Raw Milk Victories
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
I've been to dairy farms (commercial) that are 'spotless'
here on the island.
My daughter use to work at UBC farm years ago, when they
were a dairy producer, 'spotless', the cows went out to
pasture every day, not stuck in the barn.
Milking machines were very clean, and sanitation was an
important part of the process.
One can't get away from the 'smell' on any dairy farm,
cows do smell, or I should say, what they expel from that
other end 'smells'.
If anyone has been through the kind of dairy barns I have
read about above, and it is that 'filthy', it should be
reported, until something is done about it.
And, the stores that accept the milk from those particular
farms, should get complaints till something is done about
it, they don't like complaints in the stores, bad for
business.
here on the island.
My daughter use to work at UBC farm years ago, when they
were a dairy producer, 'spotless', the cows went out to
pasture every day, not stuck in the barn.
Milking machines were very clean, and sanitation was an
important part of the process.
One can't get away from the 'smell' on any dairy farm,
cows do smell, or I should say, what they expel from that
other end 'smells'.
If anyone has been through the kind of dairy barns I have
read about above, and it is that 'filthy', it should be
reported, until something is done about it.
And, the stores that accept the milk from those particular
farms, should get complaints till something is done about
it, they don't like complaints in the stores, bad for
business.
hmmm.... you say that like I'm content with consuming the lowest common denominator... I'm not. BUT... I do like that I'm protected from them when it comes to things like botulism and listeria.
I'd prefer to drive to a farm and buy raw milk (and really think direct purchase shouldn't be regulated so long as customers are made aware of the 'risks'). But, I live in the middle of a city. I have two kids and a chronic pain illness. Realism dictates that I'm a captive market.
I've seen the farms you feel I 'should' see. I grew up on a cattle farm. Met the farmers, etc. I've seen one pig farm. Seen friends who've worked even grimmer jobs on pig farms. Visited people who lived along slaughter yards. I know the 'reality' of it.
So long as the lowest common denominator is allowed to put food into our chain of consumption, yes, I am happy that the regulations are written to them. Will I be happy to see the lowest common denominator removed? Hell yes. But... they rarely get removed before they're found out.... by making people ill.
I've seen clean farms too talloola (and manure doesn't 'stink' to me... that's one of the quirks of growing up on a cattle farm I suppose). But, I've seen dirty ones too. The fun part is, so long as the equipment is cleaned (not necessarily risk free of air borne contamination after cleaning), that's good enough for food standards. Add to the process hoses, pumps, transport, packaging (which can be contaminated), and you run a huge risk. Even a clean farm can't necessarily control the health of the trucker handling the hoses that transfer the milk to the truck.
No, and I suppose that 'reality' applies to most of the
foods which are picked, handled and shipped, even more
so, the ones which come directly into contact with people's
hands and clothes, but we are built to withstand many
many types of germs, our bodies can ward off things each
and every day, nothing is perfect, and contact with germs
every day is quite normal, within reason.
The milk caused illness when it was raw, that problem was
dealt with, which improved quality of life over time, I
don't believe in the theory that sometone is out to get
us, I can watch out and look after myself, and will choose
what I need to survive just fine.
If raw milk and pasteurized milk is available, I will choose
pasteurized, and others can choose whatever they want.
My daughter use to bring raw milk home from one of the
farms she worked at, and my mother would not go near it.
It was disgusting to her.
We drank it because she got it 'free', but that ran out
for me, and I returned to buying it at the store.
I would like to read a report from the 'other side' re:
the advantage of pastuerized milk, to balance out this
article, so that we can feel we have all information.
Here's an excerpt from Cliffy's link:
"Canadians were shocked by undercover footage taken at an intensive egg factory farm in Southern Ontario during the summer of 2005. The haunting images—birds crammed into tiny battery cages, feathers chafed off, open sores, birds in lower cages covered in feces—had many Canadians questioning if this kind of suffering is just too high a price to pay for slightly cheaper eggs.
But the sad truth is these images are all too common in Canada, as 98 percent of the 26 million egg-laying hens in this country are cruelly confined for their entire lives in tiny wire battery cages, so small they can barely even move."
There is information all over the Internet on both sides of this debate - "factory food vs. natural food."
It's not an "all or nothing" scenario...there are 'degrees of both scenarios' on both sides of the fence, across the entire spectrum of farming and food production.
On Karrie's point re: where could a city dweller buy good raw milk? is a valid one. Practically speaking, you can't. There isn't enough of it available because there aren't enough producers of it. Why? Because it's illegal. It wasn't always illegal and in fact, there was a time not too long ago in our history, when buying milk from a farm/dairy was the only way to get it. (As in the old "milk man" delivery system).
