Raw Milk in Michigan
 

Raw milk via herd-shares now legal.

In the article, they acknowledge the changing attitude towards raw milk.

Michigan has 'legalized' herd shares as a means to allow consumers to obtain raw milk.
link:
http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/news_wp/?p=9309

A couple quotes from the article:
"The Workgroup chose the terminology, “fresh unprocessed whole milk” to distinguish raw milk intended for direct human consumption from “raw milk” intended for pasteurization."

"The Workgroup report is a significant development in the acceptance of the right to sell and consume by “mainstream” society. Earlier this year, the National Farmers Union passed a resolution supporting the sale of raw milk. Fifteen to twenty bills were introduced in the state legislatures this session that would either expand or legalize the sale of raw milk. The outliers these days aren’t raw milk supporters but rather those agencies like FDA, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture and the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) that refuse to accept freedom of choice"

Glad to hear this. Taking our property out of grain crop rental and putting it into pasture for a possible herd share operation is something dh and I have been discussing this year. Being declared 'legal' definitely is a step in favor of going ahead and getting a couple of cows in the next 12 months.

MDARD has been ignoring this "loophole" for a few years. I see a farm in Levering regularly on Craigslist looking for folks to buy into their herd.

MDARD is assigned the duty to protect the public from food hazards. They have never prevented dairy cow owners from drinking what they produce on the farm. So, if its your cow, (or you share ownership of it with others) have at it.

MDARD recently approved the sale of home prepared foods for sale at Farmers Markets and out of the home, as ,long as the label is clear that it comes from an uninspected kitchen and you stay within reasonable limits.

If anyone gets sick or dies from tainted raw milk from a cow they own part of, it isn't MDARD's problem, its a farm problem. The Health Department will follow up.

With the recent outbreak of tuberculosis in cattle in Michigan, tests not back from a hundred associated herds, I'd suggest you ask the people that drank the raw milk from the infected herds what they think about raw milk, now.

Just like most things, I'd guess as soon as there are a few problems, the door will slam shut.

And so the "fear-mongering" continues . . . .
 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
One would think by now, that your continued banter on the subject would prove

wearisome for you . . . (it certainly does for the rest of us), when you skirt the edge

of the blade by inferring that there is a danger in 'raw' milk and today you walk

along it once more by implying that there is an strong possibility that humans

consuming such milk will likely contract TB in the very near future. To which I reply:

"Horsefeathers!" Either provide the documentation supporting your alleged

insinuations, or climb back under that bridge and let the goats across to pasture.

If anything, your claims in the past go against what the CDC shows as true . . . my

goodness . . . even they themselves admit that their own literature goes against the

studies which find that raw milk is actually safer then pastuerized is!!! How

unbelievable is that!??? Read'em & weep . . . and btw, we'll ALL be waiting

for that documentation that shows how many Michigan residents contracted TB

from drinking raw milk from an infected herd.

"The CDC recently released statistics for the first time on raw milk consumption, and raw milk-related illnesses. They also released their own conclusions, which, ironically, don't match their own data. However, an article released a couple weeks ago,-

Raw Milk Reality: Is Raw Milk Dangerous?

attempts to examine the best numbers available from the CDC and other sources, and does its own analysis of the relative safety of raw milk compared to other foods, and specifically, pasteurized milk.

Among its findings:
* Dairy products, categorically, are the safest of all food types,
in terms of food-borne illness outbreaks
* 2000 - 2007, there were 37 food-borne illness outbreaks
related to raw liquid milk, affecting 800 people.-Average outbreak size: 22 people
* 2000 - 2007, there were 8 food-borne illness outbreaks
related to pasteurized liquid milk, affecting 2214 people.-Average outbreak size: 277 people
* 2000 - 2007, raw liquid milk was responsible for an average of 100 reported illnesses:mad: per year among an estimated 9.4 consumers of raw liquid milk,
for a-1 in 94,000 chance-of becoming ill
* 2000 - 2007, pasteurized liquid milk was responsible for an average of 277 reported illnesses per year among an estimated 246.1 consumers of pasteurized liquid milk, for a-1 in 888,000 chance-of becoming ill
* 2000 - 2007, raw liquid milk was responsible for 12 hospitalizations, or-1 in 6 million chance-of being hospitalized due to raw liquid milk consumption
The article also pulls in data from other sources to compare the relative risk of raw milk consumption with other common activities, and concludes that:

