A July 4 Message About Rights: It’s Easy to Talk About Freedom, Making Things Happen Is More Difficult

Why do I have this uneasy feeling of being a participant in “Survivor”, and that I’m about to be voted off the island?

Seriously, it’s curious how a discussion about raw milk research priorities turns into a rap about freedom and rights. I think everyone knows I view the raw milk “problem” as a rights issue. Indeed, the subtitle of my upcoming book (The Raw Milk Revolution) is “Behind America’s Emerging Battle Over Food Rights.”

But there’s a dynamic that occurs among supporters of raw milk when the discussion begins to question certain long-held assumptions. They drop the subject of the original discussion (in this case, the real significance of the Pottenger data in supporting raw milk’s nutritional benefits, and exploring other more persuasive data), and they talk about “rights,” as in, “Screw this business about sacred cows, I’m not giving an inch on Pottenger and, well, uh, this isn’t about Pottenger anyway, this is about freedom and rights. So there!”

That’s what Hugh Betcha does, and that’s what milk farmer and Don Wittlinger and Dave Milano do.

Well, I’ll give it to your straight. That approach is the equivalent of regulators who, when confronted with the argument that there are a miniscule number of illnesses from raw milk in this country and there’s no real danger, respond by saying, “Okay, that may be so, but what about the children? Who is protecting them?”

In other words, both arguments are cop-outs. They’re an excuse to simply not talk. And that’s what we have, no communication. The regulators may have started it, and may be the most intransigent. Unfortunately, the regulators have the power, as well as the support of the judges and legislators. You guys can stomp away and say you’ll go out in a blaze of glory defending your rights, but know what? The regulators know it’s a bunch of hot air, all talk. (Ironically, Lykke seems to be a government official of some type, who could very easily be fired if her/his real identity were known. Believe me, they fire such people in a heartbeat for engaging in such discussion. Lykke takes a risk posting on this blog, a bigger risk than I and most others on this blog take in defending rights.)

I’ve raised all kinds of objections when dairy farmers have been set upon by regulators. I’ve even called for civil disobedience. Some of you may remember the case of Greg Niewendorp, the Michigan farmer (since moved to Virginia) who refused to have his cattle tested for bovin tuberculosis. He sought out others to do the same, but when push came to shove, no one was there. I appreciate that in a down economy, it’s tough for others to put themselves on the line. Heck, it’s tough for certain especially vociferous readers here to even use their real names to ring the freedom bell, so what chance is there that they’ll go out on a limb via civil disobedience or other forms of real-life support?

I’ve sat in on court hearings involving dairy farmers whose rights have been violated via entrapment and illegal search warrants, and I can tell you, most judges don’t care. They just don’t care. Our constitution is nearly meaningless to them. They support the regulators, come hell or high water.

Given those realities, we have to go around the regulators (and legislators and judges). Educate consumers about the benefits of raw milk, and let them drive the market ever higher. Encourage more dairy farmers to explore raw milk. (Sorry, milk farmer, I’m not telling all feedlot dairies to get into the raw milk business, just encouraging a few serious-minded ones to explore making the transition to pasture-based dairy. Maybe where you live, economics aren’t important, and you can afford to just go your merry way, but in most of the rest of the country, economies are terrible and dairy farmers in particular, are going out of business in growing numbers. Transitioning some conventional dairies into raw dairies is a workable approach, and one that drives TPTB crazy.)

Small research studies that reaffirm raw milk’s safety, nutritional benefits, and economic benefits are an important way to educate people, and go around the regulators. Unfortunately, the Pottenger data isn’t especially useful or compelling in educating the masses, as much as a few devotees may love it. Criticizing it need not be any more threatening than admitting that people do occasionally become ill from raw milk, just as they become ill from spinach, ground beef, and cookie dough. Guess I didn’t fully appreciate how difficult it is to let go of sacred cows.

