First of all, I urge visitors to go to the website of the Campaign for REAL MILK :
URL www.realmilk.com = it's the mother-lode of information about raw milk for human consumption
second : see the video recording of Mark McAffee speaking at the University of Victoria
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y34nZrMEbRw&feature=youtu.be >it's a must for educating yourself about how REAL MILK is being produced safely by Organic Pastures Dairy in California,
Stolen Cream = explanation of the fundamentals of the Campaign for REAL MILK
Fresh Thoughts on Real Food - 7/29/19
The Family Cowod Designed it. We Respect it. That Explains it!
It's difficult for folks to believe that this figure only reflects the real cost of real butter.
And it isn't even as high as it should be. We actually loose a few pennies on every pound of butter sold.
I know this sounds like crazy talk, but I promise you it is not. Stick with me and I'll show you the inside story.
The short answer to why Family Cow butter is pricey is that we adamantly refuse to make our butter with stolen cream.
Whoa... Stolen Cream!
Are you accusing others of stealing cream to make cheap butter? Well yes, I guess I am sort of. But maybe "stealing" is a little bit of a harsh word. Tell you what... let me describe what happens and you call it by your own word.
You have probably noticed that industrial dairy processing companies are historically called 'creameries.' That's because the value of milk is in the cream. The cream is what they want. The cream is the reason for their existence. Creameries traditionally take in whole milk, skim the cream off, make products out of the cream (think butter, ice cream, whipping cream, cheese, etc.) and try hard to market the leftover water (aka skim milk) to unsuspecting moms at full price.
But here is the dilemma.
What if the moms are smart and fully educated on the nutritional value of the cream? What if they adamantly demand whole milk with the full cream still in it? The creamery wouldn't have any cream to work with! It all would still be in the milk! What to do?
Not a problem... the creameries simply crafted "Three Smooth Moves" to get the cream they want anyway.
Smooth Move #1: Call it 'Whole Milk' even when it's not:
Even for the mom who insists on and pays for whole full fat milk, let's stealthily remove 1/3 of the cream without telling her. (See... I was careful to not say steal.) They do this by what is called 'standardizing' the milk.
Let me show you how this works in real life: If a farmer with Jersey cows ships milk that is 5.25% cream (which is fairly normal for a Jersey herd) the creamery may remove more than 1/3 of the cream yet still label and sell the leftover milk as 'whole milk' even though it is now only 3.25% cream. Is this stealing cream? You decide.
It definitely seems deceptive to me. If I pay for 'whole milk,' I guess I'm simple enough to believe I'm getting the whole milk, right?
This move... this "industry accepted standard practice of milk standardization" snags the creamery 1,200 pints of cream for every truck load of milk. This might not seem like much until you realize that even a fairly small creamery can process 10-20 truckloads per day. That would be 12,000 to 24,000 pints of free cream per day snuck off of 'whole milk!' Not bad for a day's work!
Smooth Move #2: Keep the Customer from Noticing
But how are we going to keep these moms from noticing the missing cream? After all, they aren't blind... and we know they are smart. Hey! ...I know what! Let's force this milk and the cream through extremely small orifices at stupendously high pressure. This extreme high pressure will totally tear the fat globules to shreds so they won't float anymore. Since the butterfat no longer floats, then the cream won't rise. That'll fix them! Without the visible cream line, these finicky moms won't have a way anymore to see that we've removed a lot of the cream. We'll call this milk homogenized milk and tell them it's for their convenience so they don't need to shake their milk anymore. Smooth!
Smooth Move #3: Manipulate them to actually want Skim Milk...
...or at least low fat milk. Make them want it so bad that they'll pay almost the same price as 'whole milk.' Make them believe that low fat is the way to health. Feed them on fears that the whole milk will make them fat. Tell them it will harm their children. Confuse them with murky data that suggests skim milk is good for their heart. It doesn't matter if the science is weak or unproven or even wrong... say it anyway because we simply can't let them have all our cream!
The more moms we can convince to want skim, the better! Because if we can manipulate their thinking so they actually want skim... they choose skim... they believe skim is best... we get to keep ALL the cream from their milk! YEE HA! If we could convince all of them... sigh... that would be a dreamland. Just think! 60,000 pints of free cream in a day's work at the creamery.
Ok... so maybe this is a bit dramatic, but there are two points here.