* Drivers are-779 times more likely-to-die-in a motor vehicle accident
than raw milk drinkers are to be-hospitalized-for consuming raw liquid milk
* Air passengers are-3 times more likely-to-die-in an aircraft accident
than raw milk drinkers are to be-hospitalized-for consuming raw liquid milk
Another recent article,-Outbreaks and Illnesses from Raw and Pasteurized Milk And Dairy Products, 1998-Present-looking at data over a longer time period,
but for which absolute number of raw-milk consumers is not available.
It shows that, for liquid milk consumption:
* 1998 - 2009, there were 85 food-borne illness outbreaks related to raw liquid milk, affecting 1,495 people, including no deaths.-Average outbreak size: 18 people
* 1998 - 2009, there were 9 foud-borne illness outbreaks related to pasteurized liquid milk, affecting 2,200 people, including 3 deaths.-Average outbreak size: 244 people

The data from these two articles don't completely agree with each other.
It's not clear where the discrepancy lies. What seems clear from my research,
though, is that there has not been a single confirmed raw-milk releated-death-
in the U.S. since the 1980s, despite CDC claims to the contrary on their web site.
The CDC has even-admitted-their propaganda is wrong.

TL;DR; / Conclusion:

Using the best data currently available, strictly from a food-borne illness standpoint,-consuming raw milk carries roughly 9.4 times higher relative risk than consuming pasteurized milk. But in absolute terms, both risks are incredibly small, with raw milk carrying a 1/94,000 (0.001064%) chance of illness, and pasteurized milk carrying a 1/888,000 (0.000113%) chance of illness.
For many, the touted benefits of raw milk (more on that in my old answer below) are worth the added-0.000951% chance of food-borne illness.

But food-borne illness is not the only risk associated with liquid milk consumption. Some other possible risks which may favor raw milk, but which are much harder to quantify, are:
* Pasteurized milk may contribute to many ailments, including lactose intolerance, allergies, asthma, frequent ear infections, gastro-Intestinal problems, diabetes, auto-Immune disease, attention deficit disorder and constipation (source
).
* Traditional dairies in the U.S. use rBGH (which is illegal in many other countries). Consuming milk from rBGH-treated cows may increase the risk of certain cancers in humans, particularly breast and prostate cancer. (source
)
* Traditional dairies, and in particular those which also use rBGH, often administer large amounts of antibiotics to their cows, which typically gets into the milk, exposing the human consumers to unnecessary antibiotics. The risks of over-exposure to antibiotics is well documented. The main concern is in making antibiotic-resistent "superbug" strains. (source
.
Note that the last two (rBGH and antibiotics) can also be avoided by purchasing organic pasteurized milk._________________________________________

MY OLD ANSWER; left for reference
Short answer:-No. In fact, pasteurized milk is often more dangerous than raw milk.
Long answer: Of course,-it depends.

Raw milk is not-inherently-dangerous at all. The reason for pasteurization is not because milk is, by nature, a dangerous product to consume. Pasteurization is done for two basic reasons: 1) To kill any living contaminants, and 2) to extend shelf life.

Because pasteurization kills most bacteria (good and bad) contained in the milk, it won't go bad as quickly. The down side to this is, when it does begin to sour, it goes rancid, and is no longer fit for human consumption. On the other hand, when raw milk begins to sour, it isn't actually "bad" immediately, because the live cultures in milk prevent it from going rancid so quickly. Many foods we take for granted are various forms of "sour" milk--Yogurt, Cheese, sour cream, etc. And if you consume raw milk, and it begins to sour, you can still use it-to make many of these milk products
.
Fermentation starts digesting the milk protein casein, and digests some of the lactose. Souring of [raw] milk does not destroy any of milks beneficial properties.
Treat a sample of pasteurized milk in the same way as above and putrefaction will make the milk unfit for human consumption. This is due to disease producing bacteria surviving the pasteurization process.-(Emphasis in-original
)
And paraphrasing an-Anonymous dairy farmer
:
Pasteurized milk gone bad will kill you - raw milk won't.....pasteurized milk rots.
Now, the reason for pasteurizing milk is to kill harmful living organisms. However, it also kills most of the-beneficial-living organisms in the milk as well. This can, in some cases, actually lead pasteurized milk to be-more dangerous than raw milk.
*
Pasteurized milk is harder to digest, especially for those
who are lactose intolerant or with digestive disorders.
Today, milk is made even more indigestible by the universal practice
of pasteurization, which destroys its natural enzymes and alters its
delicate proteins. (source).