For Better or for Worse, We’re All Going to Have to Let Go of Sacred Cows If There’s Going to Be Progress on Raw Milk

I’m one of these people who believe that seemingly intractable divisions can be resolved by people with good intentions. In other words, when both sides of a political issue truly want a resolution, then they make it happen through compromise. We’ve seen it happen in Northern Ireland and in the U.S. over civil rights. Not to say the problems go away, but major components are resolved enough that significant progress can be made.

The raw milk issue is a political problem, one with heavily ideological components. We’re not in a position to resolve the issue here, but we’ve had some excellent debates and discussions over various aspects of the problem, like warning labels and signage, milk testing protocols, and most recently, about research priorities to gain more knowledge about the benefits or hazards of raw milk.

I thought we had a pretty good discussion going here following my previous post. Mark McAfee had some excellent suggestions about the importance of involving raw milk opponents in any research project. Concerned Person expressed a preference for a focus on safety issues. Don Wittinger talked about exploring effects of raw milk on the elderly. Miguel argued that it all starts with soil quality, and took issue with Lykke over whether private labs are suitable testing sources. Bryan and Hugh Betcha seem to have a penchant for the Pottenger study of cats and raw milk out of the 1940s.

Sure, there were some semi-hostile back-and-forths between Lykke and Hugh Betcha. But I think for Lykke and Concerned Person, in particular, just to participate on this blog requires a willingness to dish it out as well as take it. In other words, sharp elbows are almost a requirement for surviving in the hostile territory those two find here. In that context, I thought Lykke’s lance-an-abscess metaphor was a not inappropriate response to Hugh Betcha’s initial outburst.

But it seemed to be her questioning of Pottenger’s 1940s experiments with diets of cats that completely undidHugh Betcha. He went off on a rant that totally undermined an otherwise excellent discussion, by getting personal and suggesting she doesn’t belong on this blog. Sorry Hugh, much as I enjoy many of your comments, you don’t decide who belongs on this blog (nor do I, by the way, it’s a completely open forum, though we heavily frown on mob tactics).

The spark that set off Hugh Betcha seemed to be the questioning of the Pottenger data. Now, I recently did a survey of research on raw milk in connection with my book, and decided to not even include the Pottenger work. He may have been an excellent scientist, and there may be some wonderful insights there, but it is very difficult to get your arms around the research so as to write intelligently about it, for reasons that Lykke well descrobes. Maybe I was right and maybe I was wrong, but I concluded there was other more persuasive research supporting raw milk, and focused on that.

My point is that the Pottenger is obviouslu very important to Hugh Betcha, his sacred cow, as it were. And once someone insulted his sacred cow, well, he just resorted to fighting dirty.

The anti-raw-milk crowd is just as guilty of holding onto sacred cows. Just take a look at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s presentation “On the Safety of Raw Milk” and you’ll see one (or possibly dozens, once you get into it). That highly suspect 2005 presentation is pretty much the first thing that comes up on the FDA’s site when people search under “raw milk,” so I’d say the agency holds onto it as a sacred cow.

It’s so easy when dealing with highly divisive issues like raw milk, especially when the discussion gets difficult or testy, to simply throw up your hands and hang on desperately to your sacred cows. Not only does it generally accomplish little that's positive, it actually undermines the efforts of well meaning individuals.

Chip, Chip, Chip—The More Small Studies We Get Supporting Raw Milk, the Sooner We’ll Put the Lies to Pasture

The more data there is suggesting that raw milk is not only safe, but also healthy and popular, the more difficult it is for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control, and the various professional medical associations to argue otherwise. Or let me put it this way: the more shrill and hollow their arguments sound.

We’ve seen at least three small studies of raw milk undertaken in recent years: one out of a Michigan food co-op suggesting that sufferers of lactose intolerance do better with raw milk, the one I summarized in my previous post indicating that raw milk sales benefit Massachusetts dairy farmers and local communities more than is generally understood, and one just conducted via an online survey by California raw milk advocate Amanda Rose on the characteristics of raw milk drinkers (some of the intitial results have been posted on an Internet site, showing, most notably, that about three-fourths of the raw milk drinkers in the survey have undergraduate degrees or better). Other similar studies are no doubt under way or being contemplated.

