Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Rawesome Raided Again! Farmers And Private Food Club Owner Arrested For Selling Fresh Milk

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Purveyor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 02:48 PM
Original message
Rawesome Raided Again! Farmers And Private Food Club Owner Arrested For Selling Fresh Milk
Edited on Sun Aug-07-11 02:52 PM by Purveyor
About 20 armed agents from various local, state and federal agencies, coordinated by the US Food and Drug Administration, staged another raid on fresh foods sold in California at a Ventura County farm and at Rawesome Foods, a private buying club providing members with unadulterated, unpasteurized milk and dairy products, among other items.

Healthy Family Farms owner Sharon Palmer and one of her employees, Eugenie Bloch, were arrested, along with James Stewart, the operator of Rawesome Foods located in Venice, California.

--CLIP
The FDA raid included agents from the California Franchise Tax Board; the CA Department of Food and Agriculture’s Milk and Dairy Food Safety Branch and the department’s Division of Measurement Standards; the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office; the LA County Dept. of Public Health; the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department, the Ventura County Dept. of Public Health; the LA Police Department and the LA Dept. of Building and Safety.

Palmer is charged with nine counts of criminal conspiracy and operating without a license, while Stewart is facing 13 counts.

MORE...

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/rawesome-raided-again-private-food-club-clerks-arrested-for-selling-fresh-milk/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
WhiteTara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yet, 36 MILLION pounds of turkey had to be recalled.
What is wrong with this picture? It is so insane that a private food buying club is more dangerous than Cargill with 36 MILLION pounds of turkey. That is a lot of meat spread out over lots of states and they are raiding a food buying club. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. But Cargill is following the law with their recall. This other company
was trying to avoid the law. Instead, they should be lobbying to change it, if they have valid science behind their position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sudopod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #8
30. I'm sure Congress will give a flying fuck.
Edited on Sun Aug-07-11 04:18 PM by sudopod
And it will surely make up for the large investment they'll lose due to the loss of their business. If only they had a few million dollars to lobby congress with. Maybe they can find it in the same trunk they store their self-lifting bootstraps in, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
2. Why not let the buyers get sick?
I say buyer beware...don't waste money on busting fresh foods freaks...save that money for those non-violent pot smokers! Wait...I see one now...KILL HIM!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Why not let the buyers kill their children with bad milk?
If they think government should carve out an exception from food safety for their products, then they should lobby for that.

But I think our food safety laws should be strengthened, not tossed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. Well, we do it everyday with govt approved 'medicine'
that 5 years down the road causes cancer (or so the lawyer commercials say so) that no one apparently gave a crap about enough to do a study on. Like I said, 'buyer beware'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fivepennies Donating Member (419 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. Oh, they've carved out exceptions to food safety, all right.
The dairy industry knows that there is a problem with pus in milk. Accordingly, it has developed a system known as the “somatic cell count” to measure the amount of pus in milk. The somatic cell count is the standard used to gauge milk quality. The higher the somatic cell count, the more pus in the milk.

Any milk with a somatic cell count of higher than 200 million per liter should not enter the human food supply, according to the dairy industry. Therefore, anyone living in a state where the somatic cell count is higher than 200 million shouldn’t be drinking milk. There’s only one problem—every state but Hawaii is producing milk with pus levels so high that it shouldn’t enter the human food supply! At the bottom of this page, you can see how high the pus levels in your state’s milk are. Even the national average, at 322 million, is well above the industry’s limit.

One culprit causing the hundreds of millions of pus cells in every liter of milk may be “bovine growth hormone,” the Monsanto chemical company’s growth hormone marketed as Posilac. Posilac is now widely used by dairy farmers to increase the amount of milk that their already overburdened cows produce. Because cows are not built to produce this much milk, they are prone to a painful udder infection called mastitis. When they are milked, pus and bacteria from the infection flow right along with the milk. The journal Nature reported that Posilac increases somatic cells—pus—in the milk by a whopping 19 percent! Researchers estimate that an ordinary glass of milk contains between one and seven drops of pus. This isn’t just disgusting—it can also be dangerous. Pus can contain paratuberculosis bacteria, which are believed to cause Crohn’s disease in human beings.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070302165124AAq4IQs