*
Pasteurized milk has less nutritional value. (source
)
*
Pasteurized milk is less beneficial in boosting immune system function (source
)
*
Pasteurized milk is more susceptible to contamination:
Due to high-volume distribution and its comparative lack of anti-microbial components, pasteurized milk when contaminated has caused numerous widespread and serious outbreaks of illness, including a 1984-5 outbreak afflicting almost 200,000 people. In 2007, three people died in Massachusetts from illness caused by contaminated pasteurized milk (Real Milk PowerPoint
, slide 30).
*
Raw milk is useful in fighting infection, diarrhea, rickets, tooth decay, TB, asthma, allergies (source
), diabetes1, Bright's disease, gastric disturbances, obesity, urinary problems, and kidney stones2
*
Pasteurized milk contributes to many ailments (ironcially, many of them are also found in the list that raw milk helps treat): lactose intolerance, allergies, asthma, frequent ear infections, gastro-Intestinal problems, diabetes, auto-Immune disease, attention deficit disorder and constipation (source
)
The reason pasteurization ever caught on as a practice, was to reduce the possibility for contamination in milk. This may well have been (and may continue to be!) a valid concern, in some cases. Although the evidence is shaky, at best. The two possible sources of contamination are:
*
Contamination passed from cow to milk
There has been a concern that TB may pass from bovine to human.
This was considered a legitimate threat in 1882, when-Dr. Robert Koch
-discovered that bovine and human varieties of TB were deemed similar.
However, Koch later changed his opinion, saying that bovine TB could
not spread to humans. The professional opinion has further been adjusted since then, and the current state of affairs on bovine/human TB contamination is essentially that:

*
[I]t appears obvious that we have arrived at a point in [the United States] when the dissemination of bovine tuberculosis is no longer a matter of serious concern. (source
).
Ironically, raw milk is actually beneficial in fighting TB in humans.
-Real Milk PowerPoint
, slides 54-56, 58.
*
*
To read more on the subject, check out this link: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/qu...steurized-milk

HIPPA law protects people from such information being disclosed. Their cows contracted TB, their calves contracted TB. Their cats contracted TB. The calves from other farms that bought their infected milk have contracted TB. I'll have to leave you to speculate if the family contracted TB.
If the Saginaw County Health Department makes that information public, I'll be sure to let you know.

Moderators, may I pose a suggestion that we create a popcorn eating smilie?

Actually Haypoint the HIPPA privacy rule would protect individuals in most cases but there are many provisions for disclosing information that would be of a public good and we (anyone who works in the medical field) are required to immediately report suspected infectious diseases. You may not know the name but you will know if anyone is suspected of getting TB from drinking raw milk.

http://farmprogress.com/blogs-bovine-tb-situation-continues-worsen-7183
“I had lots of questions for MDARD staff, but they had few answers at this point, saying it could not discuss specifics that might interfere with the investigation.”

http://www.michigan.gov/mdard/0,4610,7-125-1572_3628-302451--,00.html
“Bovine TB is an infectious disease caused by the bacteria Mycobacterium bovis. Bovine TB primarily affects cattle; however, other Michigan animals have become infected as bovine TB can be transmitted between wildlife populations and other mammals, including humans.”
http://www.michigan.gov/mdard/0,4610,7-125-1572_3628-297797--,00.html
“Bovine TB affects all mammals, with cattle being especially sensitive. In 1994 a bovine TB positive white-tailed deer was harvested by a hunter in Alpena County. In 1998, USDA, MSU, the Michigan Department of Community Health, MDARD and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources created an interagency project to address eradicating bovine TB by surveillance testing 1.3 million domestic animals, testing hunter harvested deer, establishing cattle and bison testing zones, assisting with disease risk mitigation practices, depopulating some beef and dairy cattle farms and removing test positive animals from herds on other farms.”

http://www.michigan.gov/mdard/0,4610...1901--,00.html

“Bovine TB is an infectious disease that is caused by the bacteria Mycobacterium bovis. Bovine TB primarily affects cattle; however, other Michigan animals have become infected as bovine TB can be transmitted between wildlife populations and other mammals, including humans.”


