteurizedmilk.

Raw milk sales are not allowed in the state of Wisconsin. But in

Juneof2000,theownersofClearviewAcresinSawyerCountystarted

acowshareprogramtomeettheburgeoningdemandforrawmilk.The

programhadapprovalfromtheWisconsinDepartmentofAgriculture,

Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP), which suggested a format

used by another state-authorized cow-share program in Wisconsin.

However, Clearview owners were not satisfied with the two-page con-

tract that DATCP suggested, finding that it did not contain enough pro-

vision for testing and safety. The revised contract allowed for greater

safetyprotocols,andtheprogramwassoonsupplyingmilktothreehun-

dredindividuals.

During a twelve-week period beginning November 10, 2001, an

outbreakofCampylobacter jejuni causeddiarrhea,abdominalcramps

and fever in hundreds of people in northwestern Wisconsin. Officials

blamedtheoutbreakontheconsumptionofrawmilk fromClearview

Acres, an accusation formalized in a DATCP report issued June 28,

2002andpostedontheCDCwebsite.69Accordingtoareport,seventy

out of seventy-five persons confirmed with the illness drank unpasteur-

izedmilkfromthedairy.

Theownersofthedairydidtheirownresearchbycontactingemer-

gencyroomsinthearea.Accordingtotheirestimates,thecampylobacter

infection afflicted as many as eight hundred individuals—most of whom

didnotdrinkrawmilk—throughoutnorthwestWisconsin.Reportsofill-

nesscontinuedforeightweeksafterprovisionofrawmilktocow-share

holdershadceased.

Only twenty-four of three hundred eighty-five cow-share owners

became ill—eight confirmed cases and sixteen probable family members

of the eight confirmed. Most of these had consumed hamburger at a lo-

calrestaurant.Noillnessoccurredintheremainingthreehundredsixty-

oneindividualsconsumingrawmilkfromClearviewAcresdairy.70


The discrepancy in government figures and those of Clearview

Acres was due to interview tactics by local officials. Afflicted individu-

alswhoshowedupatthenearest localhospitalwerequestionedasto

whetherornottheydrankrawmilk.Medicalpersonneltestedonlythose

whoansweredyes.Allothersweregivenanantibioticandsenthome

without further investigation—and thus not included in the official

countofthosewhogotsick.Reportsof illness inotherhospitalswere

ignored.

ClearviewAcreswasaGradeAdairywithanexcellenthistoryof

cleanliness.Infact,inOctober2001,ClearviewAcresreceivedthesec-

ondhighestratingofallfarmsreceivingfederalinspection.Therating

wasninety-nineoutofapossibleonehundred.Thedairyregularlytest-

editsmilkforthepresenceofpathogens.Alltests,includingthosefor

campylobacter,hadbeennegative.Duringtheoutbreak,DATCPtested

ClearviewAcresmilkforcampylobacterinstatelaboratoriesandclaimed

theresultswerepositive.ClearviewAcres’owntestswerenegative.

DocumentsreleasedinthecourtcaseinvolvingClearviewAcresin-

dicatethatthestateinstitutedanundercoveroperationshortlyafterthe

cow-shareprogrambegan,withtheexpresspurposeofshuttingdown

the operation. When state tests of Clearview Acres milk consistently

cameupnegative,thestateattemptedtotakeawaythefarm’sGradeA

permit,butwasstymiedforlackofjurisdiction.Finally,DATCPblamed

ClearviewAcresmilkonthelocalcampylobacteroutbreakandissueda

cease-and-desistorder.

Thebiasinsamplingtechniques,underreportingofwidespreadill-

ness,suspiciousresultsofthestate’scampylobactertestandthedocu-

mented clear intent on the part of officials to shut down the cow-share

operationwouldpreventanyhonestinvestigatorfromconcludingthat

the raw milk from Clearview Acres had caused the outbreak. Yet this

report still remains on the CDC website, and officials often cite the Wis-

consinoutbreakasanargumentagainsttheconsumptionofrawmilk.

Ohiohasprohibitedthesaleofrawmilksince1997withagrandfa-

therclauseallowinganyfarmerlicensedtosellrawmilkbefore1965to

continue.Thelastfarmtoholdarawmilkpermit,Young’sDairyinYel-

lowSprings,voluntarilygaveitupinJanuaryof2003afteranoutbreak


ofsalmonellathatsickenedforty-sevenpeople,sixteenofwhomworked

on the farm. The strain originated elsewhere in the state and officials

couldnotpositivelyattributetheproblemtoYoung’s.71Nevertheless,the

stateputconsiderablepressureonthedairy—threateningtotakeaway

theirGradeA licenseandclosedownthepasteurizedportionof their

business—whichthencloseddowntherawmilkportionoftheiropera-

tion.

Theoutbreakandsubsequentdecisionbythedairycamejustone

week after the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation voted to support an effort

aimedatpermittingmorepeopletosellrawmilk.Themajorityofthe

morethanfourhundreddelegates to thegroup’sannualmeetings,all

activeorretiredfarmersfromacrossthestate,statedthatfarmerswho

wantedtosellrawmilkshouldbeabletoobtainalicensetodoso.Then

cametheincidentatYoung’sDairy.Coincidence?Wethinknot.

LISTERIA AND RAW MILK: BUILDING A CASE IN PENNSYLVANIA

Listeria monocytogenes is a dangerous pathogen that can cause

fever,muscleachesandgastrointestinalsymptomssuchasnauseaand

diarrhea. But although raw milk has been blamed for many types of

illness,ithasnothistoricallybeenassociatedwithListeria monocyto-

genes (L. mono.).Inresponsetoafreedomof informationrequestby

theWestonA.PriceFoundation,submittedinearly2007,theCenters

forDiseaseControlprovideddataonrawmilkoutbreaksfortheperiod

1973-2005. The report listed no cases of food-borne illness from fluid

raw milk caused by listeria during the thirteen-year period.72 (There

wereanumberofcasesthatlinkedMexican-stylerawmilkcheesewith

listeria—moreonthislater.)

Suddenly, however, raw milk and listeria were in the news. On

April7,2007,thePennsylvaniaDepartmentofAgriculture(PDA)issued

apressreleasestatingthatrawmilkfromthefarmofClarkandElaine

DuncanhadtestedposiviveforL. mono.Themilkinspectorhadtaken

thesampleonMarch31andobtainedtheresultsonApril4.Uptothat

point,PDApolicyallowedrawmilksales tocontinueunlessasecond

milksamplealsocamebackpositive,butthenewheadofdairysafety,

Bill Chirdon, immediately suspended milk sales after the single negative


test.TheDuncanssentasampletoaprivatelabtheweekfollowingtheir

suspensionandthatcamebackpositiveaswell.However,therewereno

reportedillnessesfromthedairy’scustomers.

OnApril4,thesamedaytheDuncans’testresultscamebackposi-

tive,PDAtoldArnoldandEstherDillerofPineyRidgeFarminnorth-

western Pennsylvania that they were suspending their raw milk sales

becausetheirmilkhadtestedpositiveforlisteria.ArnoldDillersubse-

quentlysentasampletoanindependentlab,whichcamebacknegative.

As a condition for resuming sales on their farm, their inspector gave

themalistoftaskstoaccomplishforreinspection.Afterrepeatedlyfail-

ingtocleanapieceofmilkingequipmenttothesatisfactionofthein-

spector,theDillersturnedintheirlicensetoPDA.

TheDillershadobtainedtheirpermitnotlongbefore,in2006,in

responsetoincreasingconsumerdemand,andthusbecameoneofthe

fewpermittedrawmilkdairiesinwesternPennsylvania—mostPennsyl-

vaniadairiesholdingpermitsareintheeasternpartofthestate.Some

oftheDillers’customerspickedupthemilkatalocalhealthfoodstore.

Shortlybeforethestate’spositivelisteriatests,aPennsylvaniafoodand

safetyinspectorwitnessedtherawmilkinawalk-incoolerandvoiced

disapproval,eventhoughnolawprohibitsthepractice.Oneoftheircus-

tomers was a state representative who had earlier told PDA officials how

happyhewastobeabletogetrawmilkfromtheDillers.Inwhatseemed

likeanattempttodiscouragethelawmakerfromremainingacustomer,

thenightbeforePDAissuedthepressreleaseaboutthepositivetestre-

sults,theagencyfaxedacopyofittotherepresentative.

Notlongaftertheirsalesweresuspended,theDillersweretoldby

astateemployeefromHarrisburgthatiftheyvoluntarilygaveuptheir

rawmilklicense,theirproblemswiththestatewouldclearup.Instead,

theDillersre-applied,andinresponsetoconsiderablepressurefromthe

localchapterleaderoftheWestonA.PriceFoundation,whoinsistedon

a meeting with Bill Chirdon, their permit was reinstated—after consid-

erablefootdragging—inAugustof2008.

The most suspicious example of biased PDA policy involved the

Beulah Land Jersey Farm, owned by Dennis and Joanne Wenger. The

Wengers sold milk for pasteurization to Dairylea and also had a raw


milkpermit.OnApril8,bothU.S.Dairy(astate-approvedindependent

lab)andthePDAtooksamples fromthebulktank.Thenextday, the

milkhaulerforDairyleapickedupmilk.OnApril11,PDAinformedthe

Wengersthattheirtestwas“presumptivepositive”for listeriaandre-

quested they discontinue selling raw milk. Additionally, the PDA test

resultsshowedasomaticcellcount(SCC)ofoveronemillion.OnApril

14, the PDA called to say that the test had confirmed “positive” for liste-

ria and that they would have to discontinue raw milk sales. By this time

theWengershadreceivedtheresultsfrombothU.S.DairyandDairylea

showingSCCundertwohundredthousand.TheWengersfaxedcopies

ofthesetestresultstoPDA.

On April 15, 16 and 17, MicroBac (another state-approved inde-

pendentlab)cametothefarmtotakesamplesfromthebulktankfor

listeriatesting.OnApril16,DennisWengercalledtwostatesenatorsto

informthemaboutthelargediscrepancyinsomaticcellcountsbetween

PDA’stestresultsandthoseofU.S.DairyandDairylea.Laterthatday,

Mr. Wenger received a call from Bill Chirdon, who insisted that the PDA

laboratories“nevermadeamistake.”

After some discussion, Chirdon offered to retest the Beulah Land

JerseyFarmmilk.Thenextday,onApril17,thestatecametotakesam-

ples.TheSCCtestresultsforthissamplewereconsiderablylowerthan

the first PDA test but still much higher than those obtained by the other

twolabs.

OnSaturday,April19,theWengersreceivedthetestresultsfrom

the first sample taken by MicroBac—negative for listeria. On the follow-

ing Monday, the state lab made a highly unusual call to MicroBac to

find out the results of the Wengers’ samples. MicroBac refused to release

theinformationwithouttheWengers’consent.Thestatethencalledthe

Wengerstoinformthemthattheirsamplewasnegative.Thiswasfol-

lowed by a call from MicroBac saying that the second and third samples

hadalsotestednegative.PDAreinstatedtheWengers’rawmilkpermit

onApril22.

Itisimportanttostressthefactthatnotoneofthesedairies’cus-

tomersgotsickfromlisteria,inspiteofthePDA’spositivetestresults.

Yetpressreleaseslinkingrawmilkwithlisteriaremainongovernment


websites and now abound on the internet. The sudden advent of findings

raises the strong suspicion that the PDA wanted to build a case link-

ing raw milk with L. mono. where none existed before. As a result of

theseincidents,manyfarmershaveturnedintheirpermitsorhavenot

renewed them,andareclaiming theirconstitutional right tosellmilk

directly to consumers without a license. As Dennis Wenger stated, “I

never questioned the state inspection system before, but now I don’t

trustthematall.”

Health officials have withheld another important fact: microbi-

ologistscurrentlybelievethatonlyafewofthehundredsoftypesofL.

mono. areactually pathogenic.73Thus,when initial tests for L. mono.

comebackpositive, thosechargedwith testingprotocols forrawmilk

should stipulate further tests to determine the specific strain. Unfortu-

nately, such testing is expensive and never definitive. Read on.

THE SOFT SCIENCE OF MICROBIOLOGICAL TESTING

Mostpeoplehaveahighregardforscience,andtheyassumethat

theresultsoflaboratorytestsareprecise—thattheyaretheTruthwith

acapitalT.However,inreality,microbiologicaltestingismoreartthan

science,andfraughtwithpitfalls.Everystepoftestingprocedurespro-

videsthepossibilityforerror:samplescanbecontaminated,mishandled

orevenmislabeledandanalyticalresultscanbemisleadingandmisin-

terpreted.Mostimportant,testingrequirespersonalskillandjudgment

that can significantly impact the ultimate results.