But if you want to give your kids contaminated milk, who should complain?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Had no idea about milk and pus...thanks for the link!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fivepennies Donating Member (419 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. You're welcome.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. I'm curious how the bacteria is thought to survive the pasteurization process. Do you have
any info on that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fivepennies Donating Member (419 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #24
33. There have been zillions of lab tests on raw milk, pasteurized milk
and the various benefits and downsides of each, but if you're just talking about basic nutrition, this is a pretty good one:

http://hwaairfan.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/raw-milk-s-pasteurized-milk-which-would-you-prefer/a

I haven't spent any time tracking down specific labs and reports about the post pasteurization elements of milk other than the one I posted earlier, but I promise there are gazillions of them out there on the internets, arguing both sides, if you want to look for them. I'm being lazy today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #33
42. I'm not talking about nutrition -- I'm talking about heat.
The point of pasteurization is to kill bacteria through heat. Is there something special about bacteria now that makes them resistant to heat? Why wouldn't pasteurization eliminate the bacteria you're talking about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #13
23. I don't want milk with pus, either. The fact that that isn't being regulated
properly doesn't mean we should drop regulations about pasteurization.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fivepennies Donating Member (419 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #23
31. Funny story.
Back in the days when we had a milk goat, whenever my late husband did the milking he'd come through the back door and swing the bucket of milk in front of me saying "past yer eyes".

Seriously though, democracy is all about making choices that suit us personally. If you feel safer drinking mega farm milk that comes complete with antibiotics, growth hormones and pus in it, more power to you. Let others make their own choices just as freely. And when a company sells a product that actually harms someone, let them face the full fury of those who were harmed in a court of law. Try suing a major dairy farm (or any other so-called regulated corporation) for selling you a dangerous product or harming you and yours. Ain't happening.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
41. And Hawai'i milk is not even available on O'ahu
where three-quarters of the state's population lives. All Hawai'i's remaining dairies are on Hawai'i island (the Big Island), and it's cheaper to import pus milk from the mainland to O'ahu. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #2
35. the big problem is
People have been getting food from Rawsome for years and so far I don't believe anyone has gotten sick from it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. the big problem is
that the people involved decided some time ago that they were going to ignore the laws — not just about food, but about running a business and paying taxes — and despite a raid and arrest last year, decided that they would continue to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bbgrunt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. Another thread details that the complaints against this
farm include much more than raw milk--claiming organic food when all they did was relabel commercially grown items. Several people with marginal health and on strict organic diets had severe problems.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1685565
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #35
51. How would you know that? Is someone doing research on that?
All they have to do is comply with the same health rules that two other producers of raw milk products are successfully complying with in California. They just choose not to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boston bean Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
3. People have the right to eat what they want. Leave em alone.
They sell us shit that makes everyone fat and see no problemo with it.

These people are part of a club, and they know the risk. And obviously it's a small risk as I haven't heard about one Rawsome food member dying.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
46. And we have a right to make laws. And the laws in California allow for regulated sale of raw milk.
These people were charged with avoiding the laws that would have allowed them safely to sell raw milk.


Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/aug/04/santa-paula-farmer-to-be-arraigned-for-selling/#ixzz1UOvxx9xo
- vcstar.com


One of the state standards requires all cows and goats producing milk for the raw market must be tested and found negative at least once annually for tuberculosis.

The raw milk may only be produced on a dairy farm that holds a market milk permit and scores not less than 90 percent on the market milk dairy farm score card.

The raw milk may not contain more than 15,000 bacteria per milliliter or more than 10 coliform bacteria per milliliter. It also must be cooled to and maintained at or below 45 degrees Fahrenheit.

SNIP

Lyle said that a small goat operation would probably have an annual milk plant license fee of about $100 a year, with quarterly inspection fees of between $350 and $525.



Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/aug/04/santa-paula-farmer-to-be-arraigned-for-selling/#ixzz1UOvxx9xo
- vcstar.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
4. Unrec for a dishonest subject line.
The question isn't "fresh milk," it's RAW milk. Food safety regulations require that dairy products be pasteurized before they're sold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
5. If they don't like food safety laws, they should work to amend them.
I'm glad that the laws are in place, but if reasonable changes should be made, fine -- through the legal process. I'm glad the FDA is enforcing the laws that exist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fivepennies Donating Member (419 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
7. When is private not private?
Whenever it competes wtih major producers and produces superior products.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. There is nothing superior about unpasteurized milk. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fivepennies Donating Member (419 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. I take it you have extensive experience with both?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #14
55. I should have said: there is nothing superior about Rawsome's unpasteurized milk.
They're not complying with the minimal health and safety requirements -- but two other raw milk dairies in CA don't find the requirements too onerous. Clearly, they must be producing the superior raw milk.


Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/aug/04/santa-paula-farmer-to-be-arraigned-for-selling/#ixzz1UOvxx9xo
- vcstar.com

One of the state standards requires all cows and goats producing milk for the raw market must be tested and found negative at least once annually for tuberculosis.

The raw milk may only be produced on a dairy farm that holds a market milk permit and scores not less than 90 percent on the market milk dairy farm score card.

The raw milk may not contain more than 15,000 bacteria per milliliter or more than 10 coliform bacteria per milliliter. It also must be cooled to and maintained at or below 45 degrees Fahrenheit.

There are also sanitary and building requirements.

SNIP

Lyle said that a small goat operation would probably have an annual milk plant license fee of about $100 a year, with quarterly inspection fees of between $350 and $525.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLAprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
29. Remember, you're not qualified to make statements here unless you've tried something.
According to the guy above.

Blood-letting? Scientifically unproven? WELL YOU HAVEN'T TRIED IT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
housewolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #9
43. Ah, but there are enzymes
that are present in raw milk that are destroyed in the pasteurization process

And pasteurization changes proteins.

Not to mention that raw milk is WAY more delicious than pasteurized milk

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cool Logic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
10. Well, that's what happens when the SC stretches the commerce clause
to the point where the feds can reach all the way into your back yard and regulate your vegetable garden.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #10
40. If you're selling what you grow in there, it SHOULD be regulated
Some people see nothing wrong with using human feces as fertilizer--it's common practice in Korea, for instance. You can grow wholesome food by using human shit as fertilizer, but before you eat it you need to wash the food in bleach solution to kill the bacteria thereon. In Korea everyone knows you have to bleach food before you eat it, so there's no problem. In the US, we don't bleach our food, so using human shit as fertilizer here would cause many problems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #10
52. Most of the agents in the raid were from California, which
has its own laws allowing the regulated sale of raw milk products, which other raw milk producers DO comply with -- but Rawsome chooses not to.

The FDA is involved because some product may end up outside of the State of California.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwhitesj Donating Member (155 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
11. They need to follow the law
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roamer65 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
16. Unpasteurized milk is unsafe...PLUS...
Edited on Sun Aug-07-11 03:14 PM by roamer65
as we learned here in Michigan from the 1970's PBB dairy feed contamination, drinking milk from once source is also very unsafe. Many farmers who were drinking raw milk from their herds got a full shot of the PBB contamination. It is best to have the milk mixed from many sources.

PBB = Poly Brominated Biphenyl (a fire retardant)

Wiki it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
housewolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Well, I drink unpasteurized milk from a small local dairy
They test and only care about only delivering safe milk, so it's sort of an untruth to say that ALL unpasteurized milk is unsafe, you might be surprised at the numbers of people who thrive on unpasteurized milk.

I gotta admit, I took my first taste with trepidation. But there are some real advantages to unpasteurized milk and guess what - it's unbelievably delicious! Incomparable to the industrial product we buy in supermarkets today.

But the key here is small and local where they test everyday.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. So you are saying that the owners care about the product they sale?
No wonder people here hate local shops...those dam owners worried about making people sick with bad product...it is so unlike big business!

