WhiteHouse.gov Response to Petition,
"Legalized raw milk sales on federal level"

Petition created by Stephanie W on 23 September 2011 at www.WhiteHouse.gov

Give the people the freedom to choose whether drinking raw milk products is right for them by enabling the legalized sale and distribution of raw milk products across all states.

There are substantial health benefits from raw milk that are not available in pasteurized milk products.

Many of the nutritional, anti-microbial and immune-enhancing components of raw milk are greatly reduced in effectiveness by pasteurization, and completely destroyed by ultra-pasteurization.

The risks associated with drinking raw milk are greatly exaggerated. Compared to raw milk there are 515 times more illnesses from L-mono due to deli meats and 29 times more illness from L-mono due to pasteurized milk.

The Westin A. Price Foundation has more information at:
http://www.realmilk.com/rawmilkoverview.html

Go to petition

Response by Doug McKalip to WhiteHouse.gov petition, "Legalize raw milk sales on federal level"

Thank you for signing a petition about legalizing raw milk and for participating in the We the People platform on WhiteHouse.gov. We appreciate consumer concerns on food issues and understand the importance of letting consumers make their own food choices.

This Administration believes that food safety policy should be based on science. In this case, we support pasteurization to protect the safety of the milk supply because the health risks associated with raw milk are well documented.

Pasteurization of milk was adopted decades ago as a basic public health measure to kill dangerous bacteria and largely eliminate the risk of getting sick from one of the most important staples of the American diet. In 1987, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a regulation prohibiting the interstate sale of raw milk to reduce the number of illnesses and outbreaks associated with its consumption.

In recent years, some Americans have rejected pasteurization in favor of raw (or unpasteurized) milk, citing a range of taste, nutritional, and health benefits they believe are associated with raw milk consumption, as well as a general preference for unprocessed food.

As a science-based regulatory agency, the FDA looks to the scientific literature for information on benefits and risks associated with raw milk. While the nutritional and health benefits of raw milk consumption have not been scientifically substantiated, the health risks are clear. Since 1987, there have been 143 reported outbreaks of illness - some involving miscarriages, still births, kidney failure and deaths - associated with consumption of raw milk and raw milk products that were contaminated with pathogenic bacteria such as Listeria, Campylobacter, Salmonella, and E. coli. The FDA's position on raw milk is in concert with the Center for Disease Control and the American Academy of Pediatricians.

The FDA does not regulate intrastate raw milk sales, or selling raw milk within a state, which is left up to the individual states. Today, 20 states explicitly prohibit the intrastate sale of raw milk in some form and 30 allow it. FDA bans interstate raw milk sales, or selling raw milk across state lines. The FDA has never taken, nor does it intend to take, enforcement action against an individual who purchases and transports raw milk across state lines solely for his or her own personal consumption.

Thank you for participating in this important process. We appreciate your opinions and look forward to hearing from you again soon.

Go to petition and response

Article by Roxana Hegeman for The Kansas City Star, 3 June 2011; excerpted and posted at Health Impact News Daily website 

Health Impact News Editor Comments: The story below is a very common one. The FDA routinely issues warning letters to companies that produce natural products where health benefits are mentioned. According to the FDA, only approved drugs can make claims to health benefits. So if a company producing a natural product wants to publish some study mentioning health benefits related to a product they sell, according to the FDA they are violating the law, and the FDA can come in and seize their entire inventory to "protect the public." Notice the comments from the FDA associate commissioner: "Products with unapproved disease claims are dangerous because they may cause consumers to delay or avoid legitimate treatments." The FDA believes they are the only ones that can define "legitimate treatments," and they are reserved for pharmaceutical companies. So one might legitimately ask, who is really being protected here? Would anyone really be harmed by drinking elderberry juice? Would someone forgo other treatments even if they thought the juice might improve their health? 

Go to full post at Health Impact News Daily

Article by Carolyn Lochhead for San Francisco Chronicle, 7 June 2011

Excerpts:

Obama food safety chief and former Monsanto lawyer Michael R. Taylor today defended the FDA's sting operations and armed raids against raw milk producers, including Pennsylvania Amish farmer Dan Allgyer, who is facing an injunction for selling milk across state lines. None of Allgyer's milk was contaminated. The agency's actions are likely to put him out of business. "We believe we're doing our job," Taylor said at a presentation at the Ogilvy Washington public affairs group. He promised to "keep doing our public health job," and described his agency's campaign against raw milk producers as based on a "public health duty" and "statutory directive."