Now, these studies may vary in their scientific depth and credibility, but what they all have in common is that they reduce, little by little, the sense of fear that public health authorities work so hard to create.

Certainly there have been other more scientifically-based recent studies completed that suggest consuming raw milk shows important benefits, but the establishment scientists who conduct them invariably hew the government line, to the effect: It seems as if raw milk confers important health benefits, but we can’t recommend that people drink it because the FDA and CDC say it’s dangerous. (Note that the major study I linked to was funded by the European Union and other European organizations; as such it provides a sense of what an American government agency would expect if it even got to the point of encouraging or funding such research.)

To me, such government-sponsored studies are biased: raw milk is damned in the end no matter what its benefits. So how do we get more of what I would call the unbiased studies completed? A number of people are wondering that, and following my previous post have suggested organizing a foundation or even a research conference devoted to raw milk and related research. These are all great ideas, and if someone wants to take the challenge on (the biggest challenge being raising money) I’m sure there would be all kinds of great proposals for studies. I’d certainly be pleased to do what I can to help move things along.

But if such devices can’t be readily created, I’d suggest an alternative: that small local organizations, or even individuals, think about conducting their own studies, as occurred in Michigan, Massachusetts, and California. Such studies don’t need to be expensive, since the organizations tend to have existing relationships with consumers. Internet technology helps keeps costs down.

Such studies, because they involve real people with real experience, tell the story the government doesn’t want people to hear.

A New Survey Helps Us Understand Why Raw Milk Is the New “Go-To” Product for More Dairies

Raw milk for sale on a central Massachusetts farm.In our debates about the economic impact of raw dairies, we’ve had to speculate, use our personal experiences. There’s been a lot of that going on over the last few days, along with intense debate over safety and Big Ag’s products versus those of smaller farms.

Conveniently, a new study has just come out from the Northeast Organic Farming Association examining in some detail the economic impact of raw dairies in Massachusetts. What it says is that raw dairies have more economic impact than we generally realize, and that the impact is growing rapidly.

The state’s policy on raw milk is similar in important respects to states like New York and Pennsylvania, in that it allows purchases direct from the farm. Actually, it’s more liberal than New York because it allows buying clubs to deliver raw milk to consumers in the Boston area who can’t or won’t travel to farms, but it’s less liberal than nearby states like Connecticut and Maine, which allow retail sales of raw milk.

The study makes for fascinating reading (at least to this raw milk nut). Here are a few of its revelations:

• Raw milk is produced by 25 of the state’s 189 dairies, or 13% of the total. The number of Massachusetts dairies producing raw milk has more than doubled in the last three years, while the number of dairies has declined dramatically, from 829 in 1980; that means that over nearly thirty years, the number of dairies has declined by more than three-fourths.
• The dairies producing raw milk had total sales of more than $600,000 in 2008. That may not sound like much, but the report notes “that 12 of the 25 dairy farmers reported that raw milk sales were vital to their farm’s survival,” accounting for more than 20% of their farm’s income.
• Money earned from raw milk sales “has a lasting effect on the communities where it is sold,” says the study. Not only does the money contribute to other local businesses and taxes, but, “Some farmers also report that consumers who purchase raw milk from farmers build on that habit by purchasing other products from nearby farms, thus further stimulating the local farm economy.”
• Raw milk revenues are especially helpful in offsetting the costs of maintaining organic standards, since Massachusetts is underserved by organic processors; thus, many are selling organic milk at conventional prices, which are about half organic prices (roughly $1 a gallon versus $2 a gallon).