Hurummphh!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #16
37. Pasteurized can be equally unsafe
1.
J Food Prot. 2011 Jun;74(6):949-53.
Multistate outbreak of Listeria monocytogenes associated with Mexican-style cheese made from pasteurized milk among pregnant, Hispanic women.
Jackson KA, Biggerstaff M, Tobin-D'Angelo M, Sweat D, Klos R, Nosari J, Garrison O, Boothe E, Saathoff-Huber L, Hainstock L, Fagan RP.
Source

Enteric Diseases Epidemiology Branch, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA. gqv8@cdc.gov
Abstract

Listeriosis is a severe infection caused by Listeria monocytogenes. Since 2004, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has requested that listeriosis patients be interviewed using a standardized Listeria Initiative (LI) questionnaire. In January 2009, states and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began investigating a multistate outbreak of listeriosis among pregnant, Hispanic women. We defined a case as an illness occurring between October 2008 and March 2009 with an L. monocytogenes isolate indistinguishable from the outbreak strain by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. We conducted a multistate case-control study using controls that were selected from L. monocytogenes illnesses in non-outbreak-related pregnant, Hispanic women that were reported to the LI during 2004 to 2008. Eight cases in five states were identified. Seven of these were pregnant, Hispanic females aged 21 to 43 years, and one was a 3-year-old Hispanic girl, who was excluded from the study. Seven (100%) cases but only 26 (60%) of 43 controls had consumed Mexican-style cheese in the month before illness (odds ratio, 5.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.07 to ∞; P = 0.04). Cultures of asadero cheese made from pasteurized milk collected at a manufacturing facility during routine sampling by the Michigan Department of Agriculture on 23 February 2009 yielded the outbreak strain, leading to a recall of cheeses produced in the plant. Recalled product was traced to stores where at least three of the women had purchased cheese. This investigation highlights the usefulness of routine product sampling for identifying contaminated foods, of pulsed-field gel electrophoresis analysis to detect multistate outbreaks, and of the LI for providing timely exposure information for case-control analyses. Recalls of contaminated cheeses likely prevented additional illnesses.

PMID:
21669072


Related citations
Click here to read

2.
Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2009;121(3-4):125-31.
Outbreak of staphylococcal food intoxication after consumption of pasteurized milk products, June 2007, Austria.
Schmid D, Fretz R, Winter P, Mann M, Höger G, Stöger A, Ruppitsch W, Ladstätter J, Mayer N, de Martin A, Allerberger F.
Source

Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, Vienna, Austria. Daniela.Schmid@ages.at
Abstract

On June 13, 2007, the public health authority informed the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety about 40 children from two neighboring elementary schools who had fallen ill with abdominal cramps and vomiting on June 8. School milk products consumed on June 8 were suspected as the source of the outbreak. On June 8, the milk products provided by local dairy X to eight elementary schools and two nurseries. The short incubation period - all cases fell ill on the day on which the products were consumed - and the short duration of illness (1-2 days) strongly suggested intoxication. In order to identify the causative pathogen, its reservoir and the mode of transmission, a descriptive-epidemiological and microbiological investigation and a retrospective cohort study were conducted. Six of the 10 institutions served by dairy X completed questionnaires on demographics and food consumption. One school had a 79% response rate (203/258) and was chosen as the basis for our cohort study. A total of 166 of the 1025 children (16.2%) at the 10 institutions fulfilled the case definition. Consumption of milk, cacao milk or vanilla milk originating from dairy X was associated with a 37.8 times higher risk of becoming a case (95% CI: 2.3-116.5). Unopened milk products left over at the affected institutions yielded staphylococcal enterotoxins A and D. Six out of 64 quarter milk samples from three of 16 cows producing milk for dairy X tested positive for S. aureus. The isolates produced enterotoxins A and D, yielded genes encoding enterotoxins and D, and showed spa type t2953. S. aureus isolated from the nasal swab of the dairy owner harbored genes encoding enterotoxins C, G, H and I, and showed spa type t635. Our investigation revealed that the milk products produced in dairy X on June 7 were the source of the outbreak on June 8. The cows - not the dairy owner - the likely reservoir of the enterotoxin-producing S. aureus. From the risk assessment of the production process at the dairy, we hypothesize that staphylococcal toxin production took place during a 3-day period of storage of pasteurized milk prior to repasteurization for the production batch of 7.

