the mom

Tue, Mar 30, 2010 : 10:33 p.m.

I just wanted to comment really quick in answer to many of the accusations made in the posts above. I am a mother of one of the children that tested positive for the campy bacteria here in Michigan...and I can tell you all a few things... first, the majority of the people who have gotten sick only had 1 item in common (that would be the raw milk). The 2 other families I personally know that got the exact symptoms as my family did, live roughly 20 miles away from my family(each in different cities). We do not share grocery stores, nor had we shared meals together...yet those in our families that drank the milk got sick, and those who did not drink, did not. This was not a case of stomach flu. You do not get severe body cramps (to the point where you can hardly move, I say this as a very young vibrant woman who runs 3-4 miles a week and does strength training just as often), and convulsive bloody diarrhea for days on end with stomach flu. I was laid up in bed for over 3 days...the only other time i've ever gotten this sick was when I believe i contracted ecoli from organic spinach in 2006. I know what food poisoning feels like....this was it. My toddler was severely sick, his diarrhea was so severe that it cut right through all diaper cream and left horrible bloody welts on his bottom. Even now nearly 3 weeks later he still has scars on his bottom. I have been a parent for over 15 years...NEVER have I seen (or smelled) that sort of thing come out of a child, and we have had stomach flu a lot over the years. Also, every person in my family got sick, minus one...the baby as she does not drink milk yet. Coincidence? So with all that said, if you want to sit there and pretend like it can't POSSIBLY be the milk, then by all means continue down your path of denial. As far as the person making the assumptions that I feed my kids processed food, well that's just ignorance and hate on your part. Anyone who would seek out something like raw milk, obviously cares about what they put in their (or in this case my children's) body. I feed my kids a whole foods diet 95% of the time, and we are also vegetarian...so I would appreciate you keeping your assumptions about the sick children (and how their families live) to yourself.

Linda Diane Feldt

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 12:09 p.m.

The dairy supplying the milk for Family Farms C-op has decided to stop production. A couple hundred families in SE Michigan have lost their source for raw milk and farm produce, and I expect a number of people (small farmers all) have suddenly lost their livelihood. All because of a hypothesis still not proven, that this dairy may have been the source of what made some people sick. Which is still possible, but raw milk farmers are guilty until being proven innocent. I hope that the underlying message is clear. Even a private arrangement with full understanding and knowledge of the risks involved, between consenting adults, can fall under the watch and the authority of our government and be sanctioned. We are not actually free to choose what we eat and from where. That is a level of interference I'm not happy with, even though I fully understand and appreciate its origins in true necessity for safety standards.

Bonsai

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 9:56 a.m.

follow up in order: http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2010/3/28/in-face-of-fda-pressure-in-dairy-ends-distribution-and-campy.html

mars

Sun, Mar 21, 2010 : 3:52 p.m.

Linda Diane Feldt, Yes, I have done "extensive research and study" to come to the conclusion that raw milk is unsafe. So have the FDA, CDC, AMA, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Veterinary Medical Association, and many others. The reason why I made such strong statements is because I think it is important to counteract the pro-raw milk arguments made by people such as yourself, who purport to be unbiased. The thing that bothers me most about raw milk is that the risk is completely unnecessary. Pasteurize the exact same milk and it will be much safer. No matter how careful the farm is, even healthy cows and goats can shed in their milk organisms which are pathogenic to human beings. Pasteurization kills those pathogenic organisms and makes it safer. We have food safety law in this country for a reason. Sidestepping them by buying shares of a cow in another state is a bad idea.

Anonymous Due to Bigotry

Sun, Mar 21, 2010 : 12:31 a.m.

People who drink raw milk are on par with those who refuse to vaccinate their kids because vaccines cause autism or some nonsense like that. There IS a reason why people started pasteurizing milk. It's not en evil plot by "da man".

mkm17

Sat, Mar 20, 2010 : 4:21 p.m.