Microbiological testingmustaccomplishthreethings:determine

whether a bacterium is present; then determine the specific type of

bacteriumfromthousandsofotherswithsimilarcharacteristics;andif

present determine how many there are. In other words, find, distinguish

andcount.74

The typical laboratory technique for finding bacteria begins with

sample collection—which must be performed carefully to avoid con-

taminationandpreventthenumerouswaysinwhichthesample’scon-

tentmaybechanged.Thesampleistheninoculatedintoanenrichment

liquidtoencouragegrowthofcertainbacteriaandsuppressothers.To

isolate individual bacteria colonies, the enrichment liquid is streaked


across a petri dish containing nutrients solidified in agar. Standardized

careful streaking—usually done by hand—helps create individual bac-

teriacoloniescontainingthousandsofbacteriaandmakethemvisible.

Thistraditionalmeansof“isolation”isbasedontheideathatifspread

thinenough,eachseparatecolonywillgrowfromasinglebacterium.If

thereweredifferenttypesofbacteriainthesample,sothethinkinggoes,

eachwouldseparateoutanddevelopintoindividualcoloniesthatcould

be further tested for identification.

Countingofteninvolvesmakingcarefulserialdilutionssothatone

tubecontainslowenoughnumberstomakecountingpossible,andthen

performingseveraltestsoneach.Onetraditionalcountingtechniquere-

liesontablestodeterminethe“mostprobablenumber.”Forexample,if

thetablegivesacountofninety-threecolony-formingunitspermillili-

ter,thestatisticalanalysisacknowledgesthattheactualnumberinthis

examplecouldbeaslowaseighteenorashighasfourhundredtwenty.

Variabilityinresultsisconstantlypresent.Forexample,samples

takenfromthesamebulktankwillvaryaccordingtohowthesample

was collected, whether the milk was thoroughly stirred, whether the

sampleswerekeptintheinspector’spocket,howlongbeforethesample

wastestedandwhethertheyweretestedinthesameordifferentlabo-

ratories.Whencountingisperformedusinghighlyadvancedautomated

machines,additionalerrorscanbecommittedbythelabtechnician,or

resultfrommachinedysfunctionorincorrectcalibrationoftheequip-

ment.

Todeterminethetypeofbacteriapresentoncetheyhaveisolated

acolony,techniciansusevariousteststodetecttheproductionofame-

tabolite,gasorenzyme,achangeinpHorhemolysis(thebreakingopen

ofredbloodcells).Forexample,coliformcoloniesproducegasandturn

blue whena special compound isadded toamanufacturer’s specially

formulatedpetridish.

Thereareliterallyhundredsoftestkitsavailabletodeterminethe

kindofmicroorganismpresent,allintenselymarketedbythemanufac-

turers. If funding or patience is limited, wrong kit choices on the first few

attempts may result in a failure to identify the specific type of bacteria.

And as every step of the testing procedure must be defined and followed


exactly, and requires the personal skill, judgment and honesty of the

technician,opportunitiesforerrorarenumerous.Simpleclericalerror

inrecordingtestresultsisoneofthemostcommonsourcesofincorrect

results.

Andthenthereistheproblemofdeliberatebias.Asexplainedby

Dr. Ted Beals, a pathologist with many years of laboratory experience,

wheninvestigatorshavepreconceivedideasaboutwhattheyarelooking

for, they have ways of finding it. They can

s Stoppursuingaquestionassoonas theyget theanswer they

want;

s Keeptryinguntiltheygettheanswertheywant;

s Failtoadmittopossiblemisinterpretationiftheygettheanswer

theywant;

s Saynothingiftheydon’tgettheanswertheywant.

During the period of alleged L. mono. contamination described

earlier, officials from the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture spoke

with pride about their newly equipped state laboratory, which uses a

rapidtestingsystem,theVIDAS30,developedbythefoodindustry,to

get quick preliminary results. But even this system requires overnight

incubation of samples and specialized growth conditions, and often

further “gold standard” testing fails to confirm the results obtained by

therapidtestingsystem.Inaddition,theequipmentwasdevelopedby

theindustrytoerronthesideoffalsepositives.Thisisappropriatefor

internalqualitytestingbythefoodcompany.Forindustry,somefalse

positiveresultsforpathogensareacceptableusingtherapidtestingsys-

tem.Thefoodcompanycanthenplayitsafebywithholdingfoodfrom

distribution until further confirmation, or nonconfirmation, is obtained.

However,falsepositivepreliminaryresultsusedbyregulators,toforce

the shut down of a dairy operation before confirmation, is scientifically

inappropriateandcanbedevastatingtosmallfamilydairies.

Thereisalsothequestionofwhethersuchrapidtestingtechniques

areevenappropriateforuseonalivingfoodlikerawmilk,whichnatu-

rallycontainsbacteriathatcanconfuseamachineprogrammedtode-


tectashortlistofcharacteristicsthatmightbepresentinorganismsthat

donotcausedisease.Andstandardoperatingproceduresareextremely

specific for each test, each sample type and each type of equipment. Rap-

idtestingequipmentwasnotdevelopedforfreshrawmilkintendedfor

directconsumption.Ithasbeenstandardizedforrawmilkintendedfor

pasteurizationorpasteurizedmilk,soitisneitherfairpolicynorgood

sciencetousethesametestingprotocolforthetwoproducts.

Ifpreliminarytestresultsarepositive,suchasforlisteria,thelabo-

ratorythenusesaculturingtechniqueintendedtosuppressthegrowth

ofanythinginthecultureotherthanbacterialikelisteria.Thisisafair

testifthemilkispasteurized,becausepasteurizedmilkisadeadfood

withnogoodbacteriatoout-competepathogens.Australianmicrobiolo-

gistRonHull,PhD,hascarriedouttestsshowingthatinrawmilk,the

threatof listeriagoesawaywithtimebecausegoodbacteriagradually

increaseandeventuallyrenderlisteriaharmless.75

Furthermore,onlyafewstrainsofListeria monocytogenesareas-

sociatedwithdiseaseoutbreaks.76OnceL. mono.hasbeendetected,ad-

ditional(andoftenexpensive)testsareneededtodeterminewhetherthe

bacteriaareofthevirulenttypethatcausesillnessinhumans.Andeven

if a laboratory finds a small number of pathogenic organisms—some new

techniques are so sensitive they can find a single bacterium in very large

samples—thisdoesnotmeanthattheconsumptionofaglassofrawmilk

testingpositivewillnecessarilycausedisease.Withmostorganisms,it

takesthousandsorevenmillionsofvirulentorganismstomakesome-

onesick.

Comparingrawmilktopasteurizedmilkislikecomparingafresh

product with a cooked product. For this reason, a zero tolerance ap-

proachisappropriateforpasteurizedmilkbutnotforrawmilk,because

rawmilkcontainsgoodbacteriapresent tooverwhelmanypathogens

present.What’sneededarestudiestoquantifyhowhightheinfectious

doseinrawmilkwouldhavetobebeforeitcouldcauseillnessinhu-

mansconsumingtheproduct.

USDA publishes an infectious dose for most food-borne patho-

gens even though they acknowledge that it is unlikely to be the same

inallfoodsorindifferentpeople.77 But the agency has never conducted


studiestodeterminewhattheinfectiousdoseforpathogenswouldbein

freshrawmilkintendedforhumanconsumption.

Thecurrentzerotolerancestandardforlisteriainrawmilkisnot

appropriatebecause,astheexperienceinPennsylvaniahasshown,large

numbersofpeopleconsumingrawmilkreportedastestingpositivefor

listeriaarenotgettingsick.Thepolicycauseseconomichardshipforraw

milkproducersandsupply interruptions forconsumers.The fact that

thePennsylvaniaDepartmentofAgriculturedidnotuntilrecentlysus-

pend a raw milk permit when the first test was positive shows a funda-

mentalacceptanceofthisconcept—thatthetolerancelevelsforlisteria

andotherpathogensinrawmilkisnotzero.

According to Dr. Beals, microbiological testing should be used on

the farm, where a farmer can use routine periodic testing to monitor

thehealthofhisherd, thehandlingofmilkandthecleanlinessof the

containers and equipment. The appropriate use of laboratory testing

forpathogensoccursafteranillnessisreported.Thentestingsamples

from the sick person can be used to track the specific virulent bacteria

todeterminewhetherfoodwasthesourceoftheinfection.Sophisticated

fingerprint characteristics can be essential to pinpoint the exact source

andallowforcorrectiveactionstominimizerisktootherpeoplewithout

unnecessarily harming the precarious cash flow of small farmers.

SURVEY TECHNIQUES: MORE BIAS

Wheninvestigatorsputtogetherareportonanoutbreakoffood-

borne illness intended for publication in a scientific journal, they depend

notonlyonlaboratorytestresults,butalsoondataabouttheindividuals

whogotsick.Andthisdatacanbechosenandmanipulatedinsuchaway

as to give the conclusion the investigators are seeking. Dr. Beal’s postu-

lateslistedaboveapplyequallywelltosamplingmethodsastheydoto

testing protocols—ask questions that elicit the answer you want, stop

askingquestionswhenyougettheansweryouwant,denyanypossibility

ofmisinterpretationwhenyougettheansweryouwant,andsaynothing

about data that conflict with the answer you want. . . then proclaim the

answer you wanted to the public via scientific articles and alarmist press

releases.


If health officials can possibly link an incidence of disease with raw

milk,theywill.TheoutbreakinnorthernWisconsin,describedearlier,

providesatypicalexample.Hospitalpersonnelwereabletocreateasta-

tisticalassociationbetweenillnessandrawmilkbyexcludingthosewho

weresickbutdidnotdrinkrawmilk.Foodquestionnairesusedtode-

terminethesourceofillnessalwayscontainaquestionaboutrawmilk

consumption. Often it is the first question.

AtaPennsylvaniaSenatehearingonrawmilkheldinSeptember,

2007, one attendee related the following story. After consuming un-

derdone chicken in a local restaurant, her daughter became violently

illandwastakentothehospital.Thediagnosiswaslisteriosis.Several

weeks later she received a call from the health department. Their first

question:“Didyourdaughterdrinkrawmilk?”Thewomanassuredthe

healthdepartment thatherdaughterdidnotdrinkrawmilkand told

them she suspected the underdone chicken her daughter had eaten. But

thequestionerwasdistinctlyuninterestedinthechicken.Afterrepeat-

ing thequestionseveralmore times, “Areyousureyourdaughterdid

not consume raw milk?” the official terminated the conversation. This

occurred during the period, described earlier, when the Pennsylvania

DepartmentofAgriculture(PDA)wasclaimingthatmilkfromseveral

rawmilkdairieswascontaminatedwithListeria monocytogenes.

Here’s another disturbing report from a Pennsylvania activist,

which occurred during the same period: “Recently I had occasion to

speakwithadairyfarmerwhohadbeeninthenewsandwasthesubject

ofharassmentbythePennsylvaniaDepartmentofAgriculture.Ilearned

thatafamilymemberhadbeenharassedbytelephonewhenherbaby

camedownwithsalmonellapoisoning.Therestofthefamilyhadeaten

chickenfromafastfoodrestaurantanddrankrawmilkfromthispar-

ticularfarm,yetonlythebabybecameill.Thebabyhadnotconsumed

eitherfoodbutwasonformula—notbreastmilk,notrawcow’smilk,not

store-bought cow’smilk.Yet thedailyharassmentbyphone fromthe

Pennsylvania health department had brought the mother to near col-

lapseasshetriedtocareforherseveralhealthyyoungchildrenandthe

illbaby.Thehealthdepartmenttriedtotrick,cajoleandbullyherinto

sayingthatthebabycouldhaveormighthavehadsomerawmilkfrom


thisfarm.Uponacallfromthefarmeraskingthemtocontactthefarm’s

lawyerinsteadofharassingthefamily,PDAharassmentsubsided.How-

ever,otherfarmclientswerealsoharassed.Onepatientsaidhehadnot

beentogetmilkbecauseofanillnesssohehadnotevenhadanyraw

milkinthehousewhenhebecameillwithsalmonella.”78

IntheOhioincidentthatledtotheclosingofYoung’sDairy,the

infectionwasknowntohavebegunelsewhereinthestate;andthedairy

wasalsoapettingzoo.Visitorstofarmsandpettingzoos,especiallychil-

dren,oftengetsickiftheydonothaveanynaturalimmunitytoafarm

environment. If they happen to drink raw milk at the same time, the

milkisblamed,notthefarm.

A major source of food-borne illness is runoff water from confine-

mentfarms.Yetinvestigatorsrarelytestthewaterwhensearchingfor

a culprit. In fact, in most cases of food-borne illness where raw milk

isasuspect,investigatorsrarelyhaveasampleofrawmilktotest.The

wheelsofbureaucracymoveslowlyandbythetimeaninvestigationhas

begun, thenecessarysamplehasbeenconsumedorpoureddownthe

drain.