PMID:
19280138


Related citations
Click here to read
MeSH Terms, Substances

3.
Rev Chilena Infectol. 2006 Dec;23(4):336-9. Epub 2006 Nov 23.
.

Fica C A, Illanes R V, Sakurada Z A, Vidal C M, Valenzuela M ME.
Source

Sección Infectología, Hospital Clínico, Universidad de Chile, Chile. afica@redclinicauchile.cl
Abstract

We report a case of bacteraemia by Campylobacter fetus subsp. fetus in a 77 year-old woman with immunosuppression secondary to steroid use. Diagnosis was suspected by finding Gram negative curved rods in blood cultures taken after 4 days of a febrile illness without local findings. Diarrhea was not present. There was no consumption of undercooked meat or non-pasteurized milk and no contact with pets. The patient was treated with sulbactam-cefoperazone due to the coexistence of urinary tract infection by multiresistant E. coli. The outcome was favorable and albeit susceptibility was not assessed, quinolone resistance was presumed because illness appeared during ciprofloxacin prophylaxis for urinary tract infection. In contrast to C. jejuni infections, C. fetus infections are associated to debilitated or immunosuppressed patients, bacteraemia is predominant, diarrhea is rarely observed and disease is not self-limited.

PMID:
17186081


Free full text
Related citations
Click here to read
Publication Types, MeSH Terms

4.
Epidemiol Infect. 2002 Dec;129(3):451-7.
E. coli O157 phage type 21/28 outbreak in North Cumbria associated with pasteurized milk.
Goh S, Newman C, Knowles M, Bolton FJ, Hollyoak V, Richards S, Daley P, Counter D, Smith HR, Keppie N.
Source

North Cumbria Health Authority, Wavell Drive, Rosehill, Carlisle, Cumbria CAI 2SE.
Abstract

In March 1999, a large community outbreak of Escherichia coli O157 infection occurred in North Cumbria. A total of 114 individuals were reported to the Outbreak Control Team (OCT); 88 had laboratory confirmed E. coli O157. Twenty-eight (32%) of the confirmed cases were admitted to hospital, including three children (3.4%) with haemolytic uraemic syndrome. There were no deaths. A case-control study found that illness was strongly associated with drinking pasteurized milk from a local farm (P = <0.0001) on single variable analysis. Microbiological investigations at the farm revealed E. coli O157 phage type (PT) 21/28 VT 2 which was indistinguishable from the human isolates by pulsed field gel electrophoresis. At the time of occurrence this was the largest E. coli O157 outbreak in England and Wales and the first E. coli O157 PT 21/28 VT 2 outbreak associated with pasteurized milk. This outbreak highlights lessons to be learnt regarding on-farm pasteurization.

PMID:
12558327

PMCID: PMC2869906

Free PMC Article
Related citations
Click here to read
MeSH Terms

5.
J Infect Dis. 2000 May;181(5):1834-7. Epub 2000 May 15.
An outbreak of Yersinia enterocolitica O:8 infections associated with pasteurized milk.
Ackers ML, Schoenfeld S, Markman J, Smith MG, Nicholson MA, DeWitt W, Cameron DN, Griffin PM, Slutsker L.
Source

Foodborne and Diarrheal Diseases Branch, Division of Bacterial and Mycotic Diseases, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Abstract

In October 1995, an outbreak of Yersinia enterocolitica O:8 infections occurred in the Upper Valley of Vermont and New Hampshire. Ten patients were identified, median age 9 years (range, 6 months-44 years). Three patients were hospitalized; 1 underwent an appendectomy. Consumption of bottled pasteurized milk from a local dairy was associated with illness (matched odds ratio undefined; lower 95% confidence interval, 1.9). No deficiencies in pasteurization procedures or equipment were detected. Y. enterocolitica O:8 was isolated from 1 raw-milk sample and from a fecal sample from 1 dairy pig. The route of contamination was not determined; this outbreak likely resulted from postpasteurization contamination of milk. Dairy pigs were the most likely source of contamination. Milk bottles were likely contaminated by rinsing with untreated well water prior to filling or by other environmental routes. Educating dairy owners about Y. enterocolitica and postpasteurization contamination is necessary to prevent further outbreaks.