Go to full post at Health Impact News Daily 

Article by David Gumpert posted on The Complete Patient website, 18 February 2011

In this age of the Internet, it's amazing how quickly certain statistics can catch on.

Take the statistic I came up with in my Feb. 11 post, after having assessed data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control--that there have been on average 39 illnesses from raw milk cheese between 2000 and 2008. It's the first time I'm aware of that anyone has presented the data that way.

Within days, National Public Radio had a story about the controversy over raw milk cheese, and included this statement, "On average, about 40 people report getting sick from raw milk cheese a year nationwide, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." The idea was to suggest that raw milk cheese doesn't seem to present a huge public health problem.

There's another related number that has been around much longer, and it's this: Between 1998 and 2008, there have been two deaths from raw milk. This number comes up repeatedly in media reporting about raw milk, courtesy of the CDC, even though I have reported that those illnesses appear to have come from queso fresco cheese, a soft fresh cheese that isn't legal under FDA regulations requiring a minimum 60 day aging period.

The CDC hasn't responded...till now. It all came about as a result of an inquiry made by Mark McAfee, the owner of Organic Pastures Dairy Co, in December, when he challenged claims on the Centers for Disease Control web site stating that raw milk is dangerous. The agency actually agreed to make some slight changes to its language on the site, but when he inquired about statistics concerning raw milk illnesses in California, an official with the agency's Division of Foodborne, Waterborne and Parasitic Diseases, Janell Routh, stated in part. "From 1998-2008, more outbreaks associated with unpasteurized dairy in California than in any other state (13). There was 1 death reported in that time, from Salmonella Typhimurium."

Go to full post at TheCompletePatient

Article by Rady Ananda, "Two kinds of raw milk and hypocrites who pretend they don't know the difference" posted at Food Freedom, 28 June 2011

When 18 people, mostly kids, were "poisoned" by raw milk served at a school in Wisconsin earlier this month, GMO-milk fans became outraged.  At least, until they learned it was unpasteurized milk from a pus-producing commercial dairy plant.

Raw milk antagonist Bill Marler goofed by confusing unpasteurized commercial milk with raw milk produced directly for human consumption, much to the enjoyment of David Gumpert.

Marler condescendingly wrote, "I expect to hear that it is part of a FDA sponsored conspiracy against expanding raw milk sales in Wisconsin.  Raw milk is not 'magic.'  It has real risks."

Related Articles -
"Regular Dairy Provided Raw Milk to School" by Dan Flynn posted at Food Safety News, 15 July 2011
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/07/regular-dairy-provided-raw-milk-for-relatives-employees/

The raw milk that sickened 16 children and two adults at a Wisconsin elementary school last month came from a bulk tank at a local farm that sells milk from its 230 dairy cows to a licensed dairy plant for pasteurization and processing.

Ever since the June 1 "Wisconsin Dairy Days" event left so many of its young participants with Campylobacter infection, interest has swirled around whether the untreated milk came from a regular dairy farm or a raw milk dairy.

A copy of the investigative file from Wisconsin's Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Projection (DATCP), requested by Food Safety News, indicates the raw milk came from a regular dairy farm selling milk for pasteurization and also supplying raw milk to family members and employees. 

Read more at GlobalResearch.ca

Article by Rady Ananda posted on Centre for Research on Globalization website,14 August 2011

A close look at the people behind the raw milk scare, and the actual numbers of foodborne illness, reveals that politics more than science drives the food safety agenda in the U.S.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack just appointed Susan Vaughn Grooters to the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods (NACMCF), which is also served by Dr. Wafa Birbari of junk food giant, Sara Lee Corp.

Lacking a PhD, Grooters will serve her two-year term on NACMCF as a "consumer representative." She currently works with STOP Foodborne Illness (formerly Safe Tables Our Priority), an organization that condemns raw dairy and urges broad expansion of federal control over food.