Then there is the problem of selective reporting. Cases of food-

borneillnessthatoccurwithinareasonabletimeaftertheconsumption

ofrawmilkarelikelytobereportedatamuchhigherratethanother

casesoffood-borneillnessbecauseoftheaggressivecampaignthatthe

FDA,CDC,andvariousstateagencieshavewagedtomonitorrawmilk

closely and “educate” the public about its dangers. This alone could

causeastatisticalassociationtoappear,onethatprovesnothingexcept

theexistenceofreportingbias.

AdocumentpublishedbytheWestonA.PriceFoundationprovides

thefollowinghypotheticalscenario.“Alargeoutbreakofsalmonellaaf-

fects ten thousandpeople.Mostof themhaveminorsymptomsrang-

ingfromqueasinesstodiarrhea.Tenofthemcalltheirdoctorsandask

whethertheyshouldworryaboutit.Thedoctorsaskthemiftheyhave

recentlydrunkrawmilk,eatenrawmeatorpoultry,visitedapettingzoo

orplayedwithaturtle—theusualsuspects.Mostofthemhavenot,so

thedoctorsaysnottoworryaboutitandtocallbackinaweekifitper-

sists or in a few days if it gets worse. But when one patient responds that


hehasdrunkrawmilk,thedoctorisalarmed.Shetakesastoolsample

andalertsthehealthauthoritiessotheycanmonitorthepopulacefor

anoutbreak.Theauthoritiesrunanewscampaignsuggestingapossible

associationbetweensalmonellaandrawmilkfromalocalfarm,andre-

iteratethewarningthat‘drinkingrawmilkisplayingRussianroulette

withyourhealth’andthatsalmonellainfectionscanproducepermanent

disabilitiessuchas‘reactivearthritis’iftheygountreated.Outoftheten

thousandpeoplesufferingfromqueasinessortransientdiarrhea,about

onehundredhavedrunkrawmilk;thirtyofthempanicandcall their

physician or the health authorities. The nine thousand nine hundred

whodidnotdrinkrawmilktakecomfortinthefactthattheyonlyeat

safefoodssuchascookedchickenandrinsedspinachandthereforeonly

reporttheirillnessattheusualrateofone-tenthofonepercent.Presto:

astatisticalassociationisborn.”79

And, as any statistician can tell you, correlation does not prove

causation. According to author Gary Taubes, “What we derive from

epidemiologic studiesareassociationsandhypotheses. . .Youcannot

proveanyhypothesistrue.Allyoucandoisrefutethehypothesesand

seewhichonesyouhaveleft.”80

Or,asthesayinggoes,“Epidemiologyislikeabikini.Whatisre-

vealedisinteresting.Whatisconcealediscrucial.”

MEXICAN-STYLERAWMILKCHEESE:ANEASYTARGET

SeveralseriousoutbreaksofdiseasehaveinvolvedMexican-style

rawmilkcheese—so-called“suitcasecheese”orqueso fresco—whichis

aparticularlyeasytargetforinvestigativebias.Consideranepidemicof

listeriosisinLosAngelesCounty,whichinvolvedonehundredforty-two

reportedcasesbetweenJanuary1throughAugust15,1985.Ninety-three

casesoccurredinpregnantwomenortheiroffspring.Therewereforty-

eight deaths: twenty fetuses, ten neonates and eighteen nonpregnant

adults.MostofthevictimswereHispanic.

Ina1988reportontheepidemic,entitled“Epidemiclisteriosisas-

sociatedwithMexican-stylecheese,”leadauthorM.J.Linnanandhis

team wrote, “An investigation of the cheese plant suggested that the

cheese was commonly contaminated with unpasteurized milk.”81 But


there was never any evidence that the contamination of this cheese—

whichwassoldasapasteurizedproduct—wasrelatedtocontaminated

rawmilk!82

Theinitialinvestigationfoundthat,comparedtouninfectedcon-

trols, infected patients were over five times more likely to have eaten

Mexican-style cheese, over four times more likely to have engaged in

sexual intercourse in theprecedingmonth(remember,manyof those

whobecamesickwerepregnant,thereforewerelikelytobemarriedor

havepartners),and justover four timesas likely tohaveconsumeda

rootvegetablecalledjicama(remember,mostofthevictimswereHis-

panic).

Asecondaryinvestigationfoundthattheassociationwithcheese

was due specifically to the use of a cheese produced by Jalisco Mexican

Products.Theinvestigatorsdidnotpursuetheassociationswithsexual

intercourseorjicamaanyfurther.

Investigatorsfoundthematchingstrainoflisteriainmultipleun-

openedpackagesofthecheeseonJune12,1985andinitiatedarecallof

theproductthefollowingday.Despitetherecall,theoutbreakcontinued

producingnewcasesatfullforcethroughtheendofJuly.

The team then tested the cheese for alkaline phosphatase (ALP)

activity.CompletedestructionoftheenzymeALPisconsideredthestan-

dardtestforsuccessfulpasteurization.TheyfoundexcessiveALPactiv-

ity in nine out of eighty samples of cheese. But investigation of the fac-

toryshowedthatthepasteurizerwasworkingproperly.

TheauthorsprovidednodatashowingarelationshipbetweenALP

levels and contamination with live listeria, and of twenty-seven dairy

farmsthatsuppliedrawmilktothecheeseplant,theyfoundnocasesof

listeriosisinanyoftheherds.Furthermore,allrawmilksamplestested

negativefortheorganism.Yettheresearchersconcludedthattheout-

breakwascausedbycheese“commonlycontaminatedwithunpasteur-

izedmilk.”

ThepresenceofALPinsomeofthecheesesamplesallowedtheau-

thors of the Linnan report to blame raw milk for the outbreak. But three

yearslater,researchersshowedthatMexican-stylesoftcheesescontain

both heat-stable and heat-labile forms of microbial ALP.83 Moreover,


somecheesebacteriaproduceALPthatcannotbedifferentiated from

ALPindigenoustomilk.In2007,theindustryintroducedanewdetec-

tionmethodtocorrectthisproblem.84Thus,thistestwhenperformed

in1985wasnotavalidmeansfordemonstratinginadequatepasteuriza-

tioninthistypeofcheese.Themilkorcheesewasclearlycontaminated

at the cheese manufacturing plant, either before pasteurization, after

pasteurization,orboth.

Jalisco sued Alta Dena Dairy, one of its suppliers, for a portion

of the estimated one hundred million dollars in damage claims filed by

victimsofthelisteriosisepidemic.In1989,however,ajuryabsolvedAlta

Denaofallresponsibilityfortheepidemic,citingcompletelackofevi-

dencethatitsrawmilkwascontaminated.

According to theLinnanreport, thisoutbreakof listeriawas the

third one traced to a specific food product. The first occurred in 1981 and

wastracedtocoleslaw.Thesecond,inwhichforty-ninepatientsbecame

illandfourteendied—occurredin1983andwastracedtopasteurized

milk. Health officials often warn pregnant women not to consume raw

milkorMexican-stylecheese—butneveraboutthedangersofconsum-

ingcoleslawandpasteurizedmilk.

Mexican-style cheese was the whipping boy for a large outbreak

of listeriosis that occurred in North Carolina between October, 2000

and January, 2001. Several years later, in 2005, a team led by P. D.

MacDonald published a report on the epidemic.85 The results of their

case-controlstudymayhavebeenbiasedfromthebeginningas“Dur-

ingthestudy,rumorsspreadthatthesuspectedvehicleofinfectionwas

homemadeMexican-stylecheese.”Thepatientswerequestionedseveral

monthsaftertheevent,and“rumors”mayhavehelpedthemselectively

rememberconsumingqueso fresco.

Nevertheless, investigators found that case patients were almost

five times as likely as controls to have eaten hot dogs. According to a

2003 risk assessment jointly published by the FDA, USDA and CDC,

non-reheatedhotdogsareoverthreehundredeightytimesaslikelyas

fresh,softcheesetocauselisteriosis.86Nohotdogsweretestedforthe

presence of listeria, even though during the period of the outbreak, a

massive recall of listeria-infected hotdogs—nine hundred thousand


pounds of them—took place in ten southeastern states.87 Barbequed

chickenwasalsorecalledatthetime—butthecompanyproducingthe

productrefusedtocomplywiththerecall.88

Instead, the MacDonald team pointed the finger at the raw milk

usedtoproducesoftcheese.Thetitleoftheirreport:“Outbreakofliste-

riosisamongMexicanimmigrantsasaresultofconsumptionofillicitly

producedMexican-stylecheese.”

Inthebodyofthereport,weread,“ForHispanicwomen,werec-

ommendtargetededucationanddietarycounselingaboutthehazardsof

eatingfreshcheese,undercookedhotdogs,delimeatsandotherready-

to-eatmeatproductsimplicatedasvehiclesforlisteriosisduringpreg-

nancy.” But only “illicitly produced Mexican-style cheese” got star bill-

inginthetitle.

Oftheseveralsourcesofrawmilkusedforthecheese,listeriawas

presentinthebulktankrawmilkofonemanufacturing-gradedairy,and

itmatchedisolatesrecoveredfromtenfemalecasepatients,fromcheese

bought from a door-to-door vendor and from unlabeled cheese from

twoHispanicmarkets.MacDonaldandhisteamfailtomentionwhether

theyobtainedmatchingisolatesfromthelisteriosis-infectedhotdogs.

UnliketheJaliscocase inCalifornia,where listeriawasfoundin

unopenedpackagesoffactory-madecheese,someofthesamplestested

inNorthCarolinawerealreadyopenedandcamefromtherefrigerators

of individuals who had become ill. The finding of listeria in the cheese

doesnot,therefore,meanthatthecheesecausedanillness.Itisequally

likely that the sick person contaminated the cheese. And because the

queso frescointhiscasewasanartisanproduct,likelyvectorsofdisease

includecuttingboards,kitchencountersandfoodpreparationutensils

in small kitchens where the standards of sanitation may not be ideal. But

sincetheoutbreakoccurredinaHispaniccommunitywhereeveryone

consumed Hispanic food, including Mexican-style raw cheese, it was

easy for the researchers to create a statistical association of raw milk

cheesewiththeoutbreak.


THE PUBLISHED LITERATURE ON RAW MILK OUTBREAKS:

BUILDING THE CASE AGAINST RAW MILK

TheNationalConferenceonInterstateMilkShipmentsisanon-

profit organization that represents the interests of the dairy industry.

Thegroupmeetseveryotheryeartodiscusstopicsofconcerntocon-

ventional milk processers. At the group’s May, 2005 meeting, Cindy

Leonard,MS,oftheFDA’sDivisionofDairyandEggSafetypresented

a PowerPoint presentation prepared by JohnF. Sheehan, head of the

division.Thepresentationaimedatdefusingtheargumentsofrawmilk

proponents,namelythatrawmilkisinherentlysafeandmorenutritious

than pasteurized milk. Mr. Sheehan’s take-home message: raw milk

providesnonutritionaladvantageoverpasteurized,andtheonlywayto

makerawmilksafeistopasteurizeit.89

Sheehan refers to fifteen studies linking illness with raw milk or

Mexican-style raw cheese. Of the fifteen papers referenced, eighty per-

centlinkedrawmilktoillnesswithoutapositivemilksample,andtwo-

thirdsfoundnovalidstatisticalassociationwithrawmilk.TheFDApre-

sentation misrepresented the findings of almost half the reports. In a

third,theauthorsdiscoveredalternativelikelysourcesofinfectionbut

didnotpursuethemandinthirteenpercentofthestudies,investigators

foundnoevidencethatanyonehadevenconsumedarawmilkproduct.

Inonestudy,theoutbreakdidnotevenexist!90

More to the point, not one of the fifteen studies demonstrated that

pasteurizationwouldhavepreventedtheoutbreak.(We’llexaminethe

claim that raw milk has no health benefits in Chapter 16.)

Anotherreviewofcasesalledgingillnesscausedbyunpasteurized

milkandcheesecomesfromtheCentersforDiseaseControl.91Forthe

period1998to2005,theagencyliststhirty-nineoutbreaksassociated

withrawdairyproductsresultingineighthundredthirty-oneillnesses,

sixty-six hospitalizations and one death. Of these, more than half are

newspaper reports and health department press releases, not articles

published in the scientific literature. In eighty-two percent of cases,

there was no valid milk sample and in seventy-eight percent, officials

couldnotprovideavalidstatisticalassociationwithrawmilk.Innine-

ty-sevenpercentof thecases,noevidence isprovidedto indicatethat


pasteurizationwouldhavepreventedtheoutbreak.Twooftheincidents

weretracedtopasteurizedmilkandonetopasteurizationfailure.Three

of the reports cited were either unpublished or not verifiable. Most im-

portantly, thedeathreportedinthesummaryappearsnowhereinthe

table.92Moresloppygovernmentworkacceptedasgospelinthecourtof

publicopinion.