The first point is that the above three methods are the sad truth of how industrial creameries obtain their cream. Yes, even industrial organic creameries. And it is how they can sell cheap butter.
The second point is that you can trust that we do not and will not use those methods to get cream. If others do... that's with them and their customers. I'm staying out of it.
As for me and my house... we refuse to steal cream from your raw milk. Family Cow butter is honest butter. We personally feel that it's the high integrity way.
This commitment does mean though, that when we make butter, we start with whole milk. And since it takes 3 gallons of milk to make a pound of butter, it gets expensive. We do discount our raw milk to $4.30 per gallon (since we ship in bulk to the butter maker) but still, our cream cost alone for 1 lb. of butter is $12.90.
In addition to our cream cost, our butter making costs for each lb. look like this: $1.50 to haul milk to butter maker, $1.15 for butter maker fee, $0.18 for container and label, $0.61 to haul butter back to the Family Cow. So, our other-than-cream costs are $3.44/lb.
Add $12.90 to $3.44 and you arrive at $16.34.
Our butter is priced at $16.25.
We aren't paying off the farm on honest butter, folks. I thought it's important that you know! :)
~Your Farmer Edwin... for the whole Shank Family and the rest of the team!
Real Farmers. Real Caring. Real Foods.
P.S. Ok... so I know the most dedicated of you have a few more butter questions, too. I just stopped the above section there since I figured it would make a nice place for some less interested to hop out. Here are a few more pressing questions I realize you have.
Q. Why don't you just keep selling Trickling Springs butter?
A. Excellent question though it's one I don't enjoy because it doesn't have a nice answer. But I guess it's no real secret that the future of Trickling Springs is very uncertain. We decided that if they go under, it's best if we've developed a relationship with our own butter maker and get some experience ahead of time so we and you are not left butter-less.
Q. If $16.25/lb. does not give you any profit… why don't you raise the price?
A. Wait, I've got my arms crossed over my head warding off the rolling pins and butter knives already! We can't go any higher with the price! :)
Q. But if the butter price isn't profitable and the rolling pins won't let you be profitable, why do you even bother to make butter?
A.#1. Because we like to make our tribe happy and we know that you'd not be happy without butter. It's so happy to do butter! :)
Q. Seriously, you make 100% grass-fed butter just to make us happy?
A. No, sorry, that was only part of the answer. The rest of the answer is that even though we don't make money on the butter, the butter keeps us from losing a lot. I know that sounds weird, but let me explain.
Making butter helps us with milk balancing. Here is how it works.
We understand that you Family Cow Raw milk aficionados would be very unhappy if we ran short of our raw milk. But your milk orders do fluctuate from one week to another. To be sure that we never run out... we always need to manage our cows and herd size to have at least a little extra milk.
This extra milk is our cushion to keep you and us happy. And we use butter-making to help with that cushion. If we have a lot of extra milk some week, we make a lot of butter. If we have very little, then we only make a little butter. This is called milk balancing.
If we didn't have butter-making and some other foods like yogurt and cheese to help with milk balancing, we'd only have two choices. We could tell you that The Family Cow raw milk is first come first serve and that we cannot guarantee you that we'll have enough to fill your order each week or we'd have to send some milk to the compost pile or to the pigs most weeks.
We do not like the last option and you do not like the first. So... we just make butter... even though we end up selling it at break even. :)
Q. So... we should buy this butter because it helps with this thing called 'milk balancing?'
A. Well... if you want to think of it that way, yes. And thank you. It does help us out. But if you just want some of the best organic butter you ever experienced... that is a good enough reason, too. Butter literally doesn't get much better than this. It's from 100% certified organic Jersey cows. They are 100% grass-fed, so it's grain-free, soy-free, and corn-free, too. This means that the butter is super yellow.
In a letter to the editor, published March 2, 2018, Bruce Krupke, executive vice president of Northeast Dairy Foods Association, Inc., wrote to suggest that states should ban raw milk sales to the general public.
Below are letters to the editor, published March 9, 2018, in response to Mr. Krupke's letter.
A Real Look at Fake Milk
The hand writing is on the wall.
Let me interpret the writing for you. Faking milk (milk produced at an industrial level) is not working.
Why is milk going down the drain as a healthy food? And how is being threatened by fake (industrial) milk?
Industrial milk slowly but surely became fake in the last 75 years and will continue to grow much more toxic than it already is unless we change that direction as farmers on our farms. This industrial milk has been and still is a grave threat to the viability of milk as healthy food and to the farmers that produce it. Insanity is when we keep doing the same things and expecting different results. That's what this is.
