NOFA/Massachusetts Raw Milk Network Response to May 7, 2010
letter from Massachusetts Department of Public Health Commissioner John Auerbach
While the recent proposed changes to Massachusetts raw milk regulations were issued by the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) (see www.nofamass.org/programs/organicdairy/buyingclubs.php for details about the proposal), it is the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) that has been most vocal in its opposition to raw milk consumption in the Commonwealth. MDPH sent cautionary letters to town boards of health in 2009 when raw milk dairies were holding open houses, and the agency sent a letter to MDAR earlier this year to draw that department's attention to the existence of raw milk buying co-ops. That letter seems to have prompted the cease and desist letters that were sent to a handful of the co-ops in late winter.
The NOFA/Massachusetts Raw Milk Network has requested copies of all comments submitted to MDAR during the comment period leading up to the May 10 hearing regarding the proposed changes. We are awaiting a reply on this request, but we did get a copy of the official comment submitted by MDPH. It is valuable in that it is illustrative of the tensions around this issue, and of the persistence of raw milk opponents in their use of misleading data and language. We're taking this opportunity to highlight a few of the comments made by MDPH Commissioner John Auerbach in this letter.
"Although only 1-3% of the US population consumes raw milk or raw milk products, 68% of all outbreaks related to any dairy product are related to raw milk or raw milk products."
This statistic comes from a report from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that analyzes data from 1973-2005. A key omission in the CDC's analysis of this data is any mention of where these illnesses occurred, and whether the unpasteurized milk in question was sold legally, from an inspected dairy. Unpasteurized milk not intended for human consumption is far more likely to contain potentially harmful pathogens. To include data about illnesses related to consumption of this milk alongside any illnesses that may have occurred due to drinking raw milk produced to standards set for human consumption is an illegitimate analysis.
The discussion about raw milk sold in MA needs to stick to the facts about raw milk sold for human consumption. The current version of the Massachusetts regulations that set the standards for this milk was written in 1993. Since then there have been no reported illnesses due to consumption of raw milk from dairies inspected by MDAR, demonstrating how effective these standards and inspections have been. Unfortunately, there have been two outbreaks of illness from pasteurized milk in Massachusetts in recent memory, resulting in at least 17 deaths.
It's also worth noting that this same CDC report points out that, although the number of outbreaks was higher for raw milk, the number of individuals who reportedly got sick from pasteurized milk during this time period was far greater than the number from raw milk products. In other words, when pasteurized milk makes people sick, it makes a LOT more people sick than any raw milk may have. In 1987, for instance, an outbreak of Salmonella typhimurium in Indiana infected at least 16,000 people who drank milk from a single plant.
This fact speaks to the value of the short food chain and source-identification of raw milk. When an individual purchases raw milk, whether by visiting a farm or via a buying co-op, they know where that milk came from. If MDPH's concern is about being able to contain outbreaks if they occur, Traceability is a critical component of dealing with outbreaks of foodborne illness, and raw milk dairies by their very nature offer much more security in this area. There are only a handful of single-source pasteurized dairies left in Massachusetts. Most pasteurized milk is combined with milk from hundreds of other farms at plants that process tens of thousands of gallons a day and ship to hundreds of stores. That milk passes through many hands and many machines, each with the potential to add contaminants that could make people sick.
Also notable is that DPH compares outbreaks attributed to raw and pasteurized milk, but doesn't offer data on any other foods for comparison. A USDA report in 2003 shows a far greater rate of illness per serving attributed to some much more common foods - deli meat, for example, resulted in 10 times more cases of listeriosis than unpasteurized fluid milk, even though this report also fails to differentiate between milk from licensed and unlicensed sources. Many recent cases of foodborne illness and even deaths have been traced to improperly handled greens raised on industrial farms, but there is no talk of limiting consumers' access to these products.
Ultimately, MDPH is proposing additional restrictions on raw milk not based on science, but on ideology. The fact of the matter is that raw milk, as produced by Massachusetts dairies under current regulations, has a stellar track record and has only gotten safer over time. No food is 100% safe - all are sold with a certain amount of risk that regulators deem acceptable. The policies currently in place for raw milk in Massachusetts mitigate risk with consumer warnings, inspections and testing. The excellent record of safety proves that those policies work. To propose steps that are clearly designed to make raw milk sales more burdensome on farmers without benefit of expanded markets is counter intuitive, and disrespectful of this success.