Bill Marler is a high-profile attorney who specializes in food-borne

illness litigation. His law firm won the highly publicized Jack-in-the-

Box and Odwalla juice cases, in which dozens of people in Washington

StatebecameillandseveraldiedfromE. Coli O157:H7.In2008,Marler

focusedhisattentiononrawmilk,postingablog93andpublishingtwo

positionpapersfullofFDA-inspiredlanguageagainstrawmilkandraw

milkproducts.94

Interestingly,upto thatpoint,Marlerhad lost theonerawmilk

case he had taken, which involved a 2001 outbreak of E. coli O157:

H7 thatsickenedat least twohundredpeopleatProspectElementary

SchoolinruralRobesonCounty,NorthCarolina.Anepidemiologicalre-

portblamedtheoutbreakonhomemadebuttermadefromrawcream

servedtostudentsasaclassroomdemonstration.Thejudgeruledthat

theschoolhadgovernmentalimmunityandcouldnotbesued.95

OneofMarler’spositionpaperscontainsalistofonehundredtwo

references from scientific journals purporting to implicate raw milk in

disease.Itisobviousthatthelistwascompiledbyaninternorlawstu-

dentwhosimplydidasearchfor“raw,”“milk”and“outbreak”without

actuallyreadingthestudies.Onlyseventy-threeoutofthetotalreporton

actualillnesses;eightreportonthepresenceofpathogensinthemilkof

bulkholdingtanks(hencemilkdestinedforpasteurization)andtwenty-

one are reviews, editorials or letters to the editors of scientific journals.

Infact,anumberofthecitationsarereportsofoutbreakstracedtopas-

teurizedmilk,reviewsfocusingonthedangersofpasteurizedmilk,or

letterstotheeditorsupportingtherightofconsumerstopurchaseraw

milk.

Of the studies implicating raw milk in food-borne illness, a full

ninety-sixpercenthadeithernovalidpositivemilksampleornovalid

statisticalassociation.Severalofthestudiesservedasaplatformtohurl


insultsatrawmilkadvocatesordiscussmethodsforhurtingthecom-

mericalinterestsoffarmers.Onestudyauthorcomplainedthatbecause

raw milk advocates “have lost their case in the scientific and medical

communities,”theyhaveturnedtothelegalandpoliticalarenatotake

advantage of the “current climate of heightened concern for personal

libertiesandfreedomofchoice,andfrequentrejectionofscience.”96

SALMONELLAINRAWMILKANDOTHERFOODS:

THE DOUBLE STANDARD

Infectionwithsalmonellaspeciesaccounts forasubstantialpor-

tionoffood-borneillnessinthiscountry,withanestimatedmillionand

one half cases and five hundred deaths annually.97Aninfectivedoseof

salmonella requires at least one million organisms. Ground beef is a

commonandpersistent source;USDAregulationsallow forup to ten

percentofthesamplestakenatagivenplanttocontainsalmonella,but

theselimitsareoftenexceeded.Highlevelsofsalmonellaingroundbeef

indicatehighlevelsoffecalcontamination.

Meanwhile,knownsourcesofsalmonellaareroutinelyfedtocat-

tle.Quotingagain fromFast Food NationbyEricSchlosser:“Astudy

publishedafewyearsagoinPreventive MedicinenotesthatinArkansas

alone,about3millionpoundsofchickenmanurewerefedtocattlein

1994. According to Dr. Neal D. Barnard, who heads the Physicians Com-

mitteeforResponsibleMedicine,chickenmanuremaycontaindanger-

ous bacteria such as salmonella andcampylobacter, parasites such as

tapewormsandGiardia lamblia,antibioticresidues,arsenicandheavy

metals.”98

An example of the difficulty USDA officials have in enforcing regu-

lationsagainstthemeatpackingindustryisprovidedbythe1999caseof

a ground beef plant in Dallas, owned by Supreme Beef Processors, which

failedaseriesofUSDAtestsforsalmonella.Uptoforty-sevenpercent

of the company’s ground beef contained salmonella—nearly five times

higherthanwhatUSDAregulationsallow.YettheUSDAcontinuedto

purchase large quantities of meat from Supreme Beef for use in schools.

Indeed, Supreme Beef Processors was one of the nation’s largest sup-

plierstotheschoollunchprogram,annuallyprovidingnearlyhalfofits


ground beef to schools. On November 30, 1999, the USDA finally re-

movedinspectorsfromthecompany’splant,shuttingitdown.

The next day, Supreme Beef sued the USDA in federal court, claim-

ingthatsalmonellawasanaturalorganism,notanadulterant,andcon-

tending that the USDA should not have removed inspectors from the

plant.FederalJudgeA.JoeFishorderedinspectorsbackintotheplant,

pendingresolutionofthelawsuit.Theplantshutdownlastedlessthan

one day. Six months later the judge issued a decision, ruling that the

presenceofhighlevelsofsalmonellaintheplant’sgroundbeefwasnot

proofthatconditionstherewere“unsanitary.”

“Fish endorsed one of Supreme Beef’s central arguments: a ground

beefprocessorshouldnotbeheldresponsibleforthebacteriallevelsof

meat thatcouldeasilyhavebeen taintedwithsalmonellaata slaugh-

terhouse.TherulingcastdoubtontheUSDA’sabilitytowithdrawin-

spectors from a plant [and thus shut the plant down] where tests re-

vealed excessive levels of fecal contamination. Although Supreme Beef

portrayeditselfasaninnocentvictimofforcesbeyonditscontrol,much

ofthebeefusedattheplanthadcomefromitsownslaughterhousein

Ladonia,Texas.ThatslaughterhousehadrepeatedlyfailedUSDAtests

forsalmonella.”99

Incontrast,considerthestoryofrawmilkandsalmonellainCali-

fornia. The California State Health Department and several county

healthdepartments,mostnotablythoseofLosAngelesandSanDiego

counties,conspiredforsomethirtyyearstoharassAltaDenaDairyand

nearlyeveryotherrawmilkdairy inthestate,andtoputthemoutof

business. The Steuve brothers—Ed, Harold and Elmer—founded Alta

DenainMonroviain1945withsixty-onemilkcowsandtwobulls.Dr.

Pottengerwasaregularcustomer.In1950thefamilypurchasedamuch

larger operation in Chino. The dairy became certified for raw milk pro-

duction in 1953 and grew rapidly. By the 1980s, the dairy milked over

eightthousandcowsdailyandownedeighteenthousandanimals.With

eighthundredemployees,AltaDenawasthelargestproducer-distribu-

tor in the nation, selling over twenty thousand gallons of certified raw

milkdaily.AltaDenaproducts,includingrawmilkandrawbutter,but-

termilk, ice cream, kefir and yogurt, were sold in health food stores in


everystate.Foroverfortyyears,AltaDenaprovedthatsafeandhealthy

rawdairyproductscouldbeproducedanddistributedonalargescale

withliterallynoprovencasesof illnesscausedbytheirproducts.This

fact did not deter the various county health officials and the California

State Health Department from their campaign to destroy Alta Dena.

Eventually, the Department’s chosen weapon would be salmonella, a

weapontheyusedonlyafterfailingwiththeallegedthreatofanumber

ofotherdiseasestogeneratefearofrawmilkinthepublicandacostly

ongoinglegalmorassforAltaDena.

The first assault occurred in 1965, when a San Diego County health

officer named Askew summarily issued an order banning all raw milk in

thecounty,claimingtohavefoundStaphylococcus aureusinAltaDena

milk.Whilethesebacteriacanbeinvolvedineverythingfromskinin-

fectionstopneumonia,theyareubiquitousintheenvironmentandare

carriedbyabouthalfofthehumanpopulation.Manypasteurizeddairy

productscontainlowlevelsofS. aureus,withresiduesofhigherlevels

present before pasteurization.100 S. aureus poisoning is usually traced

to processed foods such as ham and cream-filled pastries. Although S.

aureuscancausemastitisincowsandstaphylococcalpoisoninghason

occasionbeenattributedtoawidevarietyofdairyproductsinthepast,

theonlyfourmajoroutbreaksreportedintheUnitedStatessince1970

have involved dairy products, namely processed butter products and

pasteurizedtwopercentchocolatemilk.101

IllnesscausedbyS. aureusisbriefandintense,withnausea,vom-

iting,diarrheaandcramps.Acutesymptomslastonlyafewhours,with

thepatientfullyrecoveredwithinadayortwo.102Noonehadbecome

illwhenAltaDenamilkwasbannedinSanDiegoCounty.“Thehealth

officer stated publicly that he was going to do away with raw milk in the

stateofCalifornia,”writesDr.WilliamCampbellDouglassinThe Milk

Book,“ifitwasthelastthingheeverdid.”103

According to Douglass, health officer Askew was asked at a hear-

ing of the County Board of Supervisors whether to his knowledge any-

one had ever become sick from drinking certified raw milk in San Diego

County. He answered, “No, but it could happen.” The Board urged him

tolifttheban,yetherefusedtodoso.Thecountry’slargestproducer-


distributordairycouldnotsellitsrawmilkinSanDiegoCounty,andthe

banremainedineffectforthreeyears.Finally,afterathree-yearbattle,

the Fourth District Court of Appeals ruled that the health officer had ex-

ceededhisauthority.Meanwhile,in1967,theCaliforniaMedicalSociety

passedaresolutioncallingforthepasteurizationofallmilkinCalifor-

nia.Threeothercountiessummarilybannedrawmilk,butvociferous

publicoppositionsucceededinremovalofthebans.

ItwasinJanuaryof1969thattheLosAngelesCountyHealthDe-

partmentattackedAltaDena.TheLos Angeles Timesannounced,with

bannerheadlinesbasedoninformationsuppliedbytheHealthDepart-

ment,thatAltaDenarawmilkwasbannedwiththepresumptionofcon-

taminationbytheorganismsthatcauseQfever.Thisobscureviral-like

diseaseiscausedbytheparasiteCoxiella burnetii,whichiscarriedin

ticksandsometimesintheruminantanimalsthatticksinfect.

Theparasitecausesnosymptomsintheanimals;mostcasesofQ

feveroccur in farmersandmeat factoryemployeeswhowork inclose

contactwithanimals,andthediseaseappearstobetransmittedbyin-

halationoftheparasite.Thesymptomsarefever,painandintensehead-

ache,andmostpatientsrecoverfullywithtwotofourweeksofantibiotic

treatment.104

C. burnetiihasbeenfoundinmilkfromcowscarryingtheparasite,

andregular consumersof rawmilk sometimeshaveantibodies to the

parasitewithoutshowinganyevidenceofdisease.Thisimpliesthatex-

posurestimulatestheimmunesystemtodevelopresistance.Tworeports

inthemedicalliteraturehavelinkedrawmilkconsumptionwithafew

dozencasesofQfever(onearticlewaspublishedin1968,afewmonths

beforetheLosAngelesCountyleveledcharges),buttheassociationre-

mains totally unproven. In fact,Eliott Ryser states that “inonestudy

inwhichcontaminatedrawmilkwasingestedbyhumanvolunteersill-

nessdidnotoccur.”Otherstudiesshowedthattheparasitesurvivedthe

temperaturesnormallyusedforpasteurizationformostofthetwentieth

century.105 On balance, it appears unlikely that Q fever has ever been

transmittedbytheconsumptionofrawmilk.

Noone inLosAngelesCountyhadreportedanysymptomsofQ

fever. Alta Dena defied the LA County Health Board ban, continuing to


sellrawmilkinthecounty,andwastakentocourt.Meanwhilethedairy

labeleditsrawmilkas“petfood,notforhumanconsumption.”Harold

Steuve,presidentofthedairyandthemayorofMonroviaatthetime,

wasarrestedforcontemptofcourt.OnlywhenAltaDena’sexpertwit-

nesses testified that Q fever was caused by inhalation of the parasite and

notbyconsumptionofrawmilkdidprosecutorsdropthecharges.

A1966LosAngelesCountyHealthDepartmentreportonQfever

provesthehealthdepartment’sbias.Thereportdescribessevencases,

sixofwhichlived“inorarounddairies.”Noneofthesevendrankraw

milk.Contactwithanimalsandsubsequentairbornespread,thereport

admitted,wasthevectorforinfection,butclaimedthat“themostpracti-

calsolutionnowavailable”wastheuniversalpasteurizationofallmilk.

The California State Health Department led the next attack, in

1974,withastatewidebanofAltaDena’srawmilk,citingthethreatof

brucellosis.AllAltaDenacowshadofcoursebeenvaccinatedagainst

thediseaseandwereroutinely testedasanextraprecaution.Theban

forcedthedairytogotocourtonceagainandtoretesttheentireherd.

No brucellosis was found, and Alta Dena resumed sales of raw milk. But,

onceagain,theSteuveslostthousandsofdollarsinlegalandtestingex-

penses,andanuntoldamountofsalesduetoadversepublicity.