A few vested interests still deny that charge, but people who produce, sell and understand real milk know full well that many more people are allergic to milk than ever and the numbers are growing.
Why? Let me explain.
For starters, it is almost not recognizable as nature's perfect food. Remember the real milk campaign that dairymen paid for to the tune of literally millions, if not billions? What happened to it? I cannot tell where the real milk campaign went, but I can tell you what happened to real milk. It is relatively simple.
In a nutshell, about 75 years ago when chemical pesticides came into everyday use on farms, everything began to change. These toxic controls allowed farmers to increase the crop production on a farm but took a severe toll on the nutrient densities in the plants that were used to feed the cows. Grains became much more accessible to grow, becoming commodities that were all valued equally, even though the soil they came from was not equal.
All grain, all good? What a lie.
All milk, all good? What a lie.
As if something can be something other than what it is made up of. Cows disappeared off pastures and barns were built to house them. Big mistake. Cows do not belong in barns year around. Grain was cheap and heavily subsidized, causing massive issues with soil and runoff. Production of milk was stimulated by grain. More milk meant more dilution of the best ingredients in milk: the fats and proteins. Fat in milk is excellent protection for the body, and many people who cannot consume whole or skim milk can handle cream. For a good many years, fat was demonized by academia and big food interests through media.
In the mid-1950s, milk was pasteurized because of the many more pathogens that became problematic due to the use of heavy grain feeding. Also, monoculture nutrients in grain had dropped significantly as soils quickly depleted when these monocultures became the norm. Toxic controls for weeds and bugs were considered the only management needed. The mentality was, if we had a problem, we would nuke it with chemicals. Monocultures historically never worked in the long run. Feeding this much grain reduced the efficacy and safety of milk.
In the late 1980s, with GMOs coming online, organic milk came into its own and those who could would buy it raw from their neighbors when possible. Raw milk (real raw milk) became a hot black market item.
As if that was not enough, we sinned against milk even more by introducing ultra-pasteurization. This was ultra bad for milk.
So, milk before the mid-1900s era was free of two significant things that were problematic: toxins and toxic pasteurization. Hindsight is always 20/20, but as you can see, the problems were and are compounding and compelling. Toxic chemistry in soil reduces nutrients, causing adverse reactions. Digestibility was lost as it was heated for pasteurization to ever higher temperatures. Ultra-pasteurization was much worse on several counts because sugar and vitamins were added to mask the burnt fat flavor. Both are also toxic and unnatural to milk. We all know some of the issues with sugar, but milk has enough of that already, especially for children over three and susceptible adults. That goes for grass-fed and organic milk as well.
The second major issue is the ever-increasing toxin load that comes in the form of the chemicals, GMOs and hormones that are used to keep unhealthy cows cycling and somewhere near profitable fertility. If you understand chemical toxins, it is also essential to understand the relationship of nutrient density and toxin load and how both reduce the usefulness and safety of a so-called healthy food.
If farmers want to learn a lesson from history, pay attention. Organic milk was poo-pooed for a long time. Now grass-milk, meaning milk from 100 percent organic grass-fed grain free cows, is taking what?s left of the market by storm. Raw is in more demand than ever.
Backing into the future. Cows belong on pasture. Most company milk cartons that are used by processors want to portray their cows on pasture. But most cows are not on pasture.
You see what we have done? We are producing a product in mass that is quickly and cheaply produced, but unfortunately, that is not what people want or need. We call that oversupply, and it seems like American farmers have been here before.
We can come up with supply management programs and other subsidies, all the while ignoring what it is that milk drinkers really want: something that is real, safe, tastes excellent and is not only healthy, but genuinely nutritious. Fake milk of any kind cannot be that.
Roman Stoltzfoos, Kinzers, Pennsylvania
Raw Milk Critic Misleads Readers
Shame, shame, shame on Bruce W. Krupke from the Northeast Dairy Foods Association.
This is yet another example of a ?leader? of the dairy industry, claiming to represent dairy farmers while obviously representing the processor.
Krupke?s argument against raw milk sales is so full of holes it?s laughable. Why is it not good for dairy production? The processors have too much milk anyway ? they claim ? so why not help them out?