I think there are two things that caused this to change...first was putting "business efficiencies" into our food system (including milk) and the second was our governments trying to protect people from disease. Neither one of those efforts are bad at all. Who can argue with lower prices (business efficiencies) and protection from disease?
But, there is a price to be paid for any change...kind of action-reaction phenomenon.
Let's take the business efficiency issue – The theory is that if you gather up enough volume of the production of anything, you will lower costs (cost per unit)...the basic theory is “economy of scale.” A good example of that is what Henry Ford did when he invented the production line – instead of building one car at a time, he introduced the concept of building a whole bunch of them in steps. Advantages? Quite a few, but one would be having one person install the right front fenders of all the cars, time after time, as they come down the line. In theory, that person should be able to do the job better and faster than a person who is installing all the components, one at a time.
But, as the big 3 auto makers eventually discovered, if you place the highest priority on production only (that is, building as many cars as fast as possible), then something suffers...in this case, it was quality. They had an “unbalanced” approach to it. It worked OK – through to the 60s and 70s – until better quality products started appearing on the market, Japan being the most notable competitor.
What does this have to do with food and raw milk? Quite a bit. If you consider the scenario of milk and dairy products, the same principles have been applied there...high production, lower costs, and overall efficiencies. Over time, that has been carried to an extreme, and the result is lower quality of the finished product. And here's where I find the problem - the definition of “quality” of the finished product is very narrow, with the emphasis being placed on “safety.” And by that, I mean short term “safety.” Pasteurization is meant to kill the “visible bugs” in the milk, and then it's “safe.” There is no thought given to the long term, broader effects on human health. It's not part of the production equationi, either on the part of the rule makers or the producers. Just pasteurize the hell out of it, and we're good to go.
This kind of thinking – high production and a limited defintion of “safety” applies to most of our food production these days. It's not limited to the U.S. And Canada, but that's where it all originates, and where you see the most extreme examples.
Where was fast food invented? In the U.S., in Bakersfield, Callifornia back in the 50s. The McDonald brothers sort of started it, and a guy named Ray Kroc “perfected” it and made it into what you see today. Was his priority on nutrition and food value? Nope. Absolutely not. The objective was on producing food as fast as possible at the cheapest possible price. At the time, this was a revolutionary new concept that caught the attention of the public and it really took off...as we can see today.
This “fast and cheap” approach to food has made its way across the entire food industry. “Quality” has suffered in many ways. There are no real “quality checks and balances” built into the system to ensure that our food can supply us with the nutrients required to keep our bodies running right. So, with the emphasis on high production and lower prices, we end up with food that is “compromised” in many ways. The end result is we have ended up with food products that range all the way from “not as good for you as it could be” to downright “bad for you.”
Some people recognize this, some don't. Some care about it, some don't. Most of those who do recognize the problem and care about it are branded as “fanatics”, tin foil hatters (or whatever the term is), and other assorted labels. The mainstream consumer buys food with the belief that “if it's for sale, it must be OK.” It's a bit like the old saw, “If it's good for General Motors, it's good for the country.” That one proved to be a bit of a mistake.
So, back to raw milk...some people want the choice and are able to find raw milk, but it is limited and of course, illegal in most places. It's worse in Canada than it is in the U.S., where raw milk is available in many states. If it does change here in Canada (and it looks like the first real shot has been fired in Ontario, which was the start of this thread), it will be a slow, steady change. I don't think it's possible to change an entire production and distribution system overnight, nor is it wise. For the moment, all I'm looking for is the freedom to make a personal choice and I don't think that's unreasonable.
Longer term, if enough consumers became aware of the advantages of raw milk, the “system” would have to change dramatically...smaller farmers, proper handling standards (cleanliness), good test procedures, and a whole balanced approach to the issue would have to be part of the change. The spin-off advantages would be interesting...more, smaller farmers, higher quality milk and other dairy products, a bit of a reversal in the trend of having everyone living in big cities, and many more. The big payoff could very well be a reduction in health care costs.
Is this “revolutionary” change? Well, I guess so, although if you look back 50 or 60 years ago, it would – in some ways - simply be a return to the “good old days.” Can it be done? Of course, anything can be done. It just depends on how many people want it to happen.
It's not an "all or nothing" scenario...there are 'degrees of both scenarios' on both sides of the fence, across the entire spectrum of farming and food production.
On Karrie's point re: where could a city dweller buy good raw milk? is a valid one. Practically speaking, you can't. There isn't enough of it available because there aren't enough producers of it. Why? Because it's illegal. It wasn't always illegal and in fact, there was a time not too long ago in our history, when buying milk from a farm/dairy was the only way to get it. (As in the old "milk man" delivery system).
I think there are two things that caused this to change...first was putting "business efficiencies" into our food system (including milk) and the second was our governments trying to protect people from disease. Neither one of those efforts are bad at all. Who can argue with lower prices (business efficiencies) and protection from disease?
But, there is a price to be paid for any change...kind of action-reaction phenomenon.
Let's take the business efficiency issue – The theory is that if you gather up enough volume of the production of anything, you will lower costs (cost per unit)...the basic theory is “economy of scale.” A good example of that is what Henry Ford did when he invented the production line – instead of building one car at a time, he introduced the concept of building a whole bunch of them in steps. Advantages? Quite a few, but one would be having one person install the right front fenders of all the cars, time after time, as they come down the line. In theory, that person should be able to do the job better and faster than a person who is installing all the components, one at a time.
But, as the big 3 auto makers eventually discovered, if you place the highest priority on production only (that is, building as many cars as fast as possible), then something suffers...in this case, it was quality. They had an “unbalanced” approach to it. It worked OK – through to the 60s and 70s – until better quality products started appearing on the market, Japan being the most notable competitor.
What does this have to do with food and raw milk? Quite a bit. If you consider the scenario of milk and dairy products, the same principles have been applied there...high production, lower costs, and overall efficiencies. Over time, that has been carried to an extreme, and the result is lower quality of the finished product. And here's where I find the problem - the definition of “quality” of the finished product is very narrow, with the emphasis being placed on “safety.” And by that, I mean short term “safety.” Pasteurization is meant to kill the “visible bugs” in the milk, and then it's “safe.” There is no thought given to the long term, broader effects on human health. It's not part of the production equationi, either on the part of the rule makers or the producers. Just pasteurize the hell out of it, and we're good to go.
This kind of thinking – high production and a limited defintion of “safety” applies to most of our food production these days. It's not limited to the U.S. And Canada, but that's where it all originates, and where you see the most extreme examples.
Where was fast food invented? In the U.S., in Bakersfield, Callifornia back in the 50s. The McDonald brothers sort of started it, and a guy named Ray Kroc “perfected” it and made it into what you see today. Was his priority on nutrition and food value? Nope. Absolutely not. The objective was on producing food as fast as possible at the cheapest possible price. At the time, this was a revolutionary new concept that caught the attention of the public and it really took off...as we can see today.
This “fast and cheap” approach to food has made its way across the entire food industry. “Quality” has suffered in many ways. There are no real “quality checks and balances” built into the system to ensure that our food can supply us with the nutrients required to keep our bodies running right. So, with the emphasis on high production and lower prices, we end up with food that is “compromised” in many ways. The end result is we have ended up with food products that range all the way from “not as good for you as it could be” to downright “bad for you.”
Some people recognize this, some don't. Some care about it, some don't. Most of those who do recognize the problem and care about it are branded as “fanatics”, tin foil hatters (or whatever the term is), and other assorted labels. The mainstream consumer buys food with the belief that “if it's for sale, it must be OK.” It's a bit like the old saw, “If it's good for General Motors, it's good for the country.” That one proved to be a bit of a mistake.
So, back to raw milk...some people want the choice and are able to find raw milk, but it is limited and of course, illegal in most places. It's worse in Canada than it is in the U.S., where raw milk is available in many states. If it does change here in Canada (and it looks like the first real shot has been fired in Ontario, which was the start of this thread), it will be a slow, steady change. I don't think it's possible to change an entire production and distribution system overnight, nor is it wise. For the moment, all I'm looking for is the freedom to make a personal choice and I don't think that's unreasonable.
Longer term, if enough consumers became aware of the advantages of raw milk, the “system” would have to change dramatically...smaller farmers, proper handling standards (cleanliness), good test procedures, and a whole balanced approach to the issue would have to be part of the change. The spin-off advantages would be interesting...more, smaller farmers, higher quality milk and other dairy products, a bit of a reversal in the trend of having everyone living in big cities, and many more. The big payoff could very well be a reduction in health care costs.
Is this “revolutionary” change? Well, I guess so, although if you look back 50 or 60 years ago, it would – in some ways - simply be a return to the “good old days.” Can it be done? Of course, anything can be done. It just depends on how many people want it to happen.
From British Columbia | Beyond Factory Farming
"Between 1976 and 2006 BC lost almost half its egg farmers, going from 6,885 to 3,854. Production in BC has increased slightly, with 2,649,816 laying hens in 1976 to 3,111,480 in 2006. 50% of BC’s laying hens are now raised on just 47 farms."
"
The outbreak of avian flu in British Columbia in the spring of 2004 focused national attention on the concentration of poultry production in BC’s Fraser Valley.
countryboy, it's not JUST that raw milk is illegal that makes it unavailable to city dwellers
Imagine the environmental impact of all the city folks driving out of the city everytime they need a 4 litre of milk.
Imagine the cost of driving out of the city for your milk.
Imagine the time issue with driving out of the city for your milk.
So, the only way to make it 'available' to city people is to pump and process it and truck it, exposing the milk to huge risk, and the customer base to an even bigger risk.
Imagine the environmental impact of all the city folks driving out of the city everytime they need a 4 litre of milk.
Imagine the cost of driving out of the city for your milk.
Imagine the time issue with driving out of the city for your milk.
So, the only way to make it 'available' to city people is to pump and process it and truck it, exposing the milk to huge risk, and the customer base to an even bigger risk.
Aha, there are some examples of "why it can't be done." How about looking at it from the other side..."How could it be done?" It's not impossible to bring it closer to the consumer and still keep it safe...just needs a thinking process.
I think you started down the right track with your last paragraph..."So, the only way to make it 'available' to city people is to pump and process it and truck it, exposing the milk to huge risk, and the customer base to an even bigger risk." What are the ways the risks could be eliminated?
A thought-starter...I take water samples for a one hour drive once a month to be tested for drinking water quality...and believe me, if there are any bacteria present, our licensed water system is shut down. It's a simple procedure that involves sterilized sample bottles but if the tester's hands are not clean at the time of the test, we flunk.
A few similar controls could do the trick with milk...it's really a matter of thinking through the steps required - one at a time - to come up with the answers. They're there though...they always are.
Ya know, I really wouldn't care how clean a farmer TOLD me he'd been, how many safety checks he's SUPPOSED to do.... I'd care what the result would be if one was missed. Pasteurization eliminates a lot of that wonder and worry, without seriously changing the value to my diet of the milk.
:-|"When it was first used, pasteurization was thought to make raw milk from any source safer to consume. More recently, farm sanitation has greatly improved and effective testing has been developed for bovine tuberculosis and other diseases, making other approaches to ensuring safety of milk more feasible; however pasteurization continues to be widely used in case infectious milk should enter the food supply."
"IN CASE INFECTIOUS MILK SHOULD ENTER THE FOOD SUPPLY"
Sounds reasonable to me.
However, you wanna drink it straight from Bossy, knock yourself out...........Providing you pay for your stay in the hospital in case something goes wrong.
"IN CASE INFECTIOUS MILK SHOULD ENTER THE FOOD SUPPLY"
Sounds reasonable to me.
However, you wanna drink it straight from Bossy, knock yourself out...........Providing you pay for your stay in the hospital in case something goes wrong.
Ah, that's what we'd all like to believe. Unfortunately, you do see "indiscretions" in the whole system from time to time...like Maple Leaf Foods and Listeria. Granted, that's not milk but it's an example of what happens when things go wrong.
But I digress...we might be making the assumption that the same old farmer with the same old manure-laden equipment would be supplying the milk. Uh, I don't think that would work too well, in all cases. No, I think we're not thinking deeply enough yet. The challenge you posed was getting clean, safe, raw milk to consumers in a convenient, cost-effective, and "green" manner (I'm paraphrasing...am I close?)...
So, the next step would be to lay out the possible ways this could be done. One that pops to mind on the issue you just raised is to train and certify any farmer that is going to produce raw milk. Some type of testing procedures would be necessary of course, but I'm thinking first steps only right now...
What do you think?
I think the farmers NOW are trained in those same safe food handling methods, and still there are problems. Train and train and train all you want... someone will get lazy. Someone will sneeze. Someone will miss a crack in a hose that needed sterilizing. Someone will drop a connection when hooking up to a tank and get manure off the ground into the supply hose. Train away countryboy... but unfortunately, you're dealing with humans.
Yeah, I know...I've dealt with them for years! :lol:
Training isn't just a matter of showing someone how to do something. Good training involves imparting a clear understanding of what is important, and why. Each of those problems you've mentioned can be handled through a simple set of procedures, but they have to be part of a "system", and that system has to managed effectively. Not "over-managed", must managed to the degree that it works right. The basic elements of the system don't have to be all that difficult.
You're still looking at it from a "why can't it be done" standpoint, but I'm still looking at from the other side of the coin...why it can be done. That's OK though, because you're raising issues that have to be addressed...all these things need to be surfaced or else there wouldn't be any basis for a "system."
I'm thinking more of what's generally called a "quality system", which involves taking apart all the steps involved, reviewing the procedures necessary to meet the quality standards (clean, safe milk), (one of the steps might be that handling or making hose connections in an unclean area is verboten), and putting it all back together again with training and follow-up requirements, certifications, and certainly a regular audit process to make sure the system is being followed to a "T."
This kind of thing is done all the time in non-food situations, so there is no reason why it couldn't be done in a food situation. It could very well be in place already elsewhere in the world, as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is the worldwide overseer for much of this stuff.
So, it's not really a matter of reinventing the wheel. None of this currently applies to producers/sellers of raw milk because it's still illegal in Canada.
In my opinion, what I'm talking about would be a very worthwhile exercise to go through in order to get to the health benefits offered by good, clean, raw milk.
We already have some examples of this happening, even thought it's not "official"...there is a producer of cheese in Salmon Arm, BC that has their own herd of grass-fed dairy cows. Good first step - the animals are fed what they're designed to eat, thus eliminating the need for medicines required when they're not fed right (grains and other crap designed to make them produce more milk faster). Then, the production facility is squeaky-clean and managed like a...(well, I was going to say a hospital but they kill too many people with infections these days, so that's a bad comparison)...like a model of cleanliness and care.
They make some of their cheeses with unpasteurized raw milk (the stuff that is aged long enough for the good bacteria to eat the bad bacteria, simply put - they have proven to the Health Dept. that it is safe) and it is scrumptious. It's way beyond Kraft cheese (factory cheese) in nutrition and overall goodness, not to mention flavour. Sure, it costs a bit more but you feel "full" when you eat very small amounts of it, because it's real, whole, and wholesome...satisfying, you could say.
The staff are a lucky bunch...they get to drink raw milk on their "coffee breaks" and they look pretty healthy and happy to me. Mind you, this was all set up by Dutch people who are light years ahead of North America on this stuff. Or, maybe they're "behind us" in the sense that this is how it has been done for centuries in parts of Europe.
Whenever you have a small, independently run operation where the owner/manager is right there on site, your chances of "mistakes" are lessened, as compared to large, high-production facilities that have "margins for error" built into their production "scorecards." One of the reasons is "ownership" of the results...it's rare that a big factory with many (unionized) employees will take the same pride in producing something that would be done by an independent "craftsman." Think General Motors vs. Ferrari, for example. Or, a local bakery vs. a large bakery/factory operation. Or even a small, local farmer that takes pride in his/her operation vs. a big, giant, high-production dairy operation. Remember, Maple Leaf had all kinds of fancy equipment and safety inspections but that Listeria was there. More than once!
Timely bit from The Globe and Mail
Uncaged chickens are exposed to higher levels of bacteria, parasites and viruses that put them at greater risk for disease and infection compared with their caged counterparts, new research from Sweden's national veterinary institute shows..
Chickens not kept in cages are often housed in shelters where the floor doubles as a giant litter box. As a result, hens have direct contact with bacteria and microorganisms that grow in the litter, which can greatly increase health risks, said the study, available on BioMed Central's journal Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica.
Uncaged chickens are exposed to higher levels of bacteria, parasites and viruses that put them at greater risk for disease and infection compared with their caged counterparts, new research from Sweden's national veterinary institute shows..
Chickens not kept in cages are often housed in shelters where the floor doubles as a giant litter box. As a result, hens have direct contact with bacteria and microorganisms that grow in the litter, which can greatly increase health risks, said the study, available on BioMed Central's journal Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica.
Yeah well...I guess some people have to be told to keep the area clean. Always thought that we a bit of common sense, but now we need a study on it? Maybe they call these "shelters" "not quite free range" or "semi-roaming" or ??? Jeez...
My dear old auntie knew about these things when she used to raise chickens and sell eggs. I remember it well as I was the one nominated to keep the chicken coop clean (the place where they laid their eggs)...:-( It was a sh*tty job but someone had to do it! :lol:
If raw milk was legalized and sold commercially, they would have to have a means of bottling it immediately, as too many hands on, from the farm, without pasteurizing, would be touchy.
And, just as Karrie says, how can one monitor all farmers,
all the time, I guess there would have to be a government, or independent licenced 'handler' on the site, and on the job.
And, how can this tuberculosis problem be checked in the
milk, without pasteurizing it.
And, just as Karrie says, how can one monitor all farmers,
all the time, I guess there would have to be a government, or independent licenced 'handler' on the site, and on the job.
And, how can this tuberculosis problem be checked in the
milk, without pasteurizing it.