HavingfailedtoshowthatAltaDenarawmilkhadevercausedany

oftheclassicmilk-borneillnesses,thestatezeroedinonsalmonella.In

themid1970sthestatemadenumerousstatementsclaimingthatsal-

monella-contaminatedrawmilkwasproducedbyAltaDenaandother

Californiarawmilkdairies.In1978,theSteuvebrothersledCalifornia

rawmilkproducersinseekingaCaliforniastateSenatebillrequiringthe

StateHealthDepartmenttooverseerawdairyfoodsinamannersimilar

tothatofotherfoodproducts.OnJune4th,aweekbeforetheSenate

billwastocomeupfordebate,astatelaboratoryclaimedtohavefound

salmonella in Alta Dena milk. The State Health Department delayed

five days before releasing the information, while the public bought and

consumedthemilk—milkthestatewouldsubsequentlydeclareapublic

healthhazard.ThenonJune9th,twodaysbeforetheSenatedebatewas

to begin, the Department notified the press of the alleged contamina-

tion,claimingthatanepidemicofsalmonellapoisoningwasimminent.


The only epidemic was an outbreak of inflammatory news reports.

FromSanRafaeltoSacramento,fromVenturatoVallejo,rawmilkpro-

ducersstoodaccused:“RawMilkWarning,”“SomeRawMilkFoundto

beContaminated,”“ContaminatedRawMilkOrderedOffShelves.”Ra-

dioannouncementswarnedthepublicnottodrinkrawmilkfromAlta

Denadairy.Noonegotsick,butinthehysteriatheSenatebillfailed.

Afewdayslater,afterreviewingrelevantdocuments,theLos An-

geles Herald ExamineraccusedCaliforniaStateHealthDepartmentof-

ficials of falsifying bacterial reports in order to defeat the Senate bill.

Two independent laboratories—onethatdid testing for theLosAnge-

lesCountyMedicalMilkCommissionandtheotherthatdidconsider-

abletestingforthestate—returnednegativeresultsforsalmonella.The

Health Department laboratory had either falsified its results, or the test-

ingmethodshadbeensosloppythatthemilksampleswerecontaminat-

edduringthetestingprocedures.TheHerald Examiner articlehinted

ataconspiracytoeliminaterawdairyproductsamongmembersofthe

StateHealthDepartment.

Other State Health Department tactics bolstered the conspiracy

charge.Inseveralinstances,productsforwhichtherewasnoevidence

of contamination at all—falsified, inaccurate, or otherwise—were de-

stroyed. Officials forced a food store manager to pour ninety gallons of

certified raw milk down a toilet. Health officers punched holes in Alta

Denarawcheese,andpouredChloroxoverit.TheDepartmentleakeda

“staffreport”toNew Age,awidelyreadCaliforniamagazine,whichpub-

lishedexcerptsinAugust1978.“Evidencepointstoacontinuinghealth

hazard to the public consuming Alta Dena’s raw certified milk,” reported

New Age,andquotedamedicalepidemiologistwhoclaimedthatAlta

Denarawmilkwaskillingcancerpatients.

Theepidemiologistandtwoofhiscolleagues,bothofwhomworked

withtheCaliforniaStateHealthDepartment,publishedareportinthe

British Medical Journal statingthat twenty-twopatients,mostlywith

leukemiasandlymphomas,haddiedbetween1971and1975,sometime

after“exposure”toAltaDenarawmilk.106Publicationinaforeignjour-

nalmadetheauthorsrelativelyimmunetolawsuits.Sincethen,thear-

ticle has been widely quoted as scientific fact in American journals.


The governor’s office in California received over seventeen thou-

sand letters, telegrams and phone calls in defense of Alta Dena with-

in two months of the Herald Examiner report. The furor died down,

but the number of letters alone grew to over fifty thousand. The State

Health Department was undeterred, repeating unconfirmed allega-

tions of salmonella contamination later in 1978 and again in 1979. Both

times,newspapersgeneratedtheusualscareheadlines:“PoisonedMilk

Recalled,”“StateIssuesWarningAboutAltaDenaMilk,”and“Tainted

MilkOrderedOffMarketShelves.”Againtheallegationswerefalse,no

one got sick and Alta Dena carried on. But one by one, other raw milk

producersinthestatewentoutofbusiness.

In1983,NevadastateinspectorsseizedAltaDenarawmilkfrom

ahealthfoodstoreandclaimeditcontainedsalmonella.Themilkwas

twenty-onedaysold,pastitsexpirationdate.Fourdifferentlabs,includ-

ingtheCaliforniaStateHealthDepartmentlabandonecountylab,sub-

sequentlyanalyzedthemilkandfoundnosalmonella.TheFDAspent

threedaysinvestigatingtheAltaDenaDairyandfoundnothingofim-

portance.TheCaliforniaStateHealthDepartmentnevertheless issued

warningstothepeopleofCalifornianottodrinkAltaDenarawmilk,or

evengiveittotheirpets.

Also in 1983, the report describing five serious salmonella cases

attheVeteransAdministrationMedicalCenterinSanDiegowaspub-

lished.107 Three of the five patients were regular consumers of Alta Dena

rawmilk,andoneofthem,apatientwithadvancedcancerwhohadbeen

receivingextensivechemotherapy,diedwithanacutesalmonellainfec-

tion.

Ignoring all the evidence on the benefits of raw milk and the desire

ofmanypeopletoconsumeit, theDepartmentusedthepossibilityof

occasional salmonella contaminationasanexcuse towageavendetta

againstAltaDenaandCalifornia’sotherrawmilkproducers.

In1984,anarticle inVogueheadlined“ARawMilkWarning:A

New and Dangerous Health Fad” featured statistics published in the

newsletterofanorganizationcalledCaliforniaCouncilAgainstHealth

Frauds.Thereportclaimedthatrawmilkdrinkerswereatincreasedrisk

ofsalmonellainfection,“whichcanresultinhighfeversandbloodydi-


arrhea.”Thesesymptomsareextremelyrareformostsalmonellainfec-

tions.Peoplewhodrinkrawmilkareonehundredeighteentimesmore

atrisk,saidthearticle.Thisexaggerationwasobtainedbymanipulating

figures originally published in 1944.

In19,ConsumersUnionoftheUnitedStatesjoinedwithCalifor-

nia’s conventional dairy producers to file suit against Alta Dena Dairy

foradvertising,allegedly falsely, thatrawmilkwashealthfulandpas-

teurized was not. The State Health Department concurrently claimed

thatrawmilkproductswereapublichealthhazardandprohibitedAlta

Denafromdistributingandsellingitsrawmilkpendingsettlementof

the Consumers Union suit. In 1992, the court ruled that Alta Dena’s

health claims were illegal and ordered all raw milk sold in California

tocarryagovernmentwarning.TheSteuvesthensoldAltaDenaDairy,

butcontinuedtoproduceanddistributerawdairyproductsunderthe

Steuve’sNaturallabel.

In1997,JohnLeedom,MD,oneofthesixmembersoftheLosAn-

geles County Medical Milk Commission, publicly stated that not only

licensed grade A raw milk but also certified raw milk should be banned

inLosAngelesCounty.AltaDenaproducedlicensedgradeArawmilk

that was also certified by the Commission; California’s other licensed

grade A raw milk producers were not certified. Three other commission-

erssidedwithLeedom.According toJamesPrivitera,MD,oneof the

twocommissionerswhofavoredkeepingrawmilkavailable,themajor-

ityimplementedregulationssorestrictiveandprejudicialthatitbecame

impossibleforrawmilkproducerstostayinbusiness.AltaDena’snew

ownersatthatpointstoppedsellingrawmilk,andSteuve’sNaturalraw

milkhasnotbeenavailablesinceMay,1999.We’llpickupthestoryof

what’shappenedwithrawmilkinCalifornialaterinthischapter.

DEATHS ATTRIBUTED TO RAW MILK: MORE BAD SCIENCE

Illnessattributedtorawmilktendstobemildandofshortdura-

tion;occasionally,however,areportlinksrawmilkwithdeath.Oneof

themostwidelycitedinvolvesthecancerpatientattheVeteransAdmin-

istration,mentionedabove,whoconsumedAltaDenamilk.Herdeath

wasattributedtoavirulent formofthebacterium,Salmonella dublin


(S. dublin). As with most infections, people with suppressed immune

systems(suchasAIDSpatientsorpeopletakingcorticosteroidsorche-

motherapy)havethegreatestriskfromorganismslikesalmonella.

Thereport,publishedintheWestern Journal of MedicineinMay,

1983 was entitled “Invasive Salmonella dublin Infections Associated

withDrinkingRawMilk.”108Theauthorconductedayear-longstudyin

1980and1981attheVeteransAdministrationMedicalCenter(VAMC)in

SanDiego.Duringthatyear,fourteencasesofsalmonellainfectionhad

been diagnosed at the hospital; five of them were S. dublin infections.

The ages of these five individuals ranged from fifty-six to ninety-seven,

andallbutonehadaseriouspreexistingchronicdiseaseorweretaking

immunosuppressivecorticosteroidorchemotherapydrugs.Threeofthe

five had drunk raw milk from Alta Dena dairy within the previous two

weeks.

The eighty-five-year-old woman had chronic leukemia, diagnosed

in1979.Toquotefromthearticle,“InSeptember1981shewastreated

for the first time with cyclophosphamide [a highly toxic chemotherapy

agent which impairs natural immunity to infection] and prednisone

threetimesaday.Aweeklaterdiarrhea,feverandchillsdevelopedand

shehadasyncopalepisode[temporarylossofconsciousnessduetoafall

inbloodpressure]...blood,urine,andstoolculturesallgrewS. dublin

...shediedonthe17thhospitalday...Thiswoman’simmunestatus

wascompromisedbyboththeleukemiaandthetherapy.Shepresented

inshockwithanoverwhelmingSalmonellabacteremia[bacteriainthe

blood].”ThreeoftheotherfourpatientswithS. dublininfectionswere

sickenoughtorequireantibiotictherapyandadmissiontothehospital;

onewashospitalizedforseveralweeks.

This story presents another example of the gulf between biased

scienceandthefactsofthecase.Thedoctorsofferednoproofthatthe

rawmilkthewomandrankcarriedsalmonella.Andwhateverthesource

ofinfection,wereitnotfortheimmunosuppressivedrugs,noneofthe

individualswouldhavebecomeinfectedwithsalmonella.Howlonghad

the eighty-five-year-old woman been drinking raw milk with impunity

before her first week of chemotherapy, at the end of which she became

deathlyill?Thearticledoesnotaddressthisquestion.Aboutthemany


benefits of raw milk, the author says only, “I will not comment on the

validityofthenutritionalclaimsthataremadeforrawmilk.”

Another case occurred in 1975 and involved an infant who was

switchedfrombreast-feedingtorawgoatmilkattwomonths.Thechild

begantohaveloosegreenstoolswithsomestreakingofbloodandapur-

plishdiscolorationofthegums.AfterreceivingaDPTimmunizationat

five months, the child began to vomit three or four times a day and was

admittedtothehospitaloneweeklater.Ontheeleventhdayafterad-

mission,hereceivedabloodtransfusionusingbloodthathadevidence

of a Toxoplasmosis gondii infection, and this evidence was found in

the child a few days later. The infant was severely deficient in folic acid,

which is present at only one-fifth the level in goat milk as it is in cow milk

orhumanmilk.

Thereportonhisdeathcarriedthetitle,“Toxoplasmosisinanin-

fant fed unpasteurized goat milk.”109 None of the milk samples tested

positiveforT. gondii,buttheauthorsblamedtheinfant’ssymptomson

T. gondiisupposedlyacquiredfromdrinkingrawmilkanyway,andof-

fered no discussion of how his severe folic acid deficiency may have con-

tributedtohissymptoms.

Otherdeathsattributedtorawmilkarefoundinreportsoninfec-

tionallegedlyduetoMexican-stylerawmilkcheese.Asdiscussedearlier

inthischapter,rawMexican-stylecheeseisaneasytarget.IntheCali-

forniaoutbreak,rawmilkwasexoneratedbyajury;intheNorthCaro-

linaoutbreak,investigatorsignoredothermorelikelyvectorsofdisease,

basedtheirconclusionsontestsofopenedsamples,andengagedinin-

terviewtechniquesdesignedtoachievetheforegoneconclusionthatraw

milkwastoblame.

TYPHOIDFEVER,SCARLETFEVERANDDIPHTHERIA:

BAD SCIENCE FROM THE PAST

Whileillnessattributedtorawmilkinmoderntimesinvolvesacute

gastrointestinalepisodesthatareusuallyshort-livedanddonotrequire

medical treatment, fifty or one hundred years ago, raw milk was rou-

tinelyblamedforahostofdiseasesoftendepictedasdeadly.Thesedis-

easesincludedtyphoidfever,scarletfever,diphtheria,tuberculosisand


undulantfever.Althoughthesediseasesoccuronlyrarelytoday—many

havenotbeenlinkedtomilkatallsincethe1950s—theyareoftentrotted

out in official publications, media stories and hearings on legislation af-

fecting the sale of raw milk. Public health officials imply that should raw

milkbecomemorewidelyavailable,theolddiseaseswouldbebackwith

us,threateningmanypeoplewithdisease.

AnexampleisfoundinElliotRyser’schapter“PublicHealthCon-

cerns”inApplied Dairy Microbiology:110“Outbreaksofmilk-borneill-

ness date from the inception of the dairy industry. Bacterial infections

includingdiphtheria,scarletfever,tuberculosisandtyphoidfeverpre-

dominated before WorldWar IIandwere almost invariably linked to

consumptionofrawmilk....”Noreferenceisgivenforthisincorrectin-

formation.Noristherementionofthefactthatpasteurizedmilkcaused

theworstmilk-borneoutbreakof typhoid feverever; in1927 inMon-

treal, almost five thousand people were stricken and four hundred fifty-

threediedduringafour-monthperiodinanepidemicthatwastracedto

negligenceatalocalpasteurizingplant.111

Rysercontinues:“...earlysurveillanceeffortssoonledtopassage

of the first Model Milk Ordinance, which stressed nationwide pasteuri-

zationandtheeventualreductionintheincidenceofmilk-borneenteric

diseaseswithnomilk-bornecasesofdiphtheria,scarletfever,tubercu-

losis, or typhoid fever reported in more than 40 years. . . . Banning the

interstate shipment of all raw milk products, both certified and noncerti-

fied, in 1986 helped reduce the number of raw milk-related outbreaks.

Sporadicillnessescontinuetobereported,however,particularlyamong

farmfamilieswhoroutinelyconsumemilkfromtheirowndairyherds.”

Againnoreferencesaregiven, this timefor thestatementabout farm

families.Takentogether,thesepassagesarenotonlymisleadingbutalso

veryconfusing.Let’sexaminethemandseewhy.

First we have the sentence “Bacterial infections including diphthe-

ria, scarlet fever, tuberculosis and typhoid fever predominated before

WorldWarIIandwerealmostinvariablylinkedtoconsumptionofraw

milk.”Dr.Ryserappearstohavetoldusthatrawmilkcausedmostcases

oftheseillnesses.Thatassertionwouldbeblatantlyuntrue—butthatis

notquitewhatheistellingus.Forifwecheckbacktothesentencebe-


fore (“Outbreaks of milk-borne illness date from the inception of the

dairy industry”), we see that he may be referring only to cases of the

diseasesthatweremilk-borne.

But as indicated above, Ryser does not reference the “almost invari-

ably”statement.Howmuchmilk-bornediseasewasactuallyattributed

torawmilkintheyearsleadinguptoandduringWorldWarII?Inher

seriesofarticles“WhyMilkPasteurization?”publishedintheRural New

Yorker, Jean Bullitt Darlington provided some revealing statistics pub-

lishedbytheOntarioDepartmentofHealthandtheU.S.PublicHealth

Service.Fortheyears1934through1941,thetotalnumberofcasesof

typhoidfeverreportedfortheprovinceofOntario,fromallcauses,was

just under two thousand, with two hundred forty five deaths. The total

numberofcasesreportedasmilk-bornewassixteen,withtwodeaths.112

Therecordsdonottellushowmanyofthesefewcaseswereassociated

with raw milk and how many with pasteurized. But it is clear that Ryser’s

associationoftyphoidfeverwithrawmilkishighlymisleading.Infact,

lessthanonepercentofthetotalcasesoftyphoidintheeight-yearperi-

odwerereportedasmilk-borne,andlessthanonepercentofthedeaths

werefromcasesthatwerereportedasmilk-borne.

FiguresfortheUnitedStatesdemonstratethatRyser’scontention

thatmilk-bornediseases“...werealmostinvariablylinkedtoconsump-

tionof rawmilk”notonlyhasnobasis in fact,butpresentsapicture

thatistheoppositeofthefacts.TheU.S.PublicHealthServicereported

thatintwenty-twoyears,1922-1944inclusive,reportslinkedatotalof

almost thirty-eight thousand cases of all kinds of diseases to all vari-

etiesofmilkandmilkproducts,pasteurizedandraw,withanaverage

ofseventeenhundredtwenty-sixcasesperyear.For1944inparticular,

therewereonethousandfourhundredforty-ninemilk-relatedcases,of

whichonlyfourhundredthirtywereattributedtorawmilk.Therewere

twentydeaths—onlyoneofwhichwasattributedtotheconsumptionof

rawmilk.113,114

Asnotedabove,Ryserreports,“...theeventualreductioninthe

incidence of milk-borne enteric diseases with no milk-borne cases of

diphtheria,scarletfever,tuberculosis,ortyphoidfeverreportedinmore

than 40 years. . . . Banning the interstate shipment of all raw milk prod-


ucts, both certified and noncertified, in 1986 helped reduce the number

ofrawmilk-relatedoutbreaks.”Hereitappearsthatbanningrawmilk

hadtheeffectofreducingtheincidenceofdiphtheria,scarletfever,tu-

berculosis and typhoid fever. But since Ryser has just told us that there

havebeennomilk-bornecasesduring the last fortyyears,he isactu-

allyclaimingareductioninthe“numberofmilk-relatedoutbreaks”of

“entericdiseases”(typicallymildgastrointestinalillness).Hisnextsen-

tenceis,“Sporadicillnessescontinuetobereported,however,particu-

larlyamongfarmfamilieswhoroutinelyconsumemilkfromtheirown

dairyherds.”Theimplicationonceagainisthatthesesporadicillnesses

includediphtheria,scarletfever,tuberculosisandtyphoidfeverwhenin

facttheyare“entericdiseases,”afewdaysofdiarrhea.Ryserprovides

noreferencetodocumentthisassertion.Itisimpossibletosaywithcer-

taintywhetherthiswritingisdeliberatelymisleadingorsimplyinept.

Inthisandearlierchapters,we’veexaminedgrossexaggerations

by public health authorities on the extent of problems caused by raw

milk—aconstantthemethroughthemedicalliteratureofthepastone

hundredyears.InChapter5,Idescribedpartofa1929addressbyWil-

liamDodgeFrost,PhDandDoctorofPublicHealth,inwhichheana-

lyzedthequestionofhowmanyofthecasesoftyphoid,scarletfeverand

diphtheriaintheUnitedStatesintheyears1906through1925couldbe

attributedtotheconsumptionofmilk.HereIquotesomeoftheactual

figures that formed the basis of Dr. Frost’s conclusions:

“Thetableshowsthattheproportionofmilk-bornetyphoidtothe

totalamountoftyphoidvariesfrom0.17to0.94of1percentandthat

theaverageforthe20-yearperiodisaboutone-halfof1percent(0.53

percent).

“Inthecaseofscarletfever,theyearlypercentagesrangefrom0.05

to0.37of1percentwithanaverageof0.106percent.

“Thepercentages fordiphtheriarangefrom0.0to0.18of1per-

cent,withanaverageof0.028percent.

“Themilk-borneare0.221of1percentofthetotal[forallthreedis-

eases]orpractically1casemilk-borneto450casesacquiredsomeother

way.”115

This evidence about typhoid fever, scarlet fever and diphtheria


shouldbeconsideredalongwiththatofMrs.Darlington.Considertoo

thefactthattherehavebeennomilk-bornecasesofthesediseasesre-

portedduringthepastfortyyears,despitethecontinuedlegalavailabil-

ity of raw milk in some thirty-five states, and the fact that millions of

farm families during the last forty years have continued to drink raw

milk.Isitnotabundantlyclearthatanyallusiontopotentialproblems

withthesediseasestoday,asawarningagainstrawmilkbecomingmore

widelyavailable,isacompleteanduttersmokescreen?

OnceagainquotingMrs.Darlington,whose1947articlesremain

asrelevanttodayasever:“Ifevidenceforthecasefor[compulsory]pas-

teurization is so difficult to find that it must needs be distorted and in

somecaseseveninvented—whichisclearfromthemostrecentpublic-

ityonthesubject—anhonestmindcannotfailtograspthatthecasefor

[compulsory]pasteurizationisaveryweakcaseindeed.”116

RAWMILKANDE. COLI O157:H7

Smallsocialgatheringsusedtobethesourceofmostcasesoffood

poisoning.Suchoutbreaksstilldooccur,butnewkindsofoutbreaksare

moretypicalnow,outbreakscausedbychangesinthewayfoodispro-

duced.AccordingtoDr.RobertV.Tauxe,headoftheFood-borneand

Diarrheal Diseases Branch at the CDC, America’s centralized, industrial-

izedsystemoffoodprocessinghascreatedoutbreaksthathavethepo-

tentialtosickenmillionsofpeople.117

Food-borne illness from milk products usually involves gastro-

intestinal illness precipitated by the bacteria salmonella and campy-

lobacter. Incidents involving these two organisms have accounted for

mostdairy-relatedillnessesreportedsincetheearly1980s.Recently,the

newvirulentformofE. coli(E. coli O157:H7)hascauseddairy-related

outbreaksofillness,whichhavereceivedconsiderableattentionbecause

oftheparticularlysevereorfatalcomplicationssometimesproducedby

theorganisms.(MostformsofE. colidonotcauseillness,andinfact

play a beneficial role in the digestive tract, and even with E. coli O157:

H7,onlyafewofitsstrainsarepathogenic.)InApplied Dairy Microbi-

ology,Ryserreports,“at least60casesofrawmilk-associatedillness”

duetoE. coli O157:H7.Inthesameparagraph,hedocumentsmorethan


500hamburger-relatedcasesofE. coli O157:H7illnessthatcausedthe

deaths of four children in 1993—the now famous Jack-in-the-Box case

that occurred in Washington state. At least fifteen additional outbreaks

linkedtotheconsumptionofundercookedgroundbeefoccurredinthe

1980s. In Canada, sixteen hundred cases were reported in 1992, and

fourteenhundredwerereportedintheUnitedStatesin1994.118

RyseralsodocumentsanumberofE. coli O157:H7outbreaksthat

involvedpasteurizedmilk,citingfaultypasteurizationorpost-pasteuri-

zationcontamination.Asusual,Rysercitestheseoutbreaksasadditional

reasonforcompulsorypasteurization.Writingofoneoutbreakinvolving

eighteenseverecasesinMontanain1994,however,heactuallyprovides

uswithfairwarningthatoneshouldavoidallpasteurizeddairyproducts

(thoughthiswascertainlynothisintent):“Thisoutbreakdoesraiseseri-

ousnewpublichealthconcernsregardingthepossiblepresenceoftoxic

strainsofE. coli in factory environments and their entry into finished

productsaspost-processingcontaminants.”119Itappearsthatwhat’sin

themilkisthesamethingEricSchlossertoldusisinthemeat.

Oneoutbreakattributedtorawmilkandoftencitedinthescientif-

ic literature took place in 2001 on Vancouver Island in British Columbia.

Thereport,entitled“Escherichia coli O157OutbreakAssociatedwiththe

Ingestion of Unpasteurized Goat’s Milk in British Columbia,” describes

five cases of E. coli O157:H7.120

The first case occurred in a one-year-old child who had consumed

rawgoat’smilkandalsohadvisitedapettingzoo—acommonsourceof

illness. The authors did not describe any follow-up of the petting zoo

lead.Twochildrenofthesamefamilybecameillsoonafter,buttheau-

thorsdidnotreportwhether theyhaddrunkrawmilk.Threemonths

earlier,thefamilyhadjoinedacooperativethatsuppliedthemwiththe

milk, of which eighteen other families were members, none of whom

reportedillness.Twochildrenofanotherfamilywhovisitedthecoop-

erativefarmbecameill,buttheauthorsdidnotreportwhethertheyhad

purchasedorconsumedanyrawmilk.

Two out of seven bottles of milk purchased by the first family were

testedfortheorganism,oneofwhichwasfound“presumptively”posi-

tiveafter“enrichment”withatestingsubstance;theothersampletested


negative.Theauthorsdidnotreportwhethertheinfectedbottlehadal-

readybeenopened,nordidtheyreporttestinganymilkobtainedfrom

thefarmitself.Theydidnotdiscussthepossibilitythattheinfectedper-

sonshadcontaminatedthemilkafterbecomingill,nordidtheyreport

testinganyotherfoodsfromthefamily’shouseorthewateronthefarm.

Theinvestigationprovidesanexcellentexampleofthemethodologyde-

scribed above: look until you find the answer you want; stop looking

when you find the answer you want.

While health officials build a case against E. coliinrawmilk,the

factremainsthatotherfoods,suchasundercookedmeat,arethemost

likelycandidates tocause the typeofepidemics thatDr.Tauxeof the

CDCismostconcernedabout—thosethatsickenmillionsofpeople.