Most of the information I was able to pull up is old news. Expect more updates as this situation develops.
In the United States the chance of contracting TB from animals is remote. That is because 99% of milk consumed is pasteurized and the incidence of TB in all mammals is very low. You don’t get TB from eating the meat of an infected animal, unless you are eating lungs and lymph nodes and have an open cut. Even then the risk is low because the incidence of TB in cattle is extremely low. I contend that drinking raw milk from a TB infected cow is likely going to get you a case of TB. But currently, in the US that would be a rare collection of events.
Be sure to get your cattle tested for TB. TB infected cattle often seem healthy.

Michigan consumers have been buying herd shares for some time now, we did. What we want is to be able to buy a gallon of fresh milk without having to go through the rigamarole of buying a herd share and being tied to getting a set amount of milk weekly.

I have herdshares in my goat herd. Personally I think it would just be a lot easier to make selling raw milk legal and forget all the legal BS with herdshare contracts. Yes there may be supposed "dangers" drinking raw milk. (Although with proper milk handling probably not as much as store milk) Let the consumer decide for themselves and quit trying to be everyones nanny.

amish have done herd shares for years, but they are so super expensive you end up paying $50 or more for a gallon of milk..no one can afford that.

they need to make it reasonable for the smaller consumers..I would only want about 1/2 gallon a week or so..for the two of us..as Ron seldom uses milk..so a herd share of hundreds of $ just wouldn't work for us

I think the law should have required the farms selling raw milk to post their used pipeline filters daily for public inspection.

That should take care of any problems right quick! :pound:

I dont see what the fuss is about raw milk, its like people get so wound up about how dangerous it is. Clearly, mankind lived the past 1000 plus years to tell about it, im sure McPukes kills more people thank milk, or automobiles.

I think if you want to call a country free, let people be free and set some simple effective hygene standards for people selling raw milk. Personally, i dont trust big agro, fda, or anyone seems these days there all working for some company, and not for you guys the people.

So way to got michigan, i wish i had raw milk here...

My 2 cents

Believe one jury passed judgement on one case. Not a lawyer, but believe a federal court would have to make some decisions to overturn a law and or set a precedent. I wouldn't bet the farm (mine anyways) on one ruling...

Since you are sorta new here, I'll offer an answer to your question. Keep in mind that only a tiny sliver of the overall population drink raw milk.
Yes, we survived a long time, but we have evolved during that time. Two distinct things happened. most of today's population now lives past 30 years old and childhood mortality is way lower. But, at the same time, we have lost much of out tolerance for various bacteria.

You can say many more people die in car wrecks, but that is meaningless because the people/hours in cars is so out of proportion to the people drinking raw milk/hours. Same for the Billions served McDonalds.

While we live in a free society, there are rules. Always has been rules. They are a requirement of a civilized society. I wish that setting hygiene standards was a protection from raw milk-borne illnesses. But it isn't. Careful milking healthy looking cows can produce milk with dangerous bacteria.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/spe...want-know.html

Allowing herd shares is a way to shift the responsibility from the USDA and State Ag departments to the owners/consumers. Apparently, no one is going to stop you from drinking the milk from your own cow, even when 14 different people collectively own the same cow and someone else controls the sanitation.

I support dairy cow owners drinking their own milk, free of government intervention, while I oppose the marketing of un-pasteurized milk on the open market. I don't care what you do with your cows on your farm, but when you want into the public's food supply, you risk the livelihood of hundreds of hard working commercial dairy farmers.

