Here are several episodes related to raw milk:

#151 Is raw milk safe? with Mark McAfee
#104 Raw milk on the move with Pete Kennedy
#41 On fat, raw milk, & ghee with Sandeep Agarwal
#23 Raw milk revealed with Mark McAfee
#10 Raw milk: one story with Charlotte Smith

The post Raw Milk Related Wise Traditions Podcasts appeared first on Real Milk.

Government and medical officials tell us not to consume raw milk because it is “inherently dangerous,” a soup of evil microbes that put everyone at risk, especially children, the elderly and the immune-compromised (the very population groups that need raw milk the most.) We’ve shown repeatedly that based on government data, raw milk is very safe—you are 35,000 times less likely to become ill from raw milk than from other foods.¹

But the opposition continues; the question is why. A little bit of digging will reveal that the opposition to raw milk has nothing to do with safety—this is just a smokescreen.

THE FIRST PASTEURIZATION LAW

In 1910, the New York Milk Committee held a conference in order to reach a consensus on how to handle the city’s dairy products. Most of the participants were opposed to pasteurization and considered certified raw milk superior. But city officials did not think they could afford the necessary inspection force to safeguard raw milk.

As a result, the committee endorsed pasteurization because “Private companies, particularly larger companies, through their capital investment in pasteurizing technology, would enable the state to supply the guarantee of milk safety without imposing further public costs.”²

Thus the decision to mandate pasteurization had nothing to do with science, and everything to do with fiscal expediency.

WASHINGTON STATE

In 2006 there were only six raw milk dairies in Washington State; today there are 39. Washington state’s Department of Agriculture is not happy about this “explosive growth,” even though it’s certainly good news for Washington’s small farms. That’s because regulations in the state of Washington call for frequent pathogen testing of raw milk in addition to the usual tests carried out on milk destined for pasteurization. The department is conducting more than five times the number of tests on raw milk than it did in 2006, and it has requested additional funds in its budget to hire two microbiologists. All dairies in the state pay a $250 license fee, but testing for raw dairies is estimated to cost over $6,000 for each raw milk dairy.³

Even in states that do not require such extensive testing, visits by inspectors represent costs to the department that handles milk inspection. As the head of dairy safety in the state of Maryland said to me, “Sally, we just can’t afford to inspect a lot of small dairies.”

CUTTING GOVERNMENT COSTS WITH REASONABLE REGULATIONS

There are a number of ways to reduce the costs of inspecting raw milk dairies. For one, very small dairies can be exempted from inspection. Dairy farms that milk less than, say, 10 cows, and that sell raw milk directly from the farm, do not need inspection, at least not frequent inspection. Instead, the state can require these dairy owners to take safety classes, or become a member of a trade group like the Raw Milk Institute.

Frequent testing for pathogens is also not necessary; occasional testing is a good idea, and the dairy itself should pay for these tests. In the state of Maryland, we are required to send in samples of our raw cheese once a year to be tested for five pathogens. The dairy pays the cost, not the state. Once a year the Maryland Department of Agriculture takes a sample of our unpasteurized pet milk and sends it in for pathogen testing. The state pays for these tests but could easily require the dairy to pay instead. Once-a-year testing for pathogens is a reasonable requirement, one that the dairy owner can easily pay for.

At the same time, new technologies allow individual dairy owners to carry out the standard tests—standard plate count, somatic cell count and coliform count—right on the farm. These tests are inexpensive, easy to use, and accurate. Regulations should require dairy farmers to do these tests frequently—on our farm, we do these tests for every batch of milk and cheese—and keep a record of the results. On-farm testing can ease the burden on the regulatory agency; it also provides frequent feedback to the farmer. If he gets results that are not satisfactory, he knows immediately that something has not been cleaned properly, or that there is a health problem with one or more cows. Frequent on-farm testing provides frequent feedback and is much more likely to result in best sanitary practices than a once-a-month visit from an inspector.

DAIRY INDUSTRY OPPOSITION

Of course the dairy industry is also opposed to raw milk, again for reasons having to do with finances. Milk processing companies typically pay farmers about $1.30 per gallon for their milk—about the same price that farmers got during World War II, and far less than the cost of production. It’s no wonder that conventional dairies are going out of business, by some estimates at the rate of 16 per day. Last year in California, 50 dairy farms, including a few very large farms, closed shop and sold their herds—that’s one per week. Only the raw milk dairies, selling milk for its true price of at least $10 per gallon, are doing well. When all farmers have the option of selling raw milk, the processing companies will be obligated to pay dairy farmers a higher price for their milk, and that would cut into their corporate profits and jeopardize the high salaries that these corporate officials receive.