The reason the practice is not good for processing industries is because it is takes the milk control away from them. As far as the consumer goes, raw milk is increasingly what consumers want, so get on board, mister.
The reason raw milk occasionally sickens someone is because the pasteurization process you worship destroys important enzymes in the milk, leading to the body?s inability to digest those enzymes, thus creating a backlog or illness when raw milk is once again consumed after a long absence.
Krupke fails to point out that recent findings indicate that the ultra-pasteurized and ultra-high temperature pasteurized milk that our ?leaders? promote contains much more dangerous pathogens than raw milk. These findings, of course, are never revealed to the general public. In fact, the processing of milk leads to lactose intolerance. Several experts testify that there is no such thing as real intolerance of lactose, which has been altered during the pasteurization and homogenization of milk. Do your research.
Krupke further claims that packaged raw milk sales are illegal from a milk plant. For the title Mr. Krupke carries, he sure seems to be ignorant. It is perfectly legal in Pennsylvania, but does come under more regulations. If consumers take for granted that all milk has been pasteurized, maybe they had better open their eyes, because all raw milk is prominently labeled as such and also includes the FDA?s absurd claims regarding safety.
All in all, Krupke?s claims are misleading. Why should all milk be either pasteurized or raw? Why not give consumers a choice, just as they have with all other products? Raw milk was consumed for millennia with no ill effects. Only since the advent of processing has raw milk illness and lactose intolerance come into play.
Finally, it is obvious that Krupke?s claims are an attempt to gain final control over all milk produced and not so much about public welfare. It is nauseating ? but normal ? that a person who claims to represent the dairy farmer, and draws a sizable salary off our backs, attacks a product which was ultimately created by God, essentially claiming that our creator must have made a mistake.
If raw milk were so detrimental to drink, cows would have a built-in pasteurizer.
Simeon Beiler, Bird-In-Hand, Pennsylvania
Conventional Dairy Is the Problem, Not Raw Milk
In response to Mr. Krupke?s letter:
Actually, nine years ago I took Mr. Krupke?s advice. I bought my own milking cow so that I could have wholesome healthy milk to drink. I did this after going to the supermarket to purchase cream for the purpose of making some cream of mushroom soup. I wanted pure cream for my soup. I read the labels on four brands of cream, to ensure that the contents of the container held pure cream. But, all of them had mono and diglycerides added. They are emulsifiers to fool the public by making the cream seem thicker.
Mr. Krupke is concerned that raw milk sales are taking away sales from the conventional dairy industry. He wants to make the sale of raw milk, or what I would call real milk, illegal, because he sees real milk as a threat to the conventional dairy industry.
Conventional dairy sales are falling because the public is realizing that the product the dairy industry produces is not healthy and does not taste good. Put a glass of real milk up against processed milk for a taste test and the real milk will win every time.
Real milk producers feed their cows grass on pasture in the spring, summer and fall, and dry forage in winter. Grass is what cow?s digestive systems are designed by nature to digest. Grass is what cows should be eating. Grassfed cows generally have healthy immune systems and produce healthy, great tasting milk.
For a view of what conventional dairy farmers feed their cows to push production, let us take a look at Eastern Dairy Reporter, found every month in Lancaster Farming. There is a section called ?Feed Dollars & Cents? that lists ingredients and their cost. The purpose of providing this information is to give dairy farmers cost information to use in their formulation of their feed ration for their dairy cows. It is an effort to feed their cows profitably. The article is not concerned about the cows? health or the quality of the milk being offered to the public. It is only about enabling the farmer to save money. Some of the ingredients listed are tallow, blood meal, fish menhaden meal and feathers hydrolyzed meal. Seriously?
Feeding tallow and blood meal to milk cows?
Mr. Krupke attacks raw milk as unsafe for the public to drink. I suggest that cows eating tallow, blood and feathers are the animals producing milk that?s not fit for the public to drink. No wonder they have to kill the milk by pasteurizing it before it is offered to the public. He should look to his own house to understand why the public does not want to drink his milk.
Mr. Krupke should not be blaming farmers who are producing real milk for his industry?s problems.
David Hirsh, Carlisle, Pennsylvania
Raw Milk Solutions, Not Raw Sensationalism
While many of us work diligently toward finding solutions where Pennsylvania?s dairy industry could thrive, it would be exciting to see trusted publications do the same rather than refer to sensationalized reports on the RB51 situation.