Herd shares grays the line. Some may see it as getting milk from their own cow. Some may see it as a way to get around not only the law against marketing raw milk, but the sanitation inspections, too.

I own a cow share here in Michigan and I trust the farmer. His non cow share milk is still picked up by the milk truck so he is still inspected regularly and all of the milk is tested then all of the cow share jars are washed even though we washed them before we return them. I can visit his farm any time I want to.

Sounds great. If you think of it, you might ask the farmer if they test the milk for TB? Just wondering. Probably safe, unless you are in Saginaw County, the counties near Saginaw County and the counties in northeast lower Michigan where they have been battling TB for 14 years.

As the laws soften I expect to see a few more newbie dairy farmers
hoping to cash in on this.

No jury involved in this one. That was in Wisconsin. This one is the regulators in Michigan officially clarified that something that has been going on in the gray area for years is outside of their scope of regulation.

I don't get it either .... :shrug:

While I can't say I completely disagree with you, where does it end? How much government oversight do we want in our society? Yes, there should be some level of consumer protection, but do you want the government deciding how much pop you drink (ie Mayor Bloomberg in NY)? What about personal responsibility and common sense? Allow raw milk but require all herds be tested? Or give people information and cautions (ex. cigs warning label, "will cause cancer, use at your own risk") I just think we are loosing our freedom to make our own decisions.

"Tiny sliver"........according to the CDC's own survey, 3% of the US population drink raw milk.

Only 3% drink raw milk.....small percentage.......but apply that number to the population.....

Here in Ohio......10-11 million people, 3% means over 300,000 people are drinking raw milk.

I slogged my way through 11 years of data on the CDC web site that reported every "outbreak" in Ohio. There was one suspected incident with raw milk, but it was not confirmed that raw milk was the culprit.

Let me think ......300,000 people drinking raw milk over 11 years!!!!! and not a single person got sick from it!!!!! Just how dangerous is this?!?!

If one assumes that each consumer drank just one glass/day.....multiplied by 365 days/year......multiplied by 11 years......it comes to a number that is OVER 1 billion!!!!. And raw milk is supposedly too dangerous to be available to the general public......!!!!????

BTW, I was surprised by the number of incidents that were traced back to......hold on to your seats.....ICE CREAM!!!!!!

If one were actually concerned about their safety.....or the safety of others.....then they should be working to get ice cream banned!!!!!

I believe that 3% of the US population means that about 9 million people in the US are drinking raw milk. If raw milk is so dangerous......where are all the dead bodies????

Is it possible that raw milk is nowhere as dangerous as some people have been led to believe?????

2 or 3 years ago I read about a case in California where a judge asked for samples of milk obtained .......if I remember correctly......pipeline, individual bucket milker, and hand-milking. He sent those samples to a lab for bacteria counts.

In that case, the sample with the lowest count was the hand-milked sample.

If you're hand-milking, it's pretty easy to dump the bucket and start over if the cow sticks a foot in it, or a fly drowns in it, or whatever. When that milk is going into a bulk tank, comingled with another 10,000+ pounds, the decision to dump isn't quite so likely!

I wonder how many producers would find it feasible to hand-milk, though?

Today's Holsteins are bred to produce 10 or more gallons of milk per day. That's a lot of milk to wring out by hand! :teehee:

When I was buying raw milk from my neighbor (organic, sells "organic" to a commercial dairy) I didn't get my guaranteed two gallons because they didn't like the look of some test they run daily. They sent a sample to a lab just to be sure. Turned out everything was okay. I don't know if they dumped the milk or not, because it would be pastuerized at the dairy. Pasteurization only kills some things.

I milk into a bucket and filter milk in the house. I've had a small herdshare group for four years. I would be happy to show my daily filters. Most of the time there's nothing on it. Sometimes a speck or two. I could count on one hand the times the filters been too dirty to offer the milk to members.

I'm very pleased that Michigan has made this decision. It speaks well of the mentality of the freedom loving people here. Yay for Michigan!

And your point is........what?????......

I was not advocating anything........simply
concurring with your observation.

My point was that hand-milking may be the cleanest method, but I doubt many commercial dairies are milking that way.