THE SOLUTION: CONSUMER DEMAND

Ideally the citizens of a nation would band together and commit to the cost of making the most wholesome food possible available to their people, including Nature’s perfect food, whole raw milk from pasture-fed cows, to their growing children. Since neither government nor industry in the U.S. shares this vision, it’s left to the consumer to make it happen. And that’s exactly what has happened. Explosive demand and activism on many levels has made raw milk available in spite of government and industry opposition. As the benefits of raw milk become more and more obvious, more barriers will be lifted. New sanitation technologies and accumulated wisdom about hygienic dairy practices will bring down the costs of production and inspection. Very soon the day will come when the populace will recognize pasteurization for what it is: a rust belt technology based on 40-year-old science instituted for the sake of short-sighted budgetary concerns.

REFERENCES

1. Raw Milk Safety Summary on RealMilk.com
2. Erna DuPuis, Nature’s Perfect Food: How Milk Became America’s Drink.
3. Cookson Beecher. “Raw milk’s ‘explosive growth’ comes with costs to the state.” January 12, 2016.

This article was first published in the Fall 2017 edition of Wise Traditions, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation.

About the Author

[include content_id=634]

The post The Real Reasons for Milk Pasteurization appeared first on Real Milk.

The National Dairy Promotion and Research Program and the National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program, responsible for milk marketing, blame weak sales on calcium-fortified juices and vitamin-enhanced beverages, which they say have “undermined” milk’s healthy image and are more available than milk “in many eating establishments.” No mention of the fact that today’s modern pasteurized and ultra-pasteurized milk tastes horrible and causes multiple intestinal disorders.

Fluid Milk Processors have tried everything to get people to drink more milk, and the government has helped them, shipping posters of mustache-wearing actors, sports figures, musicians and models to 60,000 U.S. elementary schools and 45,000 public middle and high schools. But the kids hate the reduced-fat milk sold in schools, often throwing it away.

The milk lobby has even tried to promote milk as a weight loss food—a claim not supported by a recent study, which found that drinking 24 ounces of low-fat or fat-free milk every day did not help women lose weight. Why would they expect such results from low-fat milk when animal scientists know that pigs gain weight on low-fat milk, but stay lean on full-fat milk?

This article first appeared in the Fall 2016 issue of Wise Traditions, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation.

About the Author

[include content_id=634]

The post Desperate Milk Marketers Plead: Please Drink Milk appeared first on Real Milk.

The article points out that while milk-derived products like powder can be shipped internationally, liquid milk remains a largely regional industry: “Markets for fresh fluid milk are largely local or regional in the United States — and even in modest-sized countries — because moving it quickly by air is far too expensive, while transporting it very far on the ground risks spoilage.”

But when small dairy ecosystems begin to suffer because Big Dairy is elbowing them out, other parts of the regional economy feel the effects: local veterinarians have fewer cows to treat, equipment companies, feed companies and lumber mills that supply sawdust for bedding get fewer orders.

Together, these points make a strong economic for supporting local dairy farms. Not just to stimulate our local economies and not just so that we have access to fresh, responsibly sourced foods – but because if there’s one industry that should be easy to regionalize, it’s the dairy industry which is inherently regional already.

Support the Campaign for Real Milk, join the Weston A. Price Foundation, today!

The post International Business Times Sheds Light on Global and Regional Milk Industries appeared first on Real Milk.

Low dairy production in other major milk-producing regions around the world drove up demand for US-produced dairy products – contributing, in part, to the high prices of raw milk, cheese and butter.

According to the U.S Dairy Export Council (USDEC), US dairy exports increased 14% during the first half of 2014 vs. the same period in 2013, setting a record averaging $653.6 million per month.

This strong performance has allowed many dairy producers to reinvest in their operations, something they weren’t able to do following the 2009 recession, which will hopefully keep the milk business booming.

The Campaign for Real Milk is a project of the Weston A. Price Foundation, a nutrition education non-profit based in Washington, D.C. Fan the Campaign for Real Milk on Facebook.

The post 2014 Was a Lucrative Year for US Dairy Farmers appeared first on Real Milk.

According to Gumpert, Coca-Cola is seeking to balance out deteriorating sales in an increasingly health-conscious marketplace with a new product that capitalizes on trendy almond milk, soy milk, and low-fat “all natural” protein powders. Their new product is called Fairlife and it is a super processed milk product that has been processed beyond pasteurization and homogenization while adding more protein and removing sugars and fat. It will be sold for twice the price of typical processed milk, perhaps in an effort to target those who are willing to pay premium prices for what they believe is “health food.”

Fairlife is currently being tested in select markets in the Midwest and is expected to go nationwide in 2015. One store manager in Minnesota, where Fairlife has supposedly been tough to keep in stock, points out that buyers have no way of knowing that the product is made by Coca-Cola as there is no indication on the packaging.