PMID:
10823796


Free full text
Related citations
Click here to read
MeSH Terms

6.
JAMA. 1987 Dec 11;258(22):3269-74.
Massive outbreak of antimicrobial-resistant salmonellosis traced to pasteurized milk.
Ryan CA, Nickels MK, Hargrett-Bean NT, Potter ME, Endo T, Mayer L, Langkop CW, Gibson C, McDonald RC, Kenney RT, et al.
Source

Division of Bacterial Diseases, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA 30333.
Abstract

Two waves of antimicrobial-resistant Salmonella typhimurium infections in Illinois totaling over 16 000 culture-confirmed cases were traced to two brands of pasteurized 2% milk produced by a single dairy plant. Salmonellosis was associated with taking antimicrobials before onset of illness. Two surveys to determine the number of persons who were actually affected yielded estimates of 168 791 and 197 581 persons, making this the largest outbreak of salmonellosis ever identified in the United States. The epidemic strain was easily identified because it had a rare antimicrobial resistance pattern and a highly unusual plasmid profile; study of stored isolates showed it had caused clusters of salmonellosis during the previous ten months that may have been related to the same plant, suggesting that the strain had persisted in the plant and repeatedly contaminated milk after pasteurization.

PMID:
3316720


Related citations
MeSH Terms

7.
N Engl J Med. 1985 Feb 14;312(7):404-7.
Pasteurized milk as a vehicle of infection in an outbreak of listeriosis.
Fleming DW, Cochi SL, MacDonald KL, Brondum J, Hayes PS, Plikaytis BD, Holmes MB, Audurier A, Broome CV, Reingold AL.
Abstract

Between June 30th and August 30th, 1983, 49 patients in Massachusetts acquired listeriosis. Seven cases occurred in fetuses or infants and 42 in immunosuppressed adults; 14 patients (29 per cent) died. Of 40 Listeria monocytogenes isolates available for testing, 32 were serotype 4b. Two case-control studies, one matching for neighborhood of residence and the other for underlying disease, revealed that the illness was strongly associated with drinking a specific brand of pasteurized whole or 2 per cent milk (odds ratio = 9, P less than 0.01 for the neighborhood-matched study; odds ratio = 11.5, P less than 0.001 for the illness-matched study). The association with milk was further substantiated by four additional analyses that suggested the presence of a dose-response effect, demonstrated a protective effect of skim milk, associated cases with the same product in an independent study in another state, and linked a specific phage type with the disease associated with milk. The milk associated with disease came from a group of farms on which listeriosis in dairy cows was known to have occurred at the time of the outbreak. Multiple serotypes of L. monocytogenes were isolated from raw milk obtained from these farms after the outbreak. At the plant where the milk was processed, inspections revealed no evidence of improper pasteurization. These results support the hypothesis that human listeriosis can be a foodborne disease and raise questions about the ability of pasteurization to eradicate a large inoculum of L. monocytogenes from contaminated raw milk.

PMID:
3918263


Free full text
Related citations
Click here to read
MeSH Terms

8.
JAMA. 1984 Jan 27;251(4):483-6.
A multistate outbreak of infections caused by Yersinia enterocolitica transmitted by pasteurized milk.
Tacket CO, Narain JP, Sattin R, Lofgren JP, Konigsberg C Jr, Rendtorff RC, Rausa A, Davis BR, Cohen ML.
Abstract

In June and July 1982, a large interstate outbreak of Yersinia enterocolitica infections caused by an unusual serotype occurred in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Mississippi. Eighty-six percent of cases had enteritis characterized by fever, abdominal pain, and diarrhea. In three separate case-control studies, drinking milk pasteurized by plant A was statistically associated with illness. In a survey of randomly chosen households, 8.3% of persons who recalled having drunk milk from plant A during the suspect period experienced a yersiniosislike illness. Inspection of the plant and cultures of the available raw and pasteurized milk did not reveal the source or mechanism of contamination or a breach in normal pasteurizing technique. Although outbreaks of enteric disease caused by pasteurized milk are rare in the United States, the ability of Y enterocolitica to grow in milk at refrigeration temperatures makes pasteurized milk a possible vehicle for virulent Y enterocolitica. The extent to which milk is responsible for sporadic cases of yersiniosis is unknown.