"The regulations should also make clear that "buying clubs" are prohibited, as they attempt to evade the requirement of on-farm sales."
Far from being evasive, buying clubs have been established in order to work within the requirement of on-farm sales. These clubs are private entities that purchase milk on the farm for individuals who have paid in advance for the milk and requested that the club provide the service of transporting the milk from the farm to their home. They are a responsible way for consumers to work within the law while reducing energy use and road miles on individual trips.
Outlawing them would be bad policy in that it would increase gasoline usage and encourage consumers to purchase milk unsafely from unlicensed dairies. Such a ban would also be discriminatory, in that it would deny access to individuals who are blind, otherwise handicapped, or simply lack the means to travel to the farm to get milk.
We addressed this issue extensively in our official comment regarding the regulation, which can be found here: www.nofamass.org/programs/organicdairy/pdfs/MDARComment.pdf.
"Raw milk by its nature contains a great deal of bacteria, which quickly multiply if the milk is held or transported at an improper temperature."
Unpasteurized milk sold at licensed dairies in Massachusetts is tested for bacteria on a monthly basis. The maximum allowable bacterial count in this milk is exactly the same as what is allowed for pasteurized milk sold at grocery stores. Even more notable is the fact that this milk never went through the 'kill-step' of pasteurization, which means that raw milk never contained harmful bacteria at any time during its production. Raw milk is not inherently dangerous just because it is raw, in the same way that pasteurized milk is not automatically safe just because it is pasteurized. To suggest otherwise is either intentionally misleading, or shows a lack of basic understanding of how milk is processed.
Pasteurization offers no guarantee of safety. It is one way to rid milk of certain pathogens that may have gotten into the milk during production. Another way is to never allow those pathogens to be introduced in the first place, by following management practices that start in the pasture and extend all the way to the cooler. That's what Massachusetts raw milk farmers do.
This sentence seems to suggest that all bacteria are potentially harmful, while nothing could be farther from the truth. The majority of bacteria - in general as well as those found in milk - don't cause any problems at all and many can even inhibit the growth of dangerous pathogens, stimulate immunity, aid in the body's absorption of nutrients, and play critical roles in protecting us from harm. Many people choose to purchase raw milk precisely because they feel that the small number of bacteria which are present in it are ones which are beneficial to their health, or because the bacteria make the milk a better ingredient in recipes requiring cultured products.
"Once the milk leaves the farm, there is no way to control the temperature."
Once the milk leaves the farm it belongs to the individual who purchased it. Just like many other foods - seafood, poultry, even pasteurized dairy products - it should be kept cool, but the responsibility for doing so is up to the consumer, whether it is in their hands or the hands of an individual they have chosen to trust to pick the milk up for them. There are no regulations that dictate how seafood, poultry, or pasteurized dairy products should be handled after they are purchased, even though these products can also harbor toxic pathogens that can grow if mishandled.
Reducing access to a product that is in such high demand as raw milk will more likely bring about greater public health problems, as the market will be driven underground. Such underground markets will be far more likely to run the risk of improperly transporting milk and more people will turn to purchasing raw milk from unlicensed source.
"It is unfortunate that some raw milk advocates have chosen to portray their choice to buy raw milk as a "right."
It is notable that nowhere in the United States is it illegal to possess or consume raw milk. There's no politician or regulator who has dared to suggest that the state could abridge the right of an individual to drink milk produced by their own cow, or spend time with a friend who has goats and drink some milk from their animals. The letter suggests that cow-share arrangements should also be banned in MA - a risky proposition, since judges have ruled that the legal grounds of such arrangements by which individuals own shares in cows or farms and so maintain access to the milk from their portion of the operation is quite solid.
But Commissioner Auerbach does qualify this statement with the word 'buy,' suggesting that it's the financial transaction that allows the state to limit this right. Contract law at the federal level is very clear - an agent assigned to do a task for an individual is viewed in the eyes of the law in exactly the same way as the individual themselves would be. There don't seem to be any other decisions that a Massachusetts resident can't ask someone to do for them - from health care proxies to the purchase of property to engaging someone to handle all of one's financial transactions - so to single out raw milk for this kind of restriction seems particularly arbitrary and unfair. We firmly believe that an individual does have a right to purchase raw milk, and that they have the right to assign someone else to carry out that transaction for them.
Reasonable people may disagree on how to interpret data or whether or not health claims are substantiated enough, but on this we see no room for dispute: it is a right of individuals to determine what foods they wish to eat.
"[I]t has long been established that states have the authority to enact laws and regulations to protect the health and safety of their citizens."
States do, indeed, have the authority to regulate sales of products to protect citizens. The current debate around raw milk calls into question the judgment of a set of policies that, taken as a whole, say that access to raw milk for educated consumers should be made more difficult than access to cigarettes, access to food processed with high-fructose corn syrup known to be linked to obesity, or access to seafood despite the range of lethal toxins that it can harbor. Again, there are no reported cases of raw milk in Massachusetts sickening anyone since the current regulations were enacted, but a Harvard School of Public Health study estimates 3,700 annual deaths as a result of lung cancer brought on by smoking, the CDC reports that 20% of Massachusetts residents are obese, and the CDC cites seafood as the cause of at least 111 illnesses and six deaths in Massachusetts just between 1998 and 2007. Based on a public health perspective, then, raw milk deserves at least as easy access as these other products. Any decision concerning the regulation of a product is based on a certain amount of acceptable risk, but MDPHs seems to be applying a different standard for raw milk than for other products.
Massachusetts regulators need look no farther than the ten states in the U.S. that allow raw milk sales in retail stores - three of them in New England - or many others that allow farmers to deliver raw milk to customers - such as Vermont - to see that effective regulation can work under conditions that provide convenient access for consumers. There are testing methods, management protocols, and educational strategies that allow for access to raw milk that both meets the demand of the public and is not unfairly burdensome to the farmers. Creative regulation can provide a safe, accessible product that meets consumer demand. Prohibition will drive this demand underground and safety will be the first victim.
Other statements in the letter offer a concise view into MDPH's perspective on the issue. "DPH continues to have very serious concerns about the public health risks of raw milk." "While in an ideal world we would prefer that all milk sold in Massachusetts be pasteurized…." It goes on, all the while using language meant to pressure MDAR to neglect its responsibility to support farmers by giving them all the opportunities they need to supply safe, healthy products to consumers that want them.
Raw milk sales have grown not because of slick advertising campaigns from large corporations, but because of word of mouth and small educational efforts that encourage people to learn more and try it for themselves. While most food purchasing decisions made by consumers are based on ease of access and low prices, raw milk consumption has increased despite limited access and premium prices. This is a testament to how educated raw milk consumers are about this food, and how committed they are to obtaining it because they want to provide their families the best foods they can find, and support imperiled dairy farmers, in turn protecting Massachusetts' open space and the environment.
Similarly, farmers are not selling raw milk because it makes their lives easier - they are doing so because consumers have demanded it and it has proven to be a viable way to preserve their farms without relying on public subsidies. Selling raw milk creates more work for these farmers, but they are committed to the exemplary management practices - from herd health to refrigeration - required to produce a safe, healthy product. On-farm retail sales is an additional challenge for these farmers, but they value the relationships they develop with their customers and the connections they are helping foster between the public and agriculture.
At its core, this is an argument about responsibility - the responsibility of farmers to follow practices that have been proven safe, the responsibility of consumers to understand what they are eating and that with every bite of any product comes a risk, and the responsibility of regulators to balance public health issues with consumer demand and the livelihoods of farmers. We feel that Massachusetts farmers, consumers, and regulators are able to meet these responsibilities, and stand ready to work with them and the legislature, if necessary, to develop a comprehensive solution so that Massachusetts farmers can continue to grow their businesses and all consumers who would like to can legally enjoy safe raw milk for themselves and their families.
The complete MDPH letter is available here.
This page was last modified on June 01, 2010 at 1:05:18 PM.
Translate this page: 
|