Grooters hopes to federalize state reporting of contaminated food, as explained to Center for Science in the Public Interest: 

"States' systematic differences in response to foodborne illness case reporting may also explain variations in rates," said S.T.O.P's public health specialist, Susan Vaughn Grooters. "Time differences in surveying cases of foodborne illness and lack of integrated data collection may also affect how well states accurately capture data." [1] 

In a playful charade calling for stricter controls on food, she recently tweeted:

"Really??? Really? I would beg to differ Sec. Vilsack! ..unless of course you're proposing a change to policies... ;-) http://usat.ly/kceLEY"

With these opinions, it's almost a joke to say she represents consumers.

Though the Food Safety Modernization Act is characterized as promoting "science-based" food control driven by "risk-based" analysis, [2] instead, under FSMA authority, the FDA has claimed power to seize food without evidence of contamination. [3]

Evidence is the foundation of science and law; removal and destruction of evidence is anti-science and fraudulent. (See Victor Rawls' well-argued essay on this. [4])

Contrary to "risk-based" control, the FDA continues to seize and destroy food that sickened no one, while knowingly allowing tainted meat on the market and doing nothing about it until someone died, as in Cargill's 36-million-pound turkey recall.

Seizing food without evidence of contamination also violates the Fourth Amendment.

RANKING FOODBORNE RISKS

Statistics tend to put people to sleep, but three important reports were published this year that deserve attention: one by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), [5] one by the University of Florida (UF) to which Grooters contributed, [6] and one by retired pathologist and raw milk drinker, Dr. Ted Beals. [7]

Let's agree that numbers can be massaged to prove just about anything. However, when opponents of raw milk make outrageous claims about its dangers, and when millions of state and federal dollars are spent eliminating it as a food choice thru armed raids - and yet their own statistics belie the stated risk - we ought to shout that from the rooftop.

Go to full article at GlobalResearch.ca  

Webinar presented by Dr. Keith Warriner through Food Seminars International

Overview

Of all the food safety issues encountered in the industry today there is no doubt that those surrounding raw milk continue to generate most discussion. Such discussions have led to polarization of viewpoints with those advocating raw milk with being confronted with those who strongly oppose its sale or distribution. To appease the latter, governments have made raw milk unique in that it is amongst only a small list of foods that is classed as illegal.

The following webinar will provide an objective view on the food safety issues linked to raw milk. The presentation will provide an overview of the history of raw milk and how the impact of mandatory pasteurization in 1939 on foodborne illness levels may have been exaggerated by other initiatives introduced at the same time. The apparent health benefits and functionality (e.g. sensory characteristics) of raw milk will be reviewed. The incidence of foodborne illness cases linked to raw milk will be presented and main pathogens implicated. The relative microbiological safety of raw milk will be compared with other foods to provide an assessment of relative risk. Finally, the political issues surrounding raw milk with respect to consumer choice and governments role in protecting the population will be discussed.

Go to webinar info and registration options

GABRIELA Study

Kids who drink raw milk have less asthma, allergies
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/us-kids-raw-milk-idUSTRE78C75O20110913

Article by Frederick Joelving for Reuters,13 September 2011
  
(Reuters Health) - Children who drink raw milk are less likely to develop asthma and allergies than those who stick to the safer pasteurized version, according to a large European study.

Although the study isn't ironclad proof that the effects can be chalked up to raw milk itself, researchers believe certain milk proteins that are destroyed by heat could be helpful to children's developing immune systems.
They warn, however, that parents shouldn't start giving their kids raw milk.

"The consumption of raw milk is a double-edged sword," Georg Loss, a researcher with the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute in Basel who worked on the study, told Reuters Health by email.
 
Go to full article at Reuters 

Reuter's Source: bit.ly/rrHjuE Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, online August 29, 2011. 
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(11)01234-6/abstract

PARSIFAL Study

Powerpoint presentation by Erika Von Mutius at FORALLVENT, Forum for Allergy Prevention:
Farm studies in allergies and their potential connection to auto immune diseases 
http://www.forallvent.info/uploads/media/VonMutius.ppt_01.pdf 

See slide #7 for a graph showing the incidence of asthma, hayfever and atopy relative to exposure to farm milk and/or the stable versus no exposure to either.