PMID:
6546313


Related citations
MeSH Terms

9.
N Engl J Med. 1978 Jan 12;298(2):76-9.
Epidemic Yersinia enterocolitica infection due to contaminated chocolate milk.
Black RE, Jackson RJ, Tsai T, Medvesky M, Shayegani M, Feeley JC, MacLeod KI, Wakelee AM.
Abstract

In September and October, 1976, an outbreak of illness due to chocolate milk contaminated with Yersinia enterocolitica resulted in hospitalization of 36 children, 16 of whom had appendectomies. Infection with Y. enterocolitica serotype 0:8 was demonstrated in 38 ill persons. Sixty-one per cent of the persons who were infected had a titer greater than 1:160 OH agglutinins to serotype 8 yersinia, whereas 48 per cent of the hospitalized children had a fourfold change in agglutinin titer. An epidemiologic investigation demonstrated that illness was associated with drinking of chocolate milk purchased in school cafeterias, and Y. enterocolitica 0:8 was subsequently isolated from the milk. The investigation suggested that the bacterium was introduced at the dairy during the mixing by hand of chocolate syrup with previously pasteurized milk.

PMID:
579433


Related citations
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fivepennies Donating Member (419 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Awesome research
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #37
45. The problem is that pastuerization only kills the germs that are present
at a certain point in time. If you take that sterile milk and pour it into a contaminated container, or mix it with a contaminated chocolate syrup, and/or store it improperly, then you open the door to subsequent bacterial growth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
housewolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
20. Everybody chill out here! First of all
Edited on Sun Aug-07-11 04:20 PM by housewolf
the milk wasn't bad, they just dumped it because it was unpasteurized.

Second of all, DO SOME RESEARCH before you react to news like this! There's a counter-story (and pictures) showing the the organization was lying to their consumers as to the sources and quality of what they were selling.

For instance, they said they were selling organic, locally-raised meat whereas in reality it was commercially produced frozen meat that they bought from a wholesaler and repackaged. Commercially-produced non-organic produce that they bought & re-packaged. And more.

There appears to have been some real, valid reasons as to why this group was shut down and they may not be the victims that they are being portrayed as. There are laws against mis-leading your customers.

Yes, there is a group of supporters writing across the internet portraying them as victims. Do some research and check into the agenda of people writing and commenting on this story before you go half-cocked screaming about government over-reach when, in fact, it may be doing its job of actually protecting consumers.

Check it out, people.


Update -

Okay, I found what I was looking for, link to a website by a raw milk & healthy foods advocacy group
http://www.unhealthyfamilyfarm.com/evidence.html

Of interest is the page with the pictures and the investigative report pdf from about mid-page 12 though the end and the Evidence pages.

I'm no huge supporter or lover of FDA over-reach, but I think a thorough investigation of this groups' practices is warranted.









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fivepennies Donating Member (419 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. The screaming and over-reach
is more about the accusers bastardizing an entire industry over one incident. Well, at least if what you're claiming about this one incident is true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. Everybody should read your post -- for the other side.
There usually are two sides to a story, and yours makes sense to me. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fivepennies Donating Member (419 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #25
32. self delete
Edited on Sun Aug-07-11 04:39 PM by fivepennies
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLAprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #20
28. I love how whenever the gov't actually cracks down on bullshit movements (i.e. alternative medicine)
They're always punishing the "little guy".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #28
34. Everybody's the "victim" when the govt enforces on "them"
It's just who we are.. When we need help we call the cops, but when they catch us speeding, we are outraged.:)

Some people swear by raw milk, and drink it all the time, but when you SELL it, there are standards that must be met.. safety standards.. public safety standards. They are there for a reason..

