wellness tips

Share

My farmer was found guilty of contempt of court this week for producing and delivering an illegal “hazardous substance” to me. The substance in question? Elicit drugs? Assault rifles? Anthrax or other deadly agent? No. The hazardous substance they are spending our tax dollars on preventing me from obtaining is raw milk. If my farmer continues to care for and milk my cows for me and give me the milk from my cows, he will be sent to jail.

To me this seems like Orwellian joke. Who is the victim in this milk crime? Is this a crime that deserves a jail sentence? On the one hand Big Brother is trying to protect me from my milk, and on the other, Big Brother refuses to tell me which foods in the grocery store are genetically modified so I can’t protect myself.

I can buy ground beef, take it home and eat it raw but raw milk, which also comes from cows, is so dangerous it can’t be transported across town and given to me.

So, what is the science with respect to raw milk? Is the government’s position warranted? Independent researcher Nadine Ijaz MSc recently presented “Raw Milk: Myths and Evidence” at the BC Center for Disease Control, examining the recent research on raw milk. Please watch her excellent presentation. What follows is a summary of the points Ms. Ijaz makes in her presentation, and I suggest you watch the presentation to hear about each of these points in more detail. Anything in quotes in the summary below is in Ms. Ijaz’s words.

“Myth 1: Raw milk is more digestible for people with lactose intolerance” Nadine Ijaz, MSc.
A surprise to raw milk enthusiasts, but this is a myth. There is no lactase enzyme in fresh milk.

“Myth 2: Enzymes and beneficial bacteria make raw milk more digestible” Nadine Ijaz, MSc.
There are many enzymes and bacteria strains in milk, but at the present time there is no evidence to describe their role in human digestion. “There is some evidence that the non-harmful lactic-acid bacteria may having a function in holding the pathogenic bacteria at bay.”

“Myth 3: Raw milk is known to prevent cancer, osteoporosis, arthritis, diabetes” Nadine Ijaz, MSc.
Currently there is very little evidence to examine these questions, and “the existing evidence does not substantiate those particular claims.” Those of us that are raw milk enthusiasts need to be careful that we do not spread unsubstantiated claims, as that reduces our credibility.

“Myth 4: Raw milk is a high-risk food” Nadine Ijaz, MSc.
To determine if a food is risky, we need to know the risk per serving, as well as the rates of sickness, hospitalizations and deaths, along with how risky the food is for immunologically susceptible people, like children, pregnant women, and the elderly.

Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment (QMRA) is the international gold standard recognized by Health Canada and the FDA for determining pathogenic risk. QMRA studies characterize the risk of a particular food as low, moderate or high.

Recent QMRA studies for raw milk show that “there is a LOW risk for illness or severe health outcomes or hospitalizations from consuming raw milk” for E-Coli, Listeria, Staphylococcus and Campylobacter. We do not yet have a QMRA for salmonella.

To confirm accuracy of QMRAs, outbreak data is used. There has not been a single confirmed sickness from Listeria from raw milk in the last 40 years. There has not been a single death from raw milk since 1998.

One to 6% of foodborne illnesses are attributed to all dairy, raw and pasteurized combined. An extremely small percentage of illnesses and hospitalizations from food-borne illnesses are attributed to raw milk. The rate of hospitalization from raw milk was significantly lower than that from all other foods.

Green leafy vegetables are the most frequent cause of foodborne illness representing 20 percent of all cases between 1998 and 2008. Yet the government has not named green leafy vegetables a hazardous substance.

“Myth 5: Raw milk has no unique health benefits” Nadine Ijaz, MSc.
There is strong evidence “… that the consumption of unprocessed cow’s milk has indeed a protective effect on the development of asthma and allergies”. Ten studies between 2001 and 2010 suggested a link.

The most recent, 11th study that really affirmed this evidence was the GABRIELA study. It was very large – 8000 school-aged children in Europe were studied. Both blood samples and milk samples were taken, and study showed “… that there was an independent protective effect of raw farm milk on the development of asthma, allergy and hay fever by about half.” That is HUGE! There is a suggestion that some of the whey proteins that are sensitive to heat and would be destroyed in pasteurization might be involved.

We used to think that each vitamin or mineral works in isolation, and as long as they are in the diet, all will be well. Now we know that vitamins do not work in isolation – vitamin D works with magnesium and calcium for example.