Related research papers published - 

"A polymorphism in CD14 modifies the effect of farm milk consumption on allergic diseases and CD14 gene expression" by Christian Bieli, MD; Waltraud Eder, MD; Remo Frei, MSc; Charlotte Braun-Fahrländer, MD; Walt Klimecki, PhD; Marco Waser, PhD; Josef Riedler, MD; Erika von Mutius, MD, MSc; Annika Scheynius, MD, PhD; Göran Pershagen, MD, PhD; Gert Doekes, PhD; Roger Lauener, MD; Fernando D. Martinez, MD; and the PARSIFAL study group; published in Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (Vol 120, Issue 6, pp 1308-1315; December 2007)
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(07)01432-7/fulltext 

Background: Consumption of farm milk in early life is associated with less asthma and allergies.
Objective: We hypothesized that genetic variation in the innate immunity receptor CD14 might modify the association between farm milk consumption and asthma and atopy. 

View the article at Journal of Allergy & Clinical Immunology 

"Inverse association of farm milk consumption with asthma and allergy in rural and suburban populations across Europe" by M. Waser, K. B. Michels, C. Bieli, H. Flöistrup, G. Pershagen, E. Von Mutius, M. Ege, J. Riedler, D. Schram-Bijkerk, B. Brunekreef, M. Van Hage, R. Lauener, C. Braun-Fahrländer, the PARSIFAL Study team; published in Journal of Clinical & Experimental Allergy (Vol 37, Issue 5, pp 661-670; May 2007)  
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2222.2006.02640.x/full 

INTRODUCTION
The role of dietary factors in the development of asthma and atopy is still controversial. It has been postulated that the decrease in vegetable consumption and a shift from animal to vegetable fats has contributed to the increase in asthma and allergic diseases over the last decades [1, 2]. Several studies reported positive associations between elevated margarine consumption and childhood atopy risk [3, 4], while studies in rural environments reported an inverse association between consumption of farm-produced dairy products such as yogurt and farm milk and the prevalence of atopy [5-8], allergic rhinitis [5, 8, 9], asthma [5], and atopic dermatitis [8, 9]. However, in a Finnish study among farm and non-farm children, no effect of dairy product consumption and atopy was observed, but regular intake of fresh vegetables, predominantly when grown in the own garden, significantly reduced the risk of atopic sensitization [10]. Thus, current evidence of the relation between farm-produced products and the prevalence of allergic disease is controversial and mechanisms underlying the observed associations are unknown. Experiments demonstrating a beneficial effect of adding apathogenic bacteria (probiotics) to children's diet as a means of preventing atopic dermatitis have [11, 12], however, stimulated the interest in a possible role of microbes associated with the consumption of farm-produced foods.  

View the full article at Wiley Online 

Epidemiological study using data from both PARSIFAL and GABRIELA studies:
"Exposure to Environmental Microorganisms and Childhood Asthma" by Markus J. Ege, M.D., Melanie Mayer, Ph.D., Anne-Cécile Normand, Ph.D., Jon Genuneit, M.D., William O.C.M. Cookson, M.D., D.Phil., Charlotte Braun-Fahrländer, M.D., Dick Heederik, Ph.D., Renaud Piarroux, M.D., Ph.D., and Erika von Mutius, M.D. for the GABRIELA Transregio 22 Study Group; published in the New England Journal of Medicine (N Engl J Med 2011; 364:701-709; 24 February 2011)
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1007302#t=articleBackground

DISCUSSION
Children growing up on farms in Central Europe were protected from asthma and atopy. These children were exposed to a greater variety of environmental fungi and bacteria as compared with children in the reference group who lived in the same regions. The greater diversity of environmental microbial exposure was inversely related to asthma, but not to atopy, independently of farming. These data support the idea that the greater diversity of microbial exposure among children who live on farms is associated with protection from the development of asthma. Within the spectrum of microbial diversity detected, several focal zones were associated with a greater protective potential than others. On a species level, however, the identification of protective microorganisms was not possible.

The transport of environmental microorganisms from animal sheds and barns to the indoor environment has been reported.13 The relationship between microbial exposures and health outcomes has been assessed in school-age children, although exposures may be more relevant when children are younger.2 However, dairy farming, a known source of microbial exposures, has been constant over time, indicating that our findings probably reflect the effects of both current and long-term exposures with considerable accuracy.