My aunt got undulant fever as a young child, and since there were no antibiotics then, the damage to her was life-long, even though she recovered. We don't hear of that happening much these days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
21. Much more important than prosecuting the banksters who destroyed the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. Or the war criminals that started two wars and got us into this financial
mess! Hey, I say save that money for all the non-violent drug offenders out there...they are far more dangerous to America then raw milk and the Tea Party! :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLAprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
26. More David vs. Goliath nonsense. Apparently food safety laws are only good when corporate violations
Edited on Sun Aug-07-11 04:09 PM by FLAprogressive
are enforced. But when the FDA goes after the crackpot New Age "raw foodies" (who are always positioned as the "little guy")....everyone here is screaming mad....and there's always someone more important to get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Retrograde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
44. Rawsome again?
They were raided last summer for the same thing. What I find interesting is that the raiding agencies include the Franchise Tax Board (that's the group that collects state income taxes for you non-Californians): makes me wonder what other regulations they think don't apply to them.

Raw milk is legal in California - I can get it at my local farmers' market and other places (although why anyone over the age of 5 wants to drink milk is beyond me). Anytime the words "food" and "public" occur in near proximity, though, expect red tape. I don't buy the "but it's a private club" arguments: the only selection criterion is paying a small fee. If it were the first time, maybe they should have gotten off with just a warning, but now - they don't seem to learn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. Right. California law allows the sale of raw milk products, but with reasonable requirements.
But I don't regard these health protections as "red tape."


Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/aug/04/santa-paula-farmer-to-be-arraigned-for-selling/#ixzz1UOvxx9xo
- vcstar.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #44
48. Why doesn't Rawsome just get the permit that's needed in California?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. +1000. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #44
49. Yes. And a lot of knee-jerk reactions around here by people
who don't have any background on the history of this.

California DOES allow the sale of raw milk products, but with reasonable safety precautions which these people haven't been complying with. These people aren't victims.

Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/aug/04/santa-paula-farmer-to-be-arraigned-for-selling/#ixzz1UOvxx9xo
- vcstar.com

One of the state standards requires all cows and goats producing milk for the raw market must be tested and found negative at least once annually for tuberculosis.

The raw milk may only be produced on a dairy farm that holds a market milk permit and scores not less than 90 percent on the market milk dairy farm score card.

The raw milk may not contain more than 15,000 bacteria per milliliter or more than 10 coliform bacteria per milliliter. It also must be cooled to and maintained at or below 45 degrees Fahrenheit.

There are also sanitary and building requirements.

SNIP

Lyle said that a small goat operation would probably have an annual milk plant license fee of about $100 a year, with quarterly inspection fees of between $350 and $525.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
53. Big dairy is out to close down independents.
I grew up on freshly delivered Mathis unpasteurised CLEAN milk from Mathis Dairy Avondale GA, as well as butter and cheese. So did half of ATL.

Big dairy is out to close down independents. Anybody can see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-07-11 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. That's not what's going on here. Two other small dairies are successfully
producing raw milk products, under the health and safety regs (like once a year testing) that this dairy has been avoiding.

Just because a business is small doesn't mean it should be able to sell unsafe products.


Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/aug/04/santa-paula-farmer-to-be-arraigned-for-selling/#ixzz1UOvxx9xo
- vcstar.com

One of the state standards requires all cows and goats producing milk for the raw market must be tested and found negative at least once annually for tuberculosis.

The raw milk may only be produced on a dairy farm that holds a market milk permit and scores not less than 90 percent on the market milk dairy farm score card.

The raw milk may not contain more than 15,000 bacteria per milliliter or more than 10 coliform bacteria per milliliter. It also must be cooled to and maintained at or below 45 degrees Fahrenheit.

There are also sanitary and building requirements.

SNIP

Lyle said that a small goat operation would probably have an annual milk plant license fee of about $100 a year, with quarterly inspection fees of between $350 and $525.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLAprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-08-11 03:24 AM
Response to Reply #54
56. No, but it sure sounds better!
It's always Big X vs. the Little Ol' Peddlers of Woo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC