Raw Milk Disease Outbreak In Perspective: Tempest in an FDA Teapot

by Heidi Stevenson

31 March 2010

Perhaps you've heard of the claimed raw milk campylobacteria disease outbreak in Michigan recently. It's been hyped to the world by Michigan's Department of Community Health and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). However, if you look carefully at the wording, you'll see only that it's "linked" to raw milk. There has been nothing to prove that raw milk caused it. The more you look, the more you realize that it's nothing but a tempest in the FDA's teapot.

Even in a worst-case scenario, this outbreak is less than a blip on the map. The reason is simple: Twelve people are known to have become ill with campylobacteriosis. In Michigan, over the last five years, the number of people who've taken ill with the disease has been:

Year	Number of Cases
2006	912
2007	890
2008	1,036
2009	933
2010 (to 2010-03-27)	194

That puts things in perspective, doesn't it? There have been an average of nearly 943 cases per year in Michigan for the last four full years, and 194 to this point this year. This outbreak amounts to just over one percent of the average number of cases per year. Yet, the FDA is screaming about it, warning people of the terrible dangers of raw milk.

What can possibly explain this other than an ulterior motive—like protecting Agribusiness? It's obviously unrelated to protection of the public's health. Otherwise, we'd have heard about the other 3,953 cases since the beginning of 2006. What caused them?

What of the Massachusetts listeria outbreak in 2007, in which three people actually died? It was definitively caused by spread through pasteurized milk. Why doesn't the FDA decry pasteurized?

Oh yeah—Agribusiness wants it.

The wording of the FDA's news release is all about giving the impression that raw milk is a serious danger. Even the title, "Public Health Agencies Warn of Outbreaks Related to Drinking Raw Milk", is designed to that end. It even ends with a blatant lie about raw milk: "There is no meaningful nutritional difference between pasteurized and raw milk, and raw milk does not contain compounds that will kill harmful bacteria."

Raw milk contains lactase, which makes it possible for many, if not most, lactose intolerant people to drink it without trouble. It contains probacteria, which can help destroy disease-bearing bacteria. The calcium becomes unobtainable once it's been pasteurized. Vitamins are destroyed by the heating process of pasteurization. A host of changes occur. Yet, the FDA has the gall to claim that there's no meaningful nutritional difference between pasteurized and raw milk.

There's one more significant difference between this outbreak and those related to Agribusiness. Do you recall what happened in the salmonella contaminated peanut case last year? Years went by with the guilty company refusing to cooperate, while more and more people became sick. Eight people died. Absolutely no concern for either the potential or actual harm was shown by the guilty Agribusiness corporation. They kept selling the contaminated stuff.

On the other hand, the raw milk dairy that has been implicated—but so far not shown to be guilty—responded immediately in an open manner, with obvious concern for its customers. Richard Hebron, who runs Family Farms Co-operative, immediately halted milk deliveries, sent samples of milk and water from their water sources to two labs for testing. The results were negative for any indication of pathogens. He informed everyone who had received their milk of the possible problem, and advised, "There is no specific information to suggest that the illness is related to milk, but we want you to know so that you can decide if you or any members of your family want to stop drinking the milk."

The raw milk dairy was completely open and informative about what had happened. Contrast this with the usual Agribusiness behavior, which values profits before the health of customers.

The earliest reference I can find to this outbreak is 19 March, 12 days—nearly two weeks—ago. Perhaps the raw milk is the cause. But if so, where's the evidence? Of course, it's possible that we'll find out that the raw milk from that dairy was the cause. Even if it was, it's only a blip in the number of campylobacteria cases.

However, why can't the FDA find proof that it was the milk from the Family Farms Co-operative? It shouldn't be hard to do. Yet, so far, there's been nothing. You can bet that, if nothing is found, there will be no announcement. There will be no apology to the dairy. Instead, you can expect to find ever more pressure to completely ban raw milk—and likely pressure to push Family Farms Co-operative out of business.

This is the sorry state of health protection in the United States, and most of the rest of the western world today. Raw milk, one the healthiest foods a person can have, is being systematically forced out off the market. Where it isn't outright banned, it's harried.

Along with loss of your access to raw milk goes loss of access to freedom of choice and true health. Is this what you want? If not, then get involved with the raw milk movement by joining the Alliance for Raw Milk Internationale:

If you're a Facebook member, you can join ARMi here. You can find your state or country here.

If you aren't on Facebook, then you can join here.

Do you have an opinion about this? Click here to comment!