Many good points have been made here. And, many inflammatory comments have been made - on both sides. I guess the question is: Is it an acceptable risk to drink unpasteurized milk? I don't know the answer. From what I have read, most of the time yes, it is not harmful (is even arguably beneficial) to drink unpasteurized milk. And, while I'm not necessarily 100% in support of drinking unpasteurized milk, I also don't think it's fair to cry "I told you so" just because there appears to be one outbreak of illness from drinking unpasteurized milk. I want to learn more.

Linda Diane Feldt

Sat, Mar 20, 2010 : 4:03 p.m.

Thank you for the change, and for using a more accurate title for this story. I feel much less defensive now.

Steve Pepple

Sat, Mar 20, 2010 : 3:33 p.m.

The headline has been updated.

Paul the Malcontent

Sat, Mar 20, 2010 : 3:14 p.m.

Linda Diane Feldt posted a reasonable request (below) about this story's headline 16 hours ago, with no subsequent action apparently taken by A2.com; as of 4:00 pm Saturday, the story remains prominently located (in the Top Stories section) with the misleading headline. 14 hours ago Beth B made a similar request, and Gretchen did the same 1 hour ago. "Because there is no established proof of the link between the illnesses and the raw milk, I would also request that the title of this story be updated. There is a possible link, "sickened by raw milk" has not been proven. The providers of the milk were open and willing to examine if they were the cause, and took immediate action to protect the other share members, with great financial consequences. So far, all the evidence from direct testing has disproved that hypothesis. I wish innocent until proven guilty applied to farmers as well, but it does not. But certainly AnnArbor.com can provide that courtesy."

lotrfan

Sat, Mar 20, 2010 : 1:59 p.m.

@mkm - do YOU know the history of dairy regulation? Given your statement, I suspect you don't. The history is that in the days prior to pasteurization, milk frequently made people ill. It was frequently adulterated in order to maximize profit. Things added to milk included chalk, plaster, white clay and starch. Vendors would also skim the cream and use things like animal brains to thicken remaining milk in order to hide this fact. Milk being sold to an unsuspecting public was frankly dangerous and absolutely needed to be pasteurized. The modern factory farms today probably produce a product that is just as hazardous, if not moreso, given the widespread use of antibiotics and resultant antibiotic resistant organisms. You couldn't pay me enough to drink such milk without pasteurization. Raw milk from dedicated cooperatives is produced in relatively small volumes with meticulous care for the cows, bottles, etc, in order to minimize the risk to health. I don't presume to say drinking raw milk is entirely without risk. But then again, neither are other common food items. I don't understand, however, why some people who choose to drink pasteurized milk bear such ill will toward people who drink raw milk. Do they equally blame parents for feeding their children things like chicken, beef, spinach, green onions, and peanut butter? In any case, consumers who choose raw milk are generally well educated about the potential risks, and are making a conscious choice in this regard. This is an informed decision to make a choice that is legal in Michigan, under the cow-share arrangement. And to those who wonder - parents can make this choice for their children (just as they can choose to feed their children things like hot dogs, pepsi, and doritos). Finally, to assume that the law in this state is absolutely perfect would be, at the very least, naive. Many states allow the sale of unpasteurized milk either directly from the farmer or in retail locations. Clearly these states feel that this is a reasonable choice that a reasonable person should be able to make.

Shana Milkie

Sat, Mar 20, 2010 : 1:32 p.m.

I've been a member of Family Farms Cooperative for over six years and my family considers the raw milk we drink an integral part of our diet. My three kids are healthy as horses, which I attribute mostly to our diet, including the milk. But even more than health, I'm concerned about my right to obtain the foods of my choice. I'll stay out of your kitchen, and you stay out of mine. I commend Richard Hebron, the farmer who organizes Family Farms Cooperative, for his open, swift response to the *potential* link between our milk and the Campylobacter outbreak. I am glad to know that the testing results disprove any link. However, if there had been a connection, his quick communication to the herdshare members would have minimized the impact. I'm disappointed that the Michigan Health Department sent out a public press release about this issue, since the public doesn't consume this milk and Richard had already notified everyone about the situation. Our group was slapped in the face for trying to work with the health department.

bluetonguedlizard

Sat, Mar 20, 2010 : 12:53 p.m.

Once again raw milk gets the headline and yet every piece of chicken in this country has salmonella and most ground beef has feces in it. If raw milk and cheese producers could afford to hire lobbyists like the chicken and beef industries this would never be a story.

Gretchen

Sat, Mar 20, 2010 : 12:05 p.m.

I encourage annarbor.com to change the title of this article--it is sensationalist and untrue. The milk coop suspended deliveries for a week, had the milk and water tested immediately, and came up with no campylobacter. As far as I know, the folks that got sick have not proven that the raw milk made them sick, and a stomach bug with similar symptoms has been going around. I and my family have been drinking raw milk and other pastured dairy and meat products from this cooperative for over three years, have never gotten sick (on the contrary, I can't drink pasteurized milk without experiencing some gastrointestinal distress), and have continuously been impressed by the transparency, knowledge and care taken by the farmers. Please take care to follow good journalistic practices, check sources and report accurately.

Technojunkie

Sat, Mar 20, 2010 : 10:25 a.m.

I bet that the same people who are freaking out over raw milk think nothing of consuming soft drinks and other beverages that are loaded with synthetic chemicals. Before modern sanitation and refrigeration, pasteurization was a really good idea. If you're buying milk from factory farms it's still a good idea. But from a small farm run by competent people? Experience suggests that it's not needed.

Stephanie

Sat, Mar 20, 2010 : 10:05 a.m.

There was NOT an outbreak concerning the raw milk. There was NO bacteria found in the testing samples. People can get sick from lettuce, peanut butter, etc. There are no laws banning those foods. The milk is purchased through a share, and is regulated. If people want to drink raw milk for it's wonderful health benifits than that is their choice. We don't stop people form drinking/smoking, or for being obese. It has been know that as early as the 1930's pasturized dairy has caused bone loss. Got Lies? Pasteurized Milk Does NOT Build Strong Bones! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKxnPfwdWB8&feature=channel This part of the e-mail co-op member receive: "Late this afternoon we received the test results back from the lab for milk and water samples to determine if the milk possibly was connected to these illnesses. Two separate milk samples and water from both wells at the farm were tested. One of the water samples was from the source for the cows' drinking water and the second water sample was from the source that supplies water for the family home and the milking parlor, including the water used to wash the milk bulk storage tank. One of the milk samples was negative for the pathogenic versions of staph, strep, e coli, listeria and salmonella. The second milk sample and both water samples were negative for campylobacter. Additional testing, commonly used for general milk quality, was impressively low for somatic cell count (if the somatic cell count had been high, this would have been an indicator of possible pathogen issues). This quality indicator, together with the negative pathogen tests, renews our confidence in the high quality and cleanliness of the milk we provide to our membership."

frankweir

Sat, Mar 20, 2010 : 9:45 a.m.

One thing I don't understand: IF the milk was indeed contaminated, why haven't many more consumers of milk from this dairy become ill? Apparently many folks are drinking it and from what I gather, campylobacter isn't all that selective. If you're exposed to it, even if healthy, you'll exhibit symptoms regardless of age. Am I unaware of something?

MW

Sat, Mar 20, 2010 : 9:20 a.m.

Milk. What consistently amazes me is the disconnect humans accept as "normal." @Linda Diane Feldt: "Many of us drink it as is. It may take some getting used to the idea, but it really is very normal." How is it that a human drinking cow's milk is "normal"? Humans are not designed to drink cow/goat/whathaveyou. Cows' milk is for baby cows, in the same way that human milk is for human babies. Cows' milk is designed *by nature* to turn little baby cows into big cows in a relatively short period of time--with hormones and addictive (biological) chemicals. Are those the "nutrients" you had in mind for your human children? I can play nice and agree that everyone has a right to choose, food rights, blah blah blah. Legal loopholes sometimes have a place. But I do agree with mkm17 that these children and/or people that have entrusted their well-being into the hands of others have a right to products that are safe, regardless of what they are and where they come from.

Linda Diane Feldt

Sat, Mar 20, 2010 : 8:13 a.m.

Mars, I'm certain that you didn't mean to be so overly broad in your statement "Raw milk is not safe for human consumption" as nursing mothers do not pasteurize their milk before feeding it to their small humans. Breast milk is raw milk. It is pretty perfect for babies. It is the inter-species consumption of untreated milk that you must be referring to. Cow's milk. I have to assume that you've done extensive research and study to arrive at such a definitive conclusion. Well I have as well, and have reached a different answer. Under the right circumstances and care, raw cow milk is generally considered safe. It isn't perfectly safe, but what food is? I also use raw goat milk, an animal even cleaner than the cow. I've also examined pond water under a microscope, and I am certain that most people, if presented with the option after viewing pond water and raw cow milk, would choose the milk. Pond water has visible swimming microorganisms, far different from even raw cow milk. You have provided some clear directives in your post, which I hope come from concern for people's health. Don't drink milk. Choose small organic farms. Many of us would prefer the right to make our own choices about what we eat. When something is mass marketed, government regulation can be of profound benefit, and that system works, mostly pretty well, with some notable flaws. With raw milk we are talking about a private choice not available to the general public. I will question your authority in making my food decisions for me, as well as others. Especially when the question of raw milk safety is far from a black and white yes or no, which is how many people choose to frame it who have little knowledge of the issues involved. Not all raw milk is the same, and it is also not about just not pasteurizing it. The farming practices, the relationship with the farmer, the breeds of cows, what the cows eat, and of course how the milk is handled are all factors that go into choosing a source for raw milk. The raw milk controversy is the canary in the coal mine. The basic right to choose what we eat, a right that is inherently basic to human history, is being challenged from many angles. The majority of our food is processed mostly by a few major corporations. One company has been buying up seeds and pulling patents on living organisms. We are dependent on a food chain driven by oil for growing and transportation. GMOs are now introduced into crops "by accident" and farmers have to pay royalties for strains they don't want and didn't ask for. I'll stop there. Please know that mine is an informed decision, and I absolutely respect that it must be an individual decision. It is one that hundreds of people in Ann Arbor have made. It is also not a good choice for everyone, and I doubt anyone will try and get you to join in by marketing to your kids, giving out free samples, exposing you to flashy ads and colorful stores, or intruding into your life in any way. If you don't want to drink milk in its natural raw state, you are free to obtain pasteurized milk. That is a great thing. Please respect my choice as well, without assuming it is lack of knowledge or blind stupid faith which guides the choices of so many of your careful, thoughtful, intelligent neighbors who have made other arrangements. We apparently have somewhat different ways of interpreting the world, and that's normal and also welcome.

mkm17

Sat, Mar 20, 2010 : 7:54 a.m.

Public health laws are in place for a reason. Adults can choose to remove themselves from dairy regulations though the sham of having part ownership of a dairy cow. Children, on the other hand, are at the mercy of what their parents feed them. Shame on the parents who feed their children raw milk. Parents know better than public health officials? Do the parents even know the history of the dairy regulations, and what it was like before the laws were in place? It boggles the mind.

Wolverine3660

Fri, Mar 19, 2010 : 10:49 p.m.

Agree with Mars 100%.

mars

Fri, Mar 19, 2010 : 10:37 p.m.

Raw milk is not safe for human consumption. That's why we have laws requiring that milk be pasteurized. If you can't tolerate pasteurized milk, then don't drink milk. If you aren't comfortable with the farming practices of conventional dairies, then purchase pasteurized milk from small-scale organic family farms. Drinking raw milk is like drinking untreated pond water: maybe you won't get sick, but that doesn't mean it's safe. I'd also like to submit that just because their own lawyer says the farm is cooperating with the health department, that doesn't mean they really are. I'm sure that Kwame Kilpatrick's lawyers would say that he has been cooperating with the authorities too.

Linda Diane Feldt

Fri, Mar 19, 2010 : 10:32 p.m.

Maple, Re: boiling. Some do and some don't. Different potential pathogens as well as beneficial bacteria are removed at different temperatures. There is some possible safety, some loss of value depending on how you heat the milk. Some heat it before making yogurt so that the yogurt is more stable. Many of us drink it as is. It may take some getting used to the idea, but it really is very normal, and I've talked to a lot of old farmers who thought nothing of it. An idea we've lost over time and from fear. Milk intended for pasteurization isn't considered safe for direct use. The process for preparing intentional raw milk needs to be cleaner and is usually a far smaller operation. Part of the gestalt of the idea is that these are also cows that are pasture fed, and also often a different breed from conventional dairy lots, with Jerseys and some older varieties being prized. Creating a milk with more cream and a better array of available nutrients. They live longer, and are well cared for. It is just a whole different kind of farming as well as preparation, and thoughtfulness in matching farmer to consumer. There is a tendency to oversimplify the issue. It isn't even us (raw milk drinkers) against them (government regulators). A friend I met through his blog on raw milk issues, David Gumpert, has written a whole book about the controversy. It is "The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America's Emerging Battle Over Food Rights". Ann Arbor has a place in the account. His positive account of this particular event is in his blog, http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2010/3/19/facing-possible-campylobacter-outbreak-a-mi-herdshare-moves.html

Maple

Fri, Mar 19, 2010 : 9:28 p.m.

Do people not at least boil the raw milk before drinking it?

Linda Diane Feldt

Fri, Mar 19, 2010 : 9:23 p.m.

Because there is no established proof of the link between the illnesses and the raw milk, I would also request that the title of this story be updated. There is a possible link, "sickened by raw milk" has not been proven. The providers of the milk were open and willing to examine if they were the cause, and took immediate action to protect the other share members, with great financial consequences. So far, all the evidence from direct testing has disproved that hypothesis. I wish innocent until proven guilty applied to farmers as well, but it does not. But certainly AnnArbor.com can provide that courtesy.

Linda Diane Feldt

Fri, Mar 19, 2010 : 9:17 p.m.

The people who are in this cooperative have chosen to remove themselves from state regulation. Which is the only way raw milk is available in Michigan. The recent actions of the farmers demonstrate a commitment to a standard of health beyond what is required by government regulations. They chose to suspend milk distribution with just a suspicion of a problem. All testing to date has cleared them of any link to the illnesses. I talked with a number of people who had similar symptoms who are not raw milk drinkers. To my knowledge, there is no proven link from the illnesses to this source. Many people have found substantial benefits from unpasteurized milk. Other people prefer pasteurization. I'm glad that in this area we have a choice, and hundreds of Ann Arborites have made that informed decision to consume milk in its fresh, or raw, state. You can't buy it in stores, you can't buy it without knowing the farmer. For most of us it is very inconvenient but worth the hassle. I find conventional milk much more frightening than raw milk, because of how the cows are raised, what they are fed, the drugs used, and the use of pasteurization to atone for a multitude of problems. But if you want to drink it, that is your choice. I hope it is an informed one. I drink raw milk, and make yogurt, kefir, cheese and butter as well, because I've studied the issues and safety concerns and find it is the best choice for me. I get sick from conventional milk. Not from milk straight from the cow. I understand that for many people it sounds scary and dangerous. I had similar thoughts 7 years ago. I'm drinking the milk today from the milk group mentioned in this article. Confident in part because I've seen the integrity and care that this group puts into the product they provide to the members. And only to the group's members. The milk is not made available to the general public. Previous to getting milk form this group I worked with another local farmer. Providing milk directly to consumers made a huge difference to him financially as well as personally, knowing his consumers for the first time in his dairy farm experience. I never imagined that my choice of milk would turn into the most controversial and secretive thing I would do in my middle age. The right to choose how we nourish ourselves is very basic, and also very much under fire. This is a far larger issue than has the milk been boiled. It easily includes concern about food labeling, introduction of GMOs, and who can produce and provide food to whom. I hope that this sort of article can foster discussion on those fundamental issues, and not just deteriorate into fear and name calling. Now, to enjoy one more glass of milk before I go to bed. Because it also helps me to sleep.

actionjackson

Fri, Mar 19, 2010 : 7:40 p.m.

Does the act of pasteurization really mean so much to some people that they are willing to risk their children's health?

Woman in Ypsilanti

Fri, Mar 19, 2010 : 7:03 p.m.

@Jennifer Shikes Haines Some people are really pedantic about the criteria for The Darwin Awards which is pretty funny because as far as I know, there are no official Darwin Awards. You don't need to pay those people any mind. I, for one, got your point perfectly well. You think drinking raw milk is stupid. Now I disagree with you on that. I think that there are reasons an intelligent person might choose to drink raw milk. I went through a cheese making period where I needed raw milk for my cheeses (the process of making cheese kills the bacteria). But since I was getting it anyways and since I had researched the farm and knew that they were taking every precaution other than pasteurization, I felt safe drinking the milk I got there too. It never made me sick and it was so much more tasty than pasteurized milk. I've also heard that raw milk has more nutrients. After I got over the cheese making hobby, driving a long distance to pick up milk once a week was more than I wanted to bother with so I'm back on the pasteurized stuff. Drinking pasteurized milk is also a reasonable choice especially if one isn't willing to go personally visit the dairy where the milk comes from.

Jennifer Shikes Haines

Fri, Mar 19, 2010 : 6:34 p.m.

If you want me to retract it, I'll retract it. This is weird that someone who just makes a comment on an article is called out on that. Various populations can be hit harder by a bug, by bacteria, etc. I'm not sure what your point is. I've also already received private e-mails on this... this feels attacking and invasive.

timjbd

Fri, Mar 19, 2010 : 5:58 p.m.

"According to a statement, campylobacter is a bacterial illness causing diarrhea, fever and abdominal cramps for two to five days after exposure. Campylobacter is generally regarded as the most common bacterial cause of gastroenteritis worldwide, according to the World Health Organization." So when you say "According to a statement," who is making this statement? Is it the World Health Org.? Because you seem to be attributing the second sentence in this paragraph to them. Or did you mean to attribute it to the earlier statement from Gregory Holzman ("Gregory Holzman, chief medical executive for the Michigan Department of Community Health, said in a statement.")? In which case, since you have already refered to "a" statement, you might have written "according to Holzman's statement..." or "According to the statement from the Mich. Dept. of Community Health..." or even "According to THAT statement..." And what's a "Medical Executive?" As for the lady making the Darwin award comment, according to the article, out of the 8 people sickened, "the majority who were sickened were under the age of 4." Which means at least 5 but no more than 8 were small children so maybe you should retract that comment...

1bigbud

Fri, Mar 19, 2010 : 5:47 p.m.

Buy Michigan Yea right

Jennifer Shikes Haines

Fri, Mar 19, 2010 : 5:11 p.m.

They are NOT running for the Darwin award. Raw milk is rarely the cause of these illnesses and given the volume of this cooperative, it's very unlikely that these children were sickened by the raw milk. There is a massive stomach bug sweeping at least Washtenaw County right now - I wonder why that correlation hasn't been made? I think the fact that the milk is being tested and there are no signs of campylobacter is an interesting indication of what might just be small children getting the gastroenteritis that the rest of the area is experiencing.

seldon

Fri, Mar 19, 2010 : 5:11 p.m.

@peg dash fab: Really? It killed them before they could reproduce?

Tina Reed

Fri, Mar 19, 2010 : 5:09 p.m.

This story has been updated to with thoughts from the farm's attorney since earlier comments were made.

jeffsab

Fri, Mar 19, 2010 : 4:24 p.m.

Good question, Bonsai. Journalism 101.

Bonsai

Fri, Mar 19, 2010 : 4:01 p.m.

Did you call the farm to get a reaction?