In reality, since the early 1960s, there are only three recorded cases of RB51 vaccine-related illnesses connected to raw dairy. The real story related to the recent RB51 vaccine-related illness is that agencies, farmers and organizations came together to quickly uncover unknowns and work toward solutions for an even safer raw milk product being offered to consumers.
In fact, while an unfortunate incident, it has led to remarkable teamwork among the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, raw milk producers, consumers and nonprofits, all dedicated to supporting small farms with an emphasis on consumer safety.
Publications such as this have the opportunity to support and strengthen relationships between raw dairy farmers and the Ag Department. These relationships have the power to shift a growing black market of raw milk sales into safe, transparent practices. The depth of the crisis in the dairy industry determines the level of risk farmers are willing to take to protect their families financially. By supporting farmers who wish to transition to raw milk or raw cheese products, the Ag Department offers farmers an option to get out of crisis while finding a legal and safe way to produce a product people desperately want and will go to great lengths to obtain.
Rather than dismiss raw milk as a fad for a fringe population, it would serve our farming communities well to recognize the power of raw milk and raw milk cheeses ? when produced safely and supported by the Ag Department processes ? to bring farmers out of crisis and provide a desirable product to Pennsylvania residents and visitors alike.
Lancaster County is uniquely positioned as a dairy community. With this comes added challenges and benefits to Lancaster County farmers. With conventional dairy in crisis, farmers are exploring other options for milk sales. Demand for raw milk increases daily. Consumers turn to this food for as many reasons as there are people ? taste, supporting local farms, allergies to pasteurized milk, creative cooking, individual cheese making experiments, and so much more.
Lancaster County dairy farmers are perfectly suited to meet the growing demand for raw milk products with their rich soils, proximity to urban areas, and draw as a tourist attraction. However, this can and must be done with human safety firmly in mind.
Pennsylvania has pledged to help farmers succeed. One such indication of this is the Ag Department?s permitting of raw milk and raw milk cheeses and their active support in educating farmers who wish to produce these products. In fact, just this past week, members of the Ag Department participated in ?A Day About Pennsylvania Dairy? workshop held by the Real Food Consumer Coalition. Farmers learned the importance of food safety from Penn State scientists. They learned about the permitting process from the Ag Department?s Lydia Johnson and her team. They learned about herd health from Dr. Wolfgang, recently retired state veterinarian. And they learned the ins-and-outs of business plans, marketing and state financial support from Ag Department Deputy Secretary Cheryl Cook, Penn State contributors, Team PA and independent marketers.
This meeting was a first of its kind, an opportunity for the Ag Department and raw dairy farmers to work toward the noble goal of clean, safe, permitted raw milk for all who want it while empowering a dairy industry in crisis to learn the science and safety of producing raw milk for a thirsty population hungry for direct-to-farmer connections.
There is no greater way to highlight the role of Lancaster County?s importance in agriculture than to empower and support dairy farmers in producing clean, safe raw milk for human consumption. This publication could do a huge service to all by working to promote the strengthening relationship between raw dairy farmers and the agencies that teach and monitor safety, and not continuing to dismiss raw milk farmers and the millions of consumers who depend on them.
Liz Reitzig, Founder, Real Food Consumer Coalition
Consumers Want Raw Milk
Making it Illegal Would Make it Unsafe
Over the last few months, a series of articles and opinion pieces have appeared in Lancaster Farming that cover concerns about the safety of raw milk.
Regardless of personal opinion about the subject, raw milk is legal for sale in Pennsylvania and is embraced by many Pennsylvania consumers. Raw milk sales happen in every state in our nation, regardless of legal status.
A recent study based on publicly available data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention?s National Outbreak Reporting System and the United States Census Bureau, titled ?Recent Trends in Unpasteurized Fluid Milk Outbreaks, Legalization, and Consumption in the United States? concludes, ?The potential for foodborne illness continues to be a small but real risk from consuming unpasteurized fluid milk, but analysis of data over a 12 year period demonstrates that increased access to this product within the United States has not led to increased outbreak rates. On the contrary, total reported unpasteurized milk-associated outbreaks have declined since 2011, despite increased production, and outbreak rates proportional to estimated consumption rates have declined by 74 percent over the 12 year period.?
The fact is, there is consumer demand for the product. There is no benefit to driving markets underground where there is surely increased potential for harm to consumers.
Lancaster Farming conducted an online poll this week seeking readers? perceptions of raw milk. When I checked (this letter was submitted Tuesday night), over 70 percent of respondents selected ?It?s a healthful product and farmers should be allowed to sell it if they want to,? as opposed to less positive choices. This is a similar outcome to a recent poll conducted at the Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture conference in Lancaster last month which had 262 responses. In response to the question, ?Do you consume fluid raw milk,? 61 percent responded yes; 13 percent no, due to lack of access; 12 percent no, due to not drinking milk at all; 8 percent never thought about it; 3 percent no, due to safety concerns; and 3 percent simply responded no. A full 90 percent responded yes to ?Do you support expanded access to raw milk and raw milk products??
As history has taught us with other products for human consumption, and using the terminology of the aforementioned journal article, one must question the benefits of a prohibition-based over a harm reduction-based regulatory approach. The Prohibition Era itself, and the increase in deaths correlated to the decrease in safety of a black market product, surely taught us some lessons.
The authors of the article conclude, ?...evidence was not found that supports the position that the legalization of unpasteurized milk within a jurisdiction will cause an increase in outbreaks. Indeed, (data shows) that increased legal access after 2010 has been concurrent with generally declining outbreak rates, irrespective of change in consumption.?
Consumers are getting their raw milk from somewhere. Surely we want these purchases to be made from farms engaged in a transparent, legal and traceable system.
Hannah Smith-Brubaker, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture
Raw Milk Perspective
Estimated world deaths by starvation per year: 9 million.
Estimated world deaths by drug overdoses per year: 570,000.
Estimated world deaths by raw milk consumption: zero in past 11 years.
Should we strain at a gnat and swallow a camel?
Melvin Oberholtzer Jr., Womelsdorf, Pa.
The opinions expressed on this page are not necessarily those of this newspaper. Lancaster Farming welcomes all respectfully stated opinions on all topics related to agriculture. Email Steve Seeber: sseeber.eph@LNPnews.com
August 7th 2018
The Honourable Adrian Dix
Minister of Health
Room 337 Parliament Buildings Victoria British Columbia V8V 1X4
I write to inform your Ministry on an issue where there is a disconnect in the understanding of officials who deal with public policy
regarding specific foods, versus facts readily available. Particularly : fresh raw milk for drinking.
A handy example of that mistake being : in 2017, over 400 people got sick from a disease outbreak caused by them having eaten B. C. oysters.
Forty more people have been made ill this year, that we know of. It is not unusual that shellfish consumption results in illness -- the Centres for Disease Control has recorded 400 outbreaks caused by oysters, resulting in 2,982 illnesses, 82 hospitalizations, and 3 deaths. In absolute terms, given that few people eat raw oysters, this sounds very much like a ?health hazard.? Yet with this evidence before it, the policy of Ministry of Health government of B. C. is : such risk of harm to the public health is 'manageable'.
Clause 2(a) of the Health Hazards Regulation categorizes raw milk as a ?health hazard? but raw oysters are not. Farmers who distribute milk for people to drink without par-boiling it first - even those whose milk tests entirely free of pathogens ? are prosecuted. At the same time B.C. Government provides funds to encourage the shellfish industry. Recently, Agriculture Minister Popham met with members of the BC Shellfish Growers Association and expressed support for shellfish farmers in BC. She said she met with them:
?to talk about how our Government can support the people behind this important industry.
As the Minister of Agriculture, I'm excited to work with BC's shellfish growers to support their production of internationally renowned seafood products.?
Raw milk is legal for distribution in 43 of the united States of America, France, Germany and many other nations world-wide. In England, the conclusion of a major review of its policy on raw drinking milk by the Food Safety Agency, was : to maintain the status quo whereby 100 or so artisanal dairies provide raw milk to anyone who wants it, perfectly legally. Same in New Zealand. But here in B.C., famers and consumers are under threat of up to three million dollar fines or three years jail under the Public Health Act RSBC. Hundreds of raw milk consumers
have written to the Ministry of Health over the last several years to ask for the law to be changed, with most receiving no responses to their letters. The few people who did receive replies got dismissive form-letters citing outdated outbreak statistics (prior to 2012).
Public health policy staff will cite outbreak statistics to argue that raw milk can?t be legalized, but do they tell you:
? How many of those outbreaks were caused by farmers who were producing milk using methods intended
for pasteurization, not methods intended for direct consumption?
? How many farmers were RAWMI-trained?
? How many farmers were testing their milk?