Many studies suggest that there are not large differences in nutrients between pasteurized and raw milk. Perhaps it is this synergistic action of the nutrients that might explain why even small nutrient changes can make big differences in how the milk works in our bodies. Vitamin A gets concentrated after pasteurization, whereas vitamins C, B and E are decreased. Perhaps the minor alteration in these ratios have major affects on how they work in our bodies.

The recent large Pasture Cohort Study of 2012, (the 12th study if we are counting) showed that pregnant mothers that drank raw milk had newborns with improved immunity and decreased cow-milk allergy. Infants drinking raw cow milk before the age of one had better immune gene expression. The risk/benefit analysis seems to pertain specifically to some of the most susceptible groups.

“Myth 6: Industrial milk processing is harmless to health” Nadine Ijaz MSc.
There are 4 processes of industrial milk production that milk drinkers may object to – pasteurization, homogenization, vitamin D3 fortification, and grain/sillage/soy feeding practices.

Some people are choosing raw milk in order to opt of the industrial process. This is the primary reason I personally prefer raw. Due to the precautionary principle it is reasonable to do so.

Pasteurization or heat treatment has already been discussed.

Homogenization is the process of putting the milk through a fine screen at high pressures to break up the fat globules so the fat won’t rise to the top. This is done to improve shelf life primarily. “Of all the industrial processes milk undergoes, homogenization results in the most profound difference to the structure of the milk, and it might result in altered health properties.” Michalazki Janual 2006: 424. It affects the fat globule membrane and the organization of the proteins.

It has been hypothesized that homogenization might be the reason that raw milk is protective for asthma and allergy.

Vitamin D3 fortification: A recent 2012 review suggests that vitamin D from the sun is quite different from synthetic vitamin D. There is another study that suggest that kids that are taking vitamin-D3 fortified milk have lower serum ferritin (iron) status. Individuals may use the precautionary principle and opt out of industrial milk for this reason.

Contemporary feeding practices: Consumers are looking for grass-fed milk that have a more beneficial fatty-acid profile with higher omega 3 and CLA content.

“Current evidence does not support:
1) An argument that people should choose raw milk.
2) A suggestion that pregnant women should consume raw farm milk
3) A public health recommendation that parents should give their babies and children raw farm milk.” Nadine Ijaz, MSc.

The current evidence does however, support choice.
“It is scientifically reasonable for people, including pregnant women and parents of young children to choose hygienically produced raw milk over industrially processed milk, whether or not they heat it themselves afterwards. It is not scientifically justifiable to prohibit people, including pregnant women or parents of young children from choosing to seek out an important food which may effectively prevent allergy and asthma.” Nadine Ijaz, MSc.

“So what is the role of public health enforcement?
1) Limitations should be proportional to the risk posed by a given hazard.
2) Enforcement should be consistent across foods.” (salad is far riskier than raw milk but is not deemed a hazardous substance).
3) Balance individual rights with public protection.” Nadine Ijaz, MSc.

In the case of our herd share, none of our milk goes into public commerce, so there is no risk at all to public safety.

We need to focus on minimizing risk to reasonable levels.  No other food has a zero hazard tolerance threshold. It is important to realize that pasteurization is no guarantee that the milk will be risk-free.

The evidence no longer supports raw milk being designated as a health hazard. Instead governments should consider regulation, mitigation and education in light of the existing evidence.

I sincerely hope that Nadine’s presentation gets viewed and shared.  If you know any health reporters that can take on this story, please let them know. 

The war on raw milk and on farmers that are trying to feed a community that wants the food they provide, needs to end. Year after year we hear of farmers being prosecuted and forced out of business for providing food to those that want it. Most recently, Wisconsin is threatening to jail farmer Hershberger despite being acquitted of 3 of 4 charges related to his raw-milk coop.

We as individuals should have the right to determine what we want to eat, whether that involves raw milk, or avoiding GMO food. We need help making this a national conversation. If you can help, please do!

If you want to share this article, scroll to the very bottom of the blog post and click the “share” icon to post on Facebook, Twitter etc. If you want to subscribe or search for other posts by title or by topic, go to www.wellnesstips.ca.

Related tips
Finding quality dairy
Industrial agriculture – what’s the real cost of cheap food?
Raw milk, the health authorities, and the right to choose the food we eat

To subscribe go to www.wellnesstips.ca

Share

Do we actually know what we are eating?  Seems like a no brainer, right? What we put in our mouth is our choice. We have complete control over what passes through our lips. Well, I am about to argue that that premise is false, and this is why.

1) Fraudulent labels. The label says one thing, but the food is something else all together.
This is far more common than one would expect. There is the obvious example that recently made the news.

People in Europe coming home from the grocery store with steaks labeled “beef”, only to find out later that what they were eating was horse meat. Horse meat is not dangerous, but I’m sure consumers felt more than a little deceived.

Then there is the ongoing issue of fish in the package not actually being the type of fish on the label. Pay for snapper and get something else.

Over 50 percent of olive oil sold is not pure olive oil. Often it is mixed with another seed oil and sold to us as extra virgin olive oil. Much cheaper for manufacturers, and they charge consumers as if it were actually pure.

You can check the quality of your olive oil by putting it in the fridge. It should turn sludgy. If it remains a liquid, it is not pure olive oil.

2) Ingredients in food that are not listed on the label
Most serious in my opinion, is the lack of labeling of genetically modified food in North America. More than 75 percent of the food in grocery stores is genetically modified. Are you aware you are eating GMO food when, for example, you eat breakfast cereals made by General Mills or Kellogg's?

There is science that suggests that GMO food is cancer-causing and completely alters our gut bacteria.  It does not seem to leave our bodies, which is in my opinion, rather scary.  BT toxins from GMO corn  has been found in the blood of 93% of pregnant women and 80% of umbilical cord blood. The prudent person would probably choose to avoid GMO food, but currently we are eating a ton of it completely unawares, because there is no labeling.

Most foods are genetically modified to either withstand Round-Up pesticide, or they are modified to contain a toxic pesticide within each cell of the plant itself (BT corn), so that when an insect eats the corn for example, the pesticide within each the corn plant's cells will kill the insect. Of course, perfectly safe for humans to eat, they say.

I personally think it would be useful too if all pesticides, herbicides, fungicides etc. sprayed our produce were labeled. Each pesticide might be safe alone, but strawberries for example, are sprayed with about 19 different pesticides.

We have no idea how the chemical cocktail of pesticides sprayed on produce affect our biochemistry, but our poor livers are put into overdrive trying detoxify us!

Pesticides are not only sprayed on the plants but also on the soil they grow in, so the plants also take up the pesticides within their tissues. Therefore one cannot really wash pesticides off, not matter how long we soak or how hard we scrub.

Pesticides are usually sprayed by plane, or by farmers dressed in clothing that protects their body, face, nose and eyes so they won’t breathe in the toxic substances or get any on their skin.

Usually fields (and lawns) that have been sprayed have signs on them warning that they are toxic and dangerous. So … it is unsafe to walk in the fields but it is safe to eat the produce from these fields?

Would you be more likely to choose organic strawberries if you noticed a list of 19 different pesticides on the conventional ones?

3) Food labels that say something that isn’t true
If a product label says "0 transfat", is that true?  Probably not. When the transfat in the product is less than 0.5 grams per serving, it can be labeled as 0 transfat on the label according to the FDA. This transfat can add up if one eats more than one serving.

In Canada, whole wheat bread is not whole wheat.  The wheat germ has been removed. Two small examples, but I better stop here or this post will never be done!

For these reasons, the grocery store and restaurants is the primary source of our food, we actually have very little control over the ingredients in our food.  Bottom line is there is no reason to trust a food label.

How we can gain control over what we feed our families
Choosing organic can make a huge difference, but the best way to actually have control over what you feed yourself and your family is to opt out of the commercial food system.

Go barcode-free.  Do not buy any packaged food, and know the source of your whole food.

Grow what you can. Even if you only have a windowsill, you can grow fresh herbs or salad greens.

Join a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) farm, and get fresh food direct from the farm.  Or join organizations like SPUD, who will deliver fresh food to your doorstep.

Farmers' Markets provide another option. Get to know the farmers, and you will find out if the chickens truly are pastured or if they are in a huge barn running around on the concrete.

It can be cheaper to get together with friends and purchase a side of grass-fed, hormone and antibiotic-free beef directly from the farmer.

I look forward to your comments! If you want to share this article, scroll to the very bottom of the blog post and click the “share” icon to post on Facebook, Twitter etc. If you want to subscribe or search for other posts by title or by topic, go to www.wellnesstips.ca.

Related tips
Our toxic body burden
Processed food is taking over our supermarkets
Deceptive food labels
GMO – crossing the species barrier

To subscribe go to www.wellnesstips.ca