Well, I wouldn't buy milk from any farm that I could not visit. Those big CAFOs are horrible. Our local farms, even the big ones, are clean and the animals are healthy. They have nothing to hide.

If an adult is confident in the farm and quality of the milk, then there is a way to resolve the whole issue. If you wish to purchase raw milk, you sign a waiver at the farm that you assume the liability of consuming raw milk and releasing the farmer from all liability on his part.

There doesn't have to be laws in place for an adult to make a choice for his family. It would be no different than a person choosing to can their own food in manners not necessarily approved for, what is considered, safe canning; or using herbal/holistic remedies instead of traditional medical intervention. You simply assume the liability if you choose to march to a different tune.

I am so happy for our Michigan members. Congratulations on having the right to choose. I can only hope that your neighbor to the south might have lawmakers with the common sense and the sense of liberty to follow suit.

Thank you for the clarification..

I have been generally ill for the last few weeks and the only thing different in my diet is raw milk consumption so this argument intrigues me.I have had flu type or salmonella type symptoms off and on since I consumed it,I have a doctors appt tomorrow so I hope to know soon.
whats interesting is the point of immunity that Haypoint talked about,my wife has consumed the same milk and says it's fine,but she grew up on a dairy farm drinking raw milk as well as her friends and the supplier but I didn't,perhaps there is something to it but right now it's all speculation until the doctors visit and if it is related I'll be sure to pass it along.
here is a little info I came across by the CDC,I know,I am not a big fan of govt agencys either but take a read.

http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmil...d-answers.html

Sounds like the usual "propaganda"........I call it "JUNK SCIENCE!!!!!".....and they try to write that dribble as if they had a
superior level of knowledge or wisdom.
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
What organism is causing your illness????

As far as I know, uncontaminated raw milk from a healthy animal has never hurt anyone.....

First you need to determine what is causing your illness......and then look to see if the raw milk is the source......

What do you think a doctor can tell you without having actual facts to deal with?!?!.........if he/she thinks she can tell you without the facts..........around here, we call them QUACKS!!!!

Any time you add a new food source, raw or not, it should be done slowly. I've consumed raw milk, raw cheese, kefir, yogurt, etc. on and off most of my life. If anyone in your household is consuming the same milk and having no ill effects, most likely it is not a contaminant in the milk. If you visit the doctor, do not lead them. Let them discover what it is that ails you first. While not all doctors will jump on the bandwagon against raw foods consumption, some may simply use it as a scapegoat.

Some people also have far stronger immune systems than others.

Whatever the cause, I wish a speedy recovery for you. If you are prescribed antibiotics, please consider restoring the gut flora with some active culture yogurt post-treatment to keep the microbes happy :)

~ST

That's what I'd be concerned with. The doctor might make the assumption it was the milk and the real culprit behind the illness might be overlooked if the milk turns out not to be the problem.

I agree that it's probably not the milk if others in your family have been drinking it without any symptoms.

When we first started drinking raw milk, we all were sick for about a week with loose stool. Didn't really feel bad, but our digestive systems were upset.

Then it went away and we started feeling a lot healthier than before. Our immune systems perked up and everyone just seemed to bloom from having healthy gut bacteria. Everything health-related was just better.

When we lost our raw milk source, we went right back to being sick for another week and then the health deteriorated again.

Our digestive systems were designed to have a healthy level of critters in them helping us to create enzymes and break down our food. All of the sterilization and pasteurization has destroyed that and so now we all walk around with a gut full of bad bacteria.

Raw milk and fermented foods (real fermented pickles and yogurt) really seem to perk up your health a lot.

been there. done that. not fun

well,,I went to the doctor today and they took a bunch of blood and checked the rest of my vitals and I was ok,well at least til the blood results are back but my doc eased my mind with the milk concern ,he said if my wife ain't sick from it then I won't be either,,anyway just wanted to share that and won't bore you with the rest of the medical problems going on,looking like food poisoning from something I ate that wifey didn't

test results back and I am A ok,,not a thing wrong with me,even my cholesterol was pretty good,,:P,,,going back to the raw milk as well seeing as it didn't have anything to do with whatever was wrong with me,my milk supplier gave me this link as well.

http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/