EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Wed Aug 20, 2014 12:32 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:53 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20481
Location: Southeastern US
sammyd wrote:
If you're selling raw milk chances are you're doing it right on the farm not out of a store because it is raw milk. Or maybe a small store on the farm with other products you've raised. Raw milk must be picked up from the farm at the most every other day because it doesn't keep well even when held at the 36 or so degrees that is required, so jugging it up and sending it to the store to sit on the shelf a day or two would be inviting trouble. I notice that the article you posted also says that groups are pushing to get it allowed to be sold directly from the farm.

Right now with the laws the way they are you have to get it from the farm where it is made because you have to have some financial interest in the farm to legally get the milk (in WI). I believe the info you had was that folks bought the cow or a portion of it but that was since ruled illegal and the folks had to actually buy a piece of the farm (if my memory serves me correctly)


That is the general basis of the situation and the loophole it created in Ohio, where the sale of raw milk is illegal.

Quote:
There should be no law against selling raw milk. But there should be inspections made of the facility producing it and the method of packaging just as any other dairy enterprise.


That is your opinion, but the risks to the public are too great for this to be a viable program.

Quote:
Maybe the call for raw milk is not enough to justify the expense of extra inspectors so they just outlawed it.


The potential for contamination is too great even between inspections.

Quote:
with only 17 out of 1.4 million of the yearly salmonella illnesses caused by raw milk and only 58 total illnesses caused by raw milk I would say that most farms are pretty on the ball with sanitation.


This would be faulty logic because the sale of raw milk is illegal in most states, thus the positive effect of this move is included as "proof" it is not needed.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 3:31 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:09 am
Posts: 542
Location: Stratford WI
Actually the sale of raw milk is legal in most states.

Given your logic of contamination between inspections then there should be no sale of anything to anybody. Why even bother with inspections of any food facility then?

Given the fact that the sale of raw milk is legal in 27 states and since dairy farmers and their families in the other 23 drink raw milk and with only 58 outbreaks in 28 years(compared to 76 mil total illnesses per year for everything else) I would say that the problem is being overblown.
2% of 2128000000 is way more than 58 and roughly 2% of people could be drinking raw milk just by the last figures I can remember of people involved in dairy farms. Course it's hard to compare as they never gave any hard numbers on individual illnesses just outbreaks

The number of people drinking raw milk isn't as high as those drinking processed but they are still probably higher than you're giving credit for.
I can't say for sure as I'm having problems getting NASS to work for me tonight.

_________________
sammyds world

Watch out where the huskies go, don't you eat that yellow snow


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:07 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20481
Location: Southeastern US
sammyd wrote:
Actually the sale of raw milk is legal in most states.

Given your logic of contamination between inspections then there should be no sale of anything to anybody. Why even bother with inspections of any food facility then?



No, because even with inspections there is no means by which to ensure safety according to the FDA position statement.

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~ear/mi-03-4.html

In this Federal Register notification for the final rule to 21 CFR Part 1240.61, FDA made a number of findings including the following:

"Raw milk, no matter how carefully produced, may be unsafe."

"It has not been shown to be feasible to perform routine bacteriological tests on the raw milk itself to determine the presence or absence of all pathogens and thereby ensure that it is free of infectious organisms."

"Opportunities for the introduction and persistence of Salmonella on dairy premises are numerous and varied, and technology does not exist to eliminate Salmonella infection from dairy herds or to preclude re-introduction of Salmonella organisms. Moreover recent studies show that cattle can carry and shed S. dublin organisms for many years and demonstrated that S. dublin cannot be routinely detected in cows that are mammary gland shedders."


Quote:
Given the fact that the sale of raw milk is legal in 27 states and since dairy farmers and their families in the other 23 drink raw milk and with only 58 outbreaks in 28 years(compared to 76 mil total illnesses per year for everything else) I would say that the problem is being overblown.

Not according to the recent news story. I was mistaken in my memory that it was 25 states plus Ohio and not 24 plus Ohio.

http://www.timesreporter.com/index.php?ID=55548&r=5

Sales of raw milk are illegal in Ohio and 24 other states. But herd share agreements take advantage of a loophole because the group is buying the cows, not the milk. The state is not challenging Stutzman’s herd share agreement.


Quote:
2% of 2128000000 is way more than 58 and roughly 2% of people could be drinking raw milk just by the last figures I can remember of people involved in dairy farms. Course it's hard to compare as they never gave any hard numbers on individual illnesses just outbreaks


They do on a case by case basis. These kinks indicate from 12 to over 60 cases for each incident.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5226a3.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5125a2.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4940a3.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5026a3.htm



Quote:
The number of people drinking raw milk isn't as high as those drinking processed but they are still probably higher than you're giving credit for.
I can't say for sure as I'm having problems getting NASS to work for me tonight.


Given the restrictions for raw milk licenses I think the numbers may be in line.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 1:18 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:09 am
Posts: 542
Location: Stratford WI
Several of those
examples could have happened with any sort of milk
the first one found that workers had transmitted the disease to the product.
Quote:
The 31 animal stool samples collected from cows providing milk and the 23 environmental samples taken from dairy equipment and storage sites were negative for S. Typhimurium.

the third was from improper equipment use and subsequent mishandling of the product.
Quote:
These vats were used inadvertently to make fresh curds, which were incorrectly labeled "pasteurized" cheddar cheese curds

and the fourth
Quote:
Milk from each cow also was tested for presence of L. monocytogenes. Repeated testing did not identify any cow with milk confirmed positive for L. monocytogenes, suggesting that the cows were not infected and that L. monocytogenes may have originated from environmental contamination.


Even if the milk was pasteurized if it was used improperly after sale it could do this.

I don't think pasteurization keeps on killing bacteria just the ones that are present when it is done.

People make steak tartar, cannibal sandwiches, or wildcat all the time yet the hazards of raw meat are well known. Should we ban the sale of that as well just to keep a few fools out of the hospital?

_________________
sammyds world

Watch out where the huskies go, don't you eat that yellow snow


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 8:59 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20481
Location: Southeastern US
sammyd wrote:
Several of those
examples could have happened with any sort of milk
the first one found that workers had transmitted the disease to the product.
Quote:
The 31 animal stool samples collected from cows providing milk and the 23 environmental samples taken from dairy equipment and storage sites were negative for S. Typhimurium.

the third was from improper equipment use and subsequent mishandling of the product.
Quote:
These vats were used inadvertently to make fresh curds, which were incorrectly labeled "pasteurized" cheddar cheese curds

and the fourth
Quote:
Milk from each cow also was tested for presence of L. monocytogenes. Repeated testing did not identify any cow with milk confirmed positive for L. monocytogenes, suggesting that the cows were not infected and that L. monocytogenes may have originated from environmental contamination.


Even if the milk was pasteurized if it was used improperly after sale it could do this.

I don't think pasteurization keeps on killing bacteria just the ones that are present when it is done.

People make steak tartar, cannibal sandwiches, or wildcat all the time yet the hazards of raw meat are well known. Should we ban the sale of that as well just to keep a few fools out of the hospital?


No, but then again the medium is not the perfect one for growth and one that cannot be adequately tested to ensure safety. If you note the underlined section, the reason this is important is that even with repeated testing it is known that the milk can still be contaminated with L. monocytogenes and the true source of the problem. That is the basis for the concern by the FDA. The milk may be tested and still not detect the contamination, which makes it very different from meat contamination.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group