Gumpert writes that the success of Fairlife remains to be seen: “Coke can throw a huge amount of ad dollars at the new stuff. Or maybe [it won’t be successful] when people discover not only how unnatural it is, but that it is produced by a company with a long history of producing products that keep people unhealthy.”

The Campaign for Real Milk is a project of the Weston A. Price Foundation, a nutrition education non-profit based in Washington, D.C. Fan the Campaign for Real Milk on Facebook. 

The post Coca-Cola Introducing Super Processed “Milk” Product Dubbed “Coke Milk” appeared first on Real Milk.

How did consumers feel about pasteurized milk when it first became available? Who were the influential politicians who argued for pasteurization? How did pasteurization give rise to the dairy giants that still exist today?

These questions and others are examined in a “Murky History of Mass Milk Production Pours Over to Today: Raw Milk Revolution?” on the Epoch Times.

The Campaign for Real Milk is a project of the Weston A. Price Foundation, a nutrition education non-profit based in Washington, D.C. Fan the Campaign for Real Milk on Facebook. 

The post An Abridged History of Mass Milk Production appeared first on Real Milk.

In May 2014, the US Department of Agriculture filed a request for weapons including submachine guns and semi-automatic or 2 shot burst trigger guns. This request has many, including the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund, questioning what need the USDA could possibly have for such heavy arms.

According to a USDA spokesperson, the weapons are necessary for self-defense during undercover operations and surveillance. As Modern Farmer points out, this sounds like a legitimate reason when, in actuality, most of their enforcement operations relate to white-collar fraud of government programs like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Nor would such heavy arms be necessary in on-ground investigations into small farms and producers – for example, investigations and raids surrounding whether small farms are selling raw milk.

“Do we really want to have our federal regulatory agencies bring submachine guns onto these family farms with children?” asks Liz Reitzig, co-founder of the Farm Food Freedom Coalition.

The Campaign for Real Milk is a project of the Weston A. Price Foundation, a nutrition education non-profit based in Washington, D.C. To learn more about raw milk and other nutrient dense foods, attend one of the upcoming Wise Traditions conferences.

The post Why Does the USDA Need Submachine Guns? appeared first on Real Milk.

According to DairyReporter.com, “DFA was accused of ‘tying up access to milk bottling plants’ in the Northeast ‘through unlawful exclusive supply agreements.’ As a result, independent farmers in the region were forced to join DFA or market their raw milk through DMS.” This allowed DFA to drive down raw milk prices paid to dairy farmers, increasing profits for themselves and Dean Foods – between the two of them, they processed approximately 90% of bottled milk in the region at that time.

As part of the settlement, DFA and DMS are required to pay $50 million in cash compensation and a series of “meaningful non-monetary benefits” to the dairy farmers who brought this class action lawsuit, but are not required to admit any wrongdoing.

Although it is good news that the DFA and DMS are being held responsible for their actions, this lawsuit and its settlement without admission of wrongdoing is a sobering reminder of how Big Dairy is threatening independent dairy farmers across the country – regardless of whether they are trying to sell raw milk to bottling plants for pasteurization or direct to consumers. It’s also a reminder of the importance of supporting local farms by buying directly from them whenever possible.

The Campaign for Real Milk is a project of the nutrition education non-profit, The Weston A. Price Foundation. Donate to help fund research into the benefits of nutrient dense foods.  westonaprice.org/lab

The post Dairy Farmers of America Settle Lawsuit Alleging Conspiracy to Drive Down Raw Milk Prices appeared first on Real Milk.

“Falsification of milk is a crime to me,” says Eter Sarjveladze of the CSRDG. “Milk is a major food group for children, milk can replace any other product, while no other product can substitute for milk. It includes all the substances that are essential to the human body and easy for digestion. Milk includes more than a hundred components that are vital for normal human development. The consumer spends money for this, in belief that he purchases a very useful product, but then gets a poison.”

Following a December 2013 report by the CSRDG that revealed that 90% of milk and dairy products made in Georgia are based on vegetable oil, the government took steps to create new definitions and quality standards.

In the meantime, Georgian consumers are left with an unfortunate alternative: to purchase milk from local villagers whose cows might be infected by tuberculosis. One Georgian citizen asks “which is better: tuberculosis-ridden milk that is boiled, or fake milk made from vegetable oil?”

Disturbingly, this system of fake, devoid-of-nutrition “dairy” products is not unique to Georgia. An article from the Fall 2013 issue of Wise Traditions titled “The Great Milk Robbery” provides fascinating in-depth coverage of how corporations are misleading and cheating the world’s poor out of fresh milk.

The Campaign for Real Milk is a project of the nutrition education non-profit, The Weston A. Price Foundation. Donate to help fund research into the benefits of nutrient dense foods.  westonaprice.org/lab

The post Disturbing Statistics Show Dairy Products Are Fake in Many Parts of the World appeared first on Real Milk.