View the full article at the New England Journal website

Originally posted at the Citizens Commission on Human Rights International website (www.cchrint.org), 17 October 2011

4-year-olds on drugs? You betcha. The American Academy of Pediatrics issued new treatment guidelines for "Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder" that say ADHD can be diagnosed in kids as early as age four, and that Ritalin and similar drugs are an appropriate treatment even for children this young. Apparently the "Academy" has no problem with the fact that the US FDA warns drugs like Ritalin can cause hallucinations, mania, heart attack, stroke and sudden death. Nor do they consider it a problem that a diagnoses of "ADHD" is based solely on a checklist of behaviors such as "loses pencils or toys," "often does not seem to listen," "is easily distracted by extraneous stimuli," "fidgets" or "runs about or climbs excessively in situations when it is not appropriate." And for this, children as young as four should be placed on drugs that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration categorizes in the same class of highly addictive drugs as cocaine, morphine and opium?

Right.

It should come as no surprise that the chairman of the new ADHD guidelines, Mark Wolraich, MD, is a periodic consultant to Shire Pharmaceuticals,  Eli Lilly, Shinogi, and Next Wave Pharmaceuticals, or that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has received millions in pharmaceutical funding-In 2011,they received $30,000 from Pfizer; $100,000 from Eli Lilly; and $79,650 from Merck. In 2010, they received $297,750 from Pfizer; $100,000 from Merck; and $3,000 from Shire. Between 2008 and 2009, AAP received another $69,000 from Pfizer.

See video and read excerpt at Health Impact News

Read the full post at Citizens Commission on Human Rights International

Article by Cheryl Long and Tabitha Alterman at Mother Earth News, October/November 2007 

Most of the eggs currently sold in supermarkets are nutritionally inferior to eggs produced by hens raised on pasture. That's the conclusion we have reached following completion of the 2007 Mother Earth News egg testing project. Our testing has found that, compared to official U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) nutrient data for commercial eggs, eggs from hens raised on pasture may contain:

• 1/3 less cholesterol
• 1/4 less saturated fat
• 2/3 more vitamin A
• 2 times more omega-3 fatty acids
• 3 times more vitamin E
• 7 times more beta carotene

These amazing results come from 14 flocks around the country that range freely on pasture or are housed in moveable pens that are rotated frequently to maximize access to fresh pasture and protect the birds from predators. We had six eggs from each of the 14 pastured flocks tested by an accredited laboratory in Portland, Ore. The chart at the end of this article shows the average nutrient content of the samples, compared with the official egg nutrient data from the USDA for "conventional" (i.e. from confined hens) eggs. The chart lists the individual results from each flock.

Go to full post at Mother Earth News

"Pastured Eggs Have More of the Good Stuff..." chart linked at "amazing results"
http://www.motherearthnews.com/uploadedFiles/EggGraphic.pdf

Webpage at EatWild.com on "Health Benefits of Grass-Fed Products"

Meat, eggs, and dairy products from pastured animals are ideal for your health. Compared with commercial products, they offer you more "good" fats, and fewer "bad" fats. They are richer in antioxidants; including vitamins E, beta-carotene, and vitamin C. Furthermore, they do not contain traces of added hormones, antibiotics or other drugs.

Below is a summary of these important benefits. Following the summary is a list of news bulletins that provide additional reasons for finding a local provider of grass-fed food.

View Grassfed Info at EatWild.com 

Article by Adele Hite, 2 April 2011; presented at the Weston A. Price Foundation press conference on the USDA Dietary Guidelines, 25 February 2011

I am a PhD candidate in Nutrition Epidemiology at the University of North Carolina. I represent the Healthy Nation Coalition, a public health advocacy group dedicated to changing our definition of healthy food. But I also represent all those Americans who have tried to eat a healthy diet according to the USDA's definition and have become overweight, obese, and sick in the process. I was one of those people-obese and sick-when I ate according to the guidelines.

I went back to school because I worked at a Duke Clinic, where I met a lot of people just like me, people who were struggling with weight gain and poor health, trying to force their bodies to be well on a dietary pattern never proven to have specific health benefits. That's right, the recommended diet has not even been tested.

We know that it has not been tested because the USDA makes this statement in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines document: "The [USDA] food patterns were developed to meet nutrient needs . . . while not exceeding calorie requirements. Though they have not been specifically tested for health benefits they are similar to the DASH research diet and consistent with most of the measures of adherence to Mediterranean-type eating patterns (emphasis added)."

Go to the full article at www.westonaprice.org

Go to video from the press conference and links to powerpoint