The organism was first identified in 1982. This pathogen has be-

comewidelydispersedinthefoodsupplywiththeriseofhugefeedlots,

slaughterhousesandhamburgergrinders.MeatproductioninAmerica

isevermorecentralized:mostofthebeefconsumedintheUnitedStates

is now slaughtered in thirteen large packing houses. Eric Schlosser,

author of Fast Food Nation, provides the following description: “The

meat-packingsystemthatarosetosupplythenation’sfastfoodchains—

anindustrymoldedtoservetheirneeds,toprovidemassiveamountsof

uniformgroundbeefsothatallofMcDonald’shamburgerswouldtaste

the same—has proved to be an extremely efficient system for spreading

disease.Thelargemeatpackingcompanieshavemanagedtoavoidthe

sort of liability routinely imposed on the manufacturers of most con-

sumerproducts.Todaythegovernmentcandemandthenationwidere-

callofdefectivesneakers,butitcannotorderameatpackingcompany

toremovecontaminated,potentiallylethalgroundbeeffromfastfood

kitchensandsupermarketshelves.”121

Another danger from confinement farms is runoff water, which

carriesE. coli:O157:H7ontocropsandintohouseholds.Thisisapar-

ticularlyseriousprobleminWashington,astateinwhichadispropor-

tionate number of cases has occurred. Between 1990-1999, twenty-three

such outbreaks were reported in Washington state, afflicting at least two

hundred eighty-eight individuals, from sources as diverse as fish, lettuce

andlasagna,aswellasfromgroundbeef.122Theworstoutbreakoccurred


inOctober1996,whenseventyindividualsbecamesickenedfromcon-

taminatedapplejuice—thefamousOdwallajuicecase.Thishighlypub-

licizedoutbreakledtofederalregulationsrequiringthepasteurization

ofallfruitjuicesoldinretailoutlets.123

InlateNovemberof2005,anoutbreakofillnessattributedtoviru-

lent E. coli O157:H7 afflicted eight Washington state individuals who

had consumed raw milk, sparking a flurry of news reports, vaulting the

subjectofrawmilkintothenationalmedia—andalsoraisingthespectre

ofdeliberatesabotage.

The milk came from Dee Creek Farm, a small family farm near

thetownofWoodlandinCowlitzCounty,insouthwesternWashington

State.Theowners,AnitaandMichaelPuckett,operatedacowsharepro-

gram, one of several in the state. State officials knew about the Pucketts’

operation—thePuckettsdescribed theiroperationearlier thatyear, in

July, toClaudiaColes,headof theDepartmentofAgriculture’s safety

program,ataconferenceonsmallfarmoperations.Coleslistenedand

askedleadingquestionsbutdidnotexpressdisapproval.Alaterreport

quotedherassaying,“Wecan’tdoanythingabout itunlessthere isa

healthproblem.”

ThePuckettswerenewtodairying.Theydidnothavefancyfacili-

tiesbutwerecarefultofollowgoodsanitarypracticesasrecommended

byseveralotherdairymeninthearea.Thecowsgrazedonpasturebut

cameintoabarnformilking.ThePuckettswashedtheteatswithiodine

andmilkedwithamilkingmachineintoaclosedstainlesssteelbucket

whichtheycarefullywashedbeforemilking.Theythentransportedthe

bucketsintotheirkitchenwheretheytransferredthemilkintogallon-

sizedglassjarsownedbytheshareholders.Itwastheshareholders’duty

toprovidecleanjars,butthePuckettsthenwashedthejarsagaininthe

dishwasher, just to be safe. The filled jars went immediately into the

freezerforninetyminutesandthenintotherefrigerator.

The various shareholder families had organized themselves into

groups for milk pick-up. Each day of the week, one family picked up

milkatthefarmforadozenorsoothershareholders.Whenthepickup

personarrivedatthefarm,thePuckettsplacedtheglassjarsintoalarge

coolerwithblueice.Eachgroupoffamilieshadapickuplocation,such


asafrontporch,wherethecoolerwasleftunattended.Familiesforeach

grouphadawindowofthreetoninep.m.tocomebyandretrievetheir

milkfromthecooler.ThePuckettshadexplainedthepickupsystemto

agentsfromtheDepartmentofHealthandtheDepartmentofAgricul-

ture on one of their visits to the farm; the officials offered no feedback,

neitherpositivenornegative.

MichaelPuckettoftenpickeduptheemptycoolerearlythefollow-

ingmorning,onthewayhomefromhisnightjob.Abouttwoweeksbe-

foretheincident,hewassomewhatunnervedbythepresenceofacar

parked across the street of the pickup house. A driver sat behind the

steeringwheel.Puckettstalled toseehow long thecarwouldremain.

Twentyminutespassed,atwhichtimeapolicecararrivedandthewait-

ingcarmovedoff.124

The first Dee Creek shareholder to become sick was a child from

afamilythatpickedupmilkonMondayfromthemilkingofNovember

26or27,atthepickuphousewhereMichaelhadnoticedtheparkedcar.

Soon other children fell ill and several were hospitalized. Health officials

quickly confirmed the culprit as a strain of virulent E. coli O157:H7.

The newspapers reported seventeen or eighteen confirmed cases

offood-borneillnessfromvirulentE. coliinDeeCreekFarmsharehold-

ers—the first of many exaggerations to appear in the media. Accord-

ing to the Washington Department of Health, there were only seven;

according to a farm spokesperson, there were actually eight confirmed

cases,sixpeople(fromfourfamilies)fromtheMondaypickupgroupof

thirteenfamiliesandtwofromtheTuesdaypickupgroupofsixfamilies.

In all, five were hospitalized, from three families, all from the Monday

pickup group. One was released after treatment with IV for dehydra-

tion, one was released after three days and one after five days, but two of

thechildren,fromtwodifferentfamilies,remainedhospitalizedinseri-

ousconditionforaroundamonth.OnememberofthePuckettfamily

testedpositivebutdidnotgetsick,andthreeotherindividualsamong

theshareholderfamilieshadsymptomsbutdidnottestpositive.Infact,

of the other eleven “cases,” at least eight of them specifically tested nega-

tive.Oneimportantpoint:DeeCreekFarmstoppeddistributionandad-

visedtheirshareholderstoceaseconsumptionoftheirmilkdaysbefore


theDepartmentofHealthevenacknowledgedthattheyknewaboutthe

issueandcontactedthefarm.

TheWashingtonStateDepartmentofAgriculture(WSDA)visited

thefarmthreetimesduringtheweekofDecember12toconductathor-

ough investigation, taking samples of milk and swabs from all five cows

on the farm. At that point, the Pucketts had put away the equipment

theyusedfortheirshareholdersandweremilkingonlyfortheirpigs.

This theyexplained to the inspectors,notinghowtheydid thingsdif-

ferentlywhen theymilked forhumanconsumption.Mrs.Pucketthad

toremindtheinspectorstohosedownandsterilizetheirbootsbefore

theyenteredthemilkingbarn—thefarmwasverymuddyatthetime,as

wereallfarmsintheregion,becauseofarecord-breakingrainyseason.

WSDAincludedembarassingphotographsofmud-splatteredcowsand

equipmentintheirreportontheinvestigation.

Predictably,themediacoverageoftheincidentleanedheavilyon

healthdepartmentreports,describedas“ashowcaseofsensationalism

and unprofessional journalism.” However, TV interviews did include

manyconsumerswhoexpressedpassionatesupportofrawmilk.Inone,

ashareholderpouredaglassofDeeCreekFarm’smilkthatshestillhad

inherrefrigeratorforherfamilytodrink.Thenewspapersreportedthat

the law offices of William D. Marler had contacted two of the three af-

flicted families.

On December 21, the Clark County Health Department issued a

reportstatingthattheWashingtonStateDepartmentofAgriculturehad

confirmed E. coli O157:H7inDeeCreekFarmmilk—ClarkCountywas

thesceneofanoutbreakofE. coli O157:H7atacountyfairearlierinthe

year.ClaudiaColeslefttwotelephonemessages,onetothePuckettsand

onetotheirdaughter,apologizingfortheClarkCountyreportandstat-

ing that at that point, they had found no specific pathogens in the milk.

ItwasatapressconferenceonJanuary16thatWashingtonState

officials announced a positive finding of E. coli O157:H7intwosamples

of milk and five environmental samples from Dee Creek farm, of a strain

thatmatchedthoseculturedfromthestoolofthesickchildren.There-

portstatedthat“RawmilkboughtanddistributedfromDeeCreekFarm

wasconsumedbyallaffectedpeoplepriortotheirbecomingill,”andthat


“DeeCreekFarmillegallysoldrawmilk.”Thestatereportconcluded:

“TheWSDAFSPinvestigationalongwiththeepidemiologicalworkby

theCountyHealthDepartmentsdemonstratesthattheillegalrawmilk

providedbyDeeCreekFarmswasthesourceoftheE. coli O157:H7that

sickenedatleast18peopleinWashingtonandOregon.”117

While state officials expressed confidence that the outbreak was

causedbyrawmilk,theyignoredmanyimportantfacts.First,andmost

important,wasthefactthatindependentlabstestingDeeCreek’smilk,

followingthesametestingprotocolusedbythestate,foundnoE. coli

O157:H7,noteven inthesamesamplesthestateclaimedtestedposi-

tive.

Anotherfact:therewasatleastoneconcurrentoutbreakofinfec-

tionfromE. coli O157:H7,affectingseveralfamilymembers,inthearea.

OneboyendedupinthesamehospitalastheDeeCreekkids,incriti-

calcondition,andwasstillthereafteramonth,possiblywithlong-term

brain,nerve and kidney damage. Several of his family members were

also confirmed with E. coli O157:H7.

Neitherthestatenorthemediathoughtitrelevanttoreportthese

illnesses.Wecanonlyguesswhethertherewereotherunreportedcases

ofE. coli O157:H7atthesametime.(Allthreeraw-milkdrinkingchil-

drenhavesincerecovered.)

Onemorefact:justtwomonthsbeforetheDeeCreekincident,in

September2005,E. coli O157:H7wasfoundinwatersamplesinanorth

Spokanewaterdistrict,promptingahealthalert.

ThentherearethetacticsoftheWashingtonStateDepartmentof

Agriculture—reminiscentofthoseusedagainstAltaDenainthe1970s

and 1980s. The state kept its final report secret until the day before the

introduction of new raw milk legislation banning cow shares and an-

nounced “proof positive” at a press conference. Dee Creek Farm and

others involved learned of the final report and the press release from the

media,notthestate.

To make their case for the new legislation, officials claimed that

DeeCreekhadbarredentrytothefarm.Infact,thePuckettshadnever

barredentrytothefarm,onlyrequestedthatinspectionstakeplacewhen

theydidnothaveotherobligations(suchasmeetingwiththeirattorney


or visiting the doctor), to which officials agreed. (When confronted with

theselies,MichaelTokosofWSDAapologizedandagreedthatthePuck-

etts did not ever bar entry.) The whole affair smacks of well-planned

orchestration, perfectly timed to influence anti-cow-share legislation.

AnotherparticularlyvirulentoutbreakofE. coli O157:H7 illness,

onewediscussedearlier,occurredinCaliforniaduringaten-weekpe-

riod, beginning in August, 2006.Over half the two hundred four vic-

timswerehospitalized;thirty-onecasesinvolvedatypeofkidneyfailure

calledhemolyticuremicsyndrome(HUS),andtherewerethreedeaths.

HUS, by the way, usually occurs when the patient afflicted by virulent E.

coliisgivenantibiotics,whichcanleadtoabuildupofShigatoxinthat

cancausekidneyfailure.125

Using PFGE analysis, investigators finally matched the particular

strainofE. coli O157:H7—out of over thirty-five hundred known unique

E. coli O157:H7 strains—to fresh salad spinach grown in the Salinas

valleyandalsotocattlefecesfromacattleranchuphillofthespinach

fields.126 Several companies voluntarily recalled their spinach as the

industry scrambled to find ways to prevent future outbreaks—spinach

growersalonesufferedtwohundredmilliondollarsinlostsalesin2006

andmoreinearlieroutbreaks.

But the problem is complex. If, as most investigators suspect, run-

off water from confinement farms is a source of the organism, it will be

a continuing source of infection—which apparently cannot be washed

off,asE. colicanresidewithinthetissueoftheleavesaswellasonthe

surface.Cloroxrinsesandcoldstoragehaveprovenequallyineffectivein

preventingillness.127

VirulentE. coli almost certainly originates with the confinement

of livestock,so it is ironicthata lotofthemediaattentionduringthe

outbreakfocusedonarawmilkdairyfarmerfromFresnowhograzeshis

dairycowsongrass.MarkMcAfee,theoutspokenpresidentandfounder

ofOrganicPasturesDairy,evendevelopedamobilemilkingparlorso

his cows could always be on pasture. His raw milk products, includ-

ing butter, cream, yoghurt, kefir and cheese, sell in health food stores

throughoutCalifornia,whereretailsalesofrawmilkandrawmilkprod-

uctsarelegal.ItwasrawmilkproductsfromOrganicPasturesDairythat


replaced those from Steuve’s after California health officials forced the

closureoftheSteuvebrothers’rawmilkbusiness.

McAfee instituted a private testing program when he went into

businessin1999,frequentlysubjectingthemilkproducts,thefarmenvi-

ronment,thecowsandtheirmanuretolaboratoryanalysis.Atthetime

oftheoutbreak,hehadperformedoverthirteenhundredtests,notonce

finding a human pathogen.

Then came reports that several children had been hospitalized

fromE. coli O157:H7,allofwhomhadconsumedrawmilk.According

to the FDA, five were ill and four hospitalized. In reality, only two were

hospitalized,bothofwhomhadbeengivenantibioticsinspiteofexpress

instructions on their armbands forbidding antibiotics. McAfee visited

bothchildreninthehospital.Themotherofonechilddeniedtheillness

had anything to do with raw milk and the other child had consumed

spinachtwodaysbeforetheillness.

“Justtobesafe,”theCaliforniaDepartmentofFoodandAgricul-

ture(CDFA)quarantinedallOrganicPasturesrawmilkproducts.Astate

teamdressedupinprotectivegearshowedupatthefarmandtestedand

retested the cows, the milk and the manure on the farm. They found

pathogensonlyintwoheifers,whichwerenotbeingmilked.McAfeehad

purchased the heifers from a confinement dairy—he says the pathogen

finding taught him a lesson, and he will never bring outside cows into

hisherdagain.Inanyevent,thestrainfromtheheifersdidnotmatch

thestrainthathadsickenedthechildren.Thestateliftedthequarantine

twoweekslaterandeventuallypaidapartialcompensationtoOrganic

Pasturesforlossofsales.

But the link between California raw milk and E. coli O157:H7dieda

slowdeath.AnFDAanti-rawmilkPowerPointpresentionpostedonthe

Internetseveralmonthslatercontainedseveralslideslinkinga“Califor-

niarawmilkdairy”tofourHUShospitalizationsfromE. coli O157:H7.

TheslideswereremovedafteranangryletterfromMcAfeethreatened

theagencywithalawsuit.128InaJune,2008courtcaseinvolvingraw

milk,attorneysfortheMarylandDepartmentofHealthandMentalHy-

gienecited“childreninCaliforniadrinkingrawmilk,gettingsickfromE.

coli andalmostdying,”inargumentsopposingcow-sharesagreements.


And when attorney Bill Marler convinced two of the victims to sue the

dairy,morereportsaboutthecaseappearedinthenewspapers.Marler

placed an inflammatory video, full of distortions, about the sick children

onYouTube.com,but removed itafter receivinga letter fromMcAfee

enumeratingitserrors.Still,allthefreepublicityatthetimeoftheout-

breakledtoatwelvepercentincreaseinsalesforOrganicPastures.

THESAFETYOFRAWVERSUSPASTEURIZEDMILK

Wenowcometothesixty-fourthousanddollarquestion.Whatis

theriskofillnessonaper-servingbasisforrawmilkcomparedtopas-

teurized milk and also to other foods? The obvious bias in published

reports makes this a difficult question to answer, but we can try.

FromajointUSDA/FDA/CDCpaperonListeria monocytogenes,

published in September, 2003, the authors estimated that there are five

hundred fifteen times more illnesses from L. mono.peryearduetodeli

meatsandtwenty-ninetimesmoreillnessesfromL. mono.peryeardue

topasteurizedmilkcomparedtorawmilk.129Onaper-servingbasis,the

authorsestimatedthatdelimeatsaretentimesmorelikelytocauseill-

nessthanrawmilk—yetwehearnowarningsfromtheFDAthat“Deli

meatsareinherentlydangerousandshouldnotbeconsumed.”

The CDC attributes nineteen thousand five hundred thirty-one ill-

nessestotheconsumptionofpasteurizedmilkandmilkproductsfrom

1980-2005, just over ten times the number of illnesses attributed to

rawmilkduringthesameperiod.TheCDCestimatesthat3.5percent

ofAmericanhouseholdsdrinkrawmilkonaregularbasis.Usingthis

estimate,thereareovertwiceasmanyillnessesattributedtorawmilk

comparedtopasteurizedmilkonaper-servingbasis.Adjustingforbias

inthenumbersattributedtorawmilk,however,pasteurizedmilkmay

be over five times more dangerous than raw milk on a per-serving ba-

sis.130OnestatisticianconcludedfromtheCDCnumbersthatyou’dhave

todrinkoverthreemillionglassesofrawmilkbeforeyoumightexpect

togetanillnessofanykindduetothemilk.131

Here’sanotherwaytocrunchthenumbers.Thereareaboutsixty

government-reportedillnessesfromrawmilkperyear—anumberthat

is probably greatly exaggerated—and about one-half million raw milk


drinkers in the U.S.—a number that is conservative. But using these fig-

ures, the rateof illness fromrawmilkcanbecalculatedataboutone

one-hundredthofonepercentperyear—theactualpercentageisprob-

ablymuchlower.Therateofillnessfromotherfoodsisabouttwenty-

five percent—seventy-six million cases per year in a population of about

three hundred million. Thus even using inflated government statistics

on illness from raw milk, you are over twenty-five hundred times more

likelytocontractillnessfromotherfoodsthanfromrawmilk.

JUSTHOWDANGEROUSAREPATHOGENS,ANYWAY?

Arecurringtheme inthisbookhasbeenthe importanceofeach

individual’s immunity in resisting the potentially harmful effects of

pathogenicbacteria.ThistopicemergedinaJanuary5th,2000Los An-

geles Timesarticletitled“TheGreatEggPanic:Newproposalsrekindle

the debate over eggs’ safety. But some scientists say the fears are over-

blown.”132

“Newgovernmentproposalsdesignedtochecksalmonellapoison-

ingcouldforceroutinepasteurizationorirradiationoftheAmericanegg

supply,” the article reads. Officials argue that because three hundred

thousandAmericansaresickenedandhundredsdieeachyearfromsal-

monellaineggs,eggsshouldbeirradiated.“Today’segg,thenewwis-

dom dictates, is too frequently contaminated with a bacterium called

Salmonella enteritidistobeeatenaseggsalwayshavebeen:sunnyside

up,inmayonnaise,crackedrawoverhotpastaandgratedwithParme-

sancheeseorsimplysoft-boiledandspoonedworshipfullyfromacup.”

Other officials disagree, including Peter Barton Hutt, former chief coun-

selfortheFDA.Hecallsthestatisticalmodelingthatproducesthefood

poisoningstatistics“theclosestthingIcanthinkofinthismodernage

toaOuijaboard.”NowalectureronfoodsafetyatHarvardUniversity,

Huttsays,“Thestatisticsareallovertheplacebecausenoneofthemare

anygood.Theyareallwildguesses.”133

Sowhileitisclearthatmanycommerciallyproducedeggscontain

salmonella,it’snotatallclearhowmany,orhowmanyproblemsthis

may lead to, or why some people are afflicted while most are not.

AccordingtoJohnR.Roth,aprofessorofbiologyattheUniversity


ofUtah,whohasbeenstudyingsalmonellaforfortyyears,“...probably

it[salmonella]existsinverymanyorganismsatalowlevelwhereit’snot

a pathogen but living as part of the gut flora.” The idea of banishing it,

hesays,isabsurd.“Salmonellaisdistributedprettywidely,andifyou’re

willing to look closely enough, you’d probably find it almost everywhere.

Sometimesitmakesamistakeandgetsacrossthegutwallandintoan

organism.Thenithasallthesemechanismsforsurvivingknownasviru-

lence.”134

Inthevastmajorityofcases,thatvirulencemanifestsasanirrita-

tion in the gut wall where the immune system fights off the bacteria,

and symptoms range from loose stools to flu-like illness. In rare cases,

theinfectionreachesthebloodstream,andoccasionallythesecasesmay

befatal.Salmonella-inducedfatalitiesalmostalways involve individu-

alswhoareimmunosuppressedfrompreviousdrugtherapy.According

totheCenters forDiseaseControl inAtlanta,between1985and1998

there were seventy-nine verified deaths from this cause, about five per

year—one-tenth the number of people killed in the U.S. each year by

lightning.135

Roth’sassertionthatsalmonella is literallyeverywhere is impor-

tant, for it confirms two things. First, there is no point in sanitizing the

foodsupply,becausecontaminationwithsalmonellaandotherorgan-

ismscanjustaseasilyoccurafterpasteurization,irradiationorwhatever

otherprocessisusedtosanitize.Second,theindividualswhobecomeill

asaresultofexposuredosobecausetheir immunesystemsarefunc-

tioningabnormally.

Actually, regular exposure to organisms such as salmonella can

buildresistanceandimmunity.Ineffect,wecanmakeourselvesstron-

gerandhealthierbyeatingrawfoodsthatmaycontainorganismscon-

sidered“pathogenic.”Thatiswhyregularrawmilkdrinkersaremuch

lesslikelytobecomeillduringoutbreaksofillnessattributedtorawmilk

than first-time raw milk drinkers. According to a 1985 report, “Persons,

regardlessofage,whoareroutinelyexposedtoCampylobacter jejuniby

vehiclessuchasrawmilkmaydevelopsomeprotectiveimmunity.[This

is]supportedbyseveralserologicalstudies...”136

Duringonecampylobacteroutbreak“...noneofthechronicraw


milkdrinkersbecameillafteringestinglargeamountsofthesamemilk

thatcausedahighattackrateamongthosepersonswhowereacutely

exposed....Presumablythisphenomenonisduetopreviousexposure

toCampylobacterwithsubsequentdevelopmentof immunity . . . this

investigation confirms the presence of these antibodies [to Campylo-

bacter] in persons chronically exposed to raw milk and for the first time,

to our knowledge, shows an association between high antibody levels

and immunity to infection under field conditions.”137

Quite simply, these studies confirm the fact that raw milk drink-

ersdeveloppowerfulimmunityandresistancetopathogenicorganisms.

Thesamejournalsthatprovidethisinformationhavecontinuedtode-

mandacompletebanonrawmilk, includingabanonfarmersgiving

theproductawaytoneighborsandfriends.Yetinthisageofwidespread

threatfromvirulentmicroorganisms,rawmilkprovestobetheonefood

thatcanprovideimmunitytothepathogensintheotherfoodswecon-

sume.

GRASS-FED,FULL-FATRAWMILKISSAFEST

Back in 1936, Edwin Jordan, author of A Textbook of General Bac-

teriology,pointedoutthat“Thecharacterofpasturewasearlyobserved

toaffect thekindandabundanceof thespecies [ofbacteria] found in

milk;the lackofpasture inmorerecentyearshasbeendemonstrated

tohaveaprofoundeffect.”138 Numerous studies have confirmed the fact

that current feeding methods utilizing large quantities of grains have

had a profound influence on the kind and abundance of bacteria found

inmilk,muchtothedetrimentofthehealthoftheanimalsandthequal-

ityofthemilk.

Ofparticularrelevanceisthedevelopmentofacid-resistantstrains

ofbacteriainmoderncattle.Accordingtoa1998Sciencemagazinear-

ticle, cattle fed mostly grain have a lower (more acidic) intestinal pH

andaremorelikelytoharborpathogenicbacteriathancattlefedmostly

grass and hay. The abnormally low pH in which the bacteria develop

makes these bacteria acid-resistant. “The ability of bacteria to act as

food-bornepathogensdependsontheircapacitytosurvivethelowpH

of the [human] gastric stomach and to colonize the intestinal tract of


humans,”theauthorswrite.“Cattlethatwerefedgrainhadonemillion-

foldmoreacid-resistantE. colithancattlefedhay.”139

These acid-resistant pathogenic bacteria from heavily grain-fed,

overlyacidiccattlehaveanincreasedabilitytosurvivetheacidenviron-

ment of the human stomach and subsequently colonize the intestinal

tractandcausedisease.Thisisamajorreasonwhyrawmilk(ormeat)

fromgrass-fedcowsissomuchsaferthanmilkfromanimalskeptlarge-

ly or entirely in confinement and fed mostly grains.

The butterfat in milk is another factor that protects us from ill-

ness.Inadditiontocontainingantimicrobialshort-andmedium-chain

fattyacids,butterfatisacarrierforimportantvitaminsthatstrengthen

theimmunesystem.Anothersubstance,calledglycosphingolipids,pro-

tectsagainstgastrointestinalinfections,especiallyintheveryyoungand

theelderly.Inastudy involvingpasteurizedmilk,childrenwhodrank

skimmed milk had diarrhea at rates three to five times great than chil-

drenwhodrinkwholemilk.140

Milkwasdesignedbynaturetobeaperfectfood—butinorderfor

milktobeaperfectfood,andacompletelysafefood,itshouldbepro-

ducedandconsumedasnatureintended...fromcowsonpasture,with

allthebutterfat,andunpasteurized.Natural,richandraw!

15 The Safety of Raw versus Pasteurized Milk Safety of Raw versus Pasteurized Milk 265 possession or...

Documents

Transcript of 15 The Safety of Raw versus Pasteurized Milk Safety of Raw versus Pasteurized Milk 265 possession or...