What the study doesn’t say is that despite the fact Massachusetts doesn’t test the milk of raw dairies for pathogens (it tests coliform, total bacteria, and somatic cell counts), there hasn’t been a reported illness since 11 Boy Scouts came down with salmonella in 1999, and quickly recovered. No weird listeria findings, a la New York Ag and Markets). As we well know, the most notorious case of illness from milk in the state occurred in 2007, when three elderly consumers died from listeria in pasteurized milk, and a pregnant woman lost her fetus. (I researched the subject heavily and wrote an article in the Boston Globe Magazine.

One raw dairy farmer quoted in the study probably said it best, said what the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and its state enforcement partners and large dairy processors are trying their darndest to make sure other conventional dairies never hear: “Selling raw milk is the only way a farmer with limited resources has any chance of running a profitable dairy.”

Look for raw milk to become an ever larger force in the dairy industry.

How Now Brown Cow--Fast-Growing Demand Drives Raw Milk Prices to Lofty Levels; Fights in the Supermarket Aisle

There’s an interesting survey going on from the Raw Dairy listserve about how much people are paying for raw milk. When I filled it out last evening, here were the results, based on 39 responses:

Some 70% were paying over $6 a gallon, and 30% were paying over $10 a gallon. I have to think that most or all of those paying over $10 a gallon are from California, where the price is on the order of $16-$17 a gallon; I pay $5 a gallon in New Hampshire, and $10 a gallon in Massachusetts. (You can fill out the survey here, but I believe you first have to sign up for the listserve through Yahoo.

The listserve had a story recently about scarcities in California, even at $17 a gallon, including a tale of how consumers await Claravale Farm deliveries to particular stores, and of how fights have broken out when the supply quickly drew down.

I glean a few messages in this information:

1. There is a serious economic opportunity for those dairy farmers seeking to escape the commodity economy, especially one in whichn producers of conventional milk are losing money on every gallon of milk their cows produce. (Here's an article I just wrote for BusinessWeek.com about the implications of that trend.) These raw milk prices are certainly high in comparison to conventional milk, but need to be seen as a combination of the high costs associated with producing, marketing, and conforming to the tight regulations for high-quality unpasteurized milk. Strong demand, of course, is an essential component.
2. There will undoubtedly be loud complaints about these prices, especially during these difficult economic times--and ammunition here for the “keep food cheap” crowd that dominates food production in this country. The problems being exposed in the new documentaries “Food Inc.” and “Fresh!” are fundamentally an outgrowth of the keep-food-cheap mentality. You crowd animals together, plug them with antibiotics, and feed them the cheapest junk possible—all as ways to keep your costs down, and thereby maintain margins.
3. Related to the previous, this is a classic example of what some refer to as artisanal food versus factory food. Artisanal food will always cost more, as well it should, since it can only be produced in limited quantities, requiring more labor and land than factory food.

In my opinion, these three messages help explain the desire by the food lobby to push through so-called food safety legislation that treats smaller owner-operated operations treated the same as larger operations. I was speaking today with Mark Kastel of Cornucopia, a nonprofit that pushes for adherence to organic regulations, and he says the big danger in the new food safety effort is “a one-size-fits-all approach” that threatens to “economically damage the most promising part of the food economy.” He agrees with Steve Bemis and others on this blog who have pushed for an exemption for farms of a certain size.

The problem is that goes against the grain of the food industry in this country. Fast-growing numbers of smaller producers making a good profit selling nutritionally-dense food is a threat. So you try to sabotage them every which way you can.

We need not use our imaginations on this one—the heavy-handed campaigns against raw milk producers in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan demonstrate the readiness of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to use the new powers it will get via food safety to expand its war on smaller food producers.

***

What goes around usually comes around. That's about all I can say about a re-hashing of the 2006 illnesses allegedly from raw milk produced by Organic Pastures Dairy Co. The discussion, on a food blog that seems to have just heard about raw milk (and explores safety issues), seemed to have ended when the two most serious cases were settled out of court, and there were handshakes all around, but apparently some sore spots remain. The discussion following the post has food-poison lawyer Bill Marler, Weston A. Price Foundation head Sally Fallon, and Organic Pastures owner Mark McAfee engaging in a discussion/debate of sorts.