? How many farmers had on-farm food safety plans?
When there is a raw milk outbreak, the Center for Disease Control in the U.S. does not gather this information.
Instead, it treats all raw milk as if it is the same. This is not true.
Note that ? unlike in Europe - training in how to produce raw milk safely only became generally available in North America after 2011 when the
Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI) was established. Despite asking governments for the same kind of support in developing on-farm food safety system
as has been available since the mid-1990s to other agricultural sectors such as meat processors, the raw milk sector has been consistently refused, and had to develop its own system.
Since the Milk Marketing Board refused to discharge its mandate to accommodate demand for REAL MILK ? by which I mean
whole fresh pure raw un-adulterated milk from grass-fed cows, raised humanely - we turned to the model of dairying known as ?cowsharing?.
In the court case where Fraser Health Authority prosecuted agister Alice Jongerden, Madam Justice Gropper designated me representative for people
who want REAL MILK for ourselves. We?re not asking for raw milk to be available via commercial sales. Rather, we want your administration simply to acknowledge that we have the right to use and enjoy our own property ... milk from our cows we own.
When Commissioner J V Clyne wrote the report upon which the Milk Industry Act was predicated he said there should always be a way for people who want raw milk to get it. As a raw milk consumer in B.C. ? one of thousands ? I want your government to start treating producers and consumers of all foods fairly. I urge your advisers to repeal Clause 2(a) of the Health Hazards Regulation. Let regulation of raw drinking milk be under the Ministry
of Agriculture, where it started and where it properly belongs.
I've been involved in the Campaign for REAL MILK since 1999. I know quite a bit more about it than people in your ministry, apparently, do.
I would appreciate an appointment to meet with you or your staff at your convenience, in order for me to educate all-concerned. One of the things that needs to be dealt with, is = the fact that the BC Milk Marketing Board payed $2000 to the constituency of a certain MLA, in 2009. Never before nor since, has the Milk Marketing Board contributed to a political party. Coming mere months after the regulation at issue was imposed, there is no other, more logical explanation for that transaction but that it was a payoff for the Liberals making sure that quota-holders in the dairy supply racket do not get embarrassed by consumers finding out how much better REAL MILK is, than what?s found on the shelves of retail stores, mislabelled ?homo milk?. It doesn?t take a degree in political science to figure out that that kickback was for the Liberals to give color of law to ?restraint of trade?. I suspect that - one way or another ? that bribe is fungible to the $100 million dollar fund maintained by the Dairy Farmers of Canada for lobbying. Since the ?raw milk? file is your responsibility, then it is incumbent upon you to investigate why that money was payed to a political party. If a crime was committed, then call in the Criminal Justice Branch to prosecute those responsible for breach of section 121 of the Criminal Code : influence peddling.
?Since I started paying attention to this issue, the state of Washington has gone from 1 tiny raw milk dairy to 43. Point being ? that demonstrates consumer demand which officials there have found a way to accommodate. Same with California, where Organic Pastures Dairy produces and delivers 70,000 portions per week, of wonderful wholesome REAL MILK, perfectly legally. And no one gets sick. Thus proving there is a way to collaborate towards a solution which benefits everyone.
Gordon S Watson??#4 5177 William Head Road Metchosin British Columbia V9C 4H5?
Vegetarian-ism reconsidered : an excellent interview with a lady who spent 20 years as a vegan, then changed her diet ;
free podcast URL via the Weston A Price website
Well, we are a bit in love with raw milk and its many extraordinary health benefits. Not for nought has it earned its reputation as one of the world?s most powerful healing foods.
Here are just a few interesting facts about raw milk:
? All mothers, including cows, provide natural enzymes in their milk.
These enzymes act like a toolkit to enable infants, whose digestive systems are not yet fully developed, to absorb and utilise all of the nutrients available in the milk. Heat treatment destroys the greater proportion on these natural enzymes.
? Fresh raw milk contains a full range of A B C D and K vitamins, which are very delicate creatures. They are easily killed off by heat treatment (pasteurisation) and they don?t stick around for long after milking. By the time milk is 7-10 days old, most of the vitamins will have died of old age.
? The calcium in raw milk is fully soluble and digestible, however higher pasteurisation temperatures can cause the calcium to become insoluble,
a bit like the scale on the element of a kettle. Once it has reached this state, the human body cannot absorb it and it becomes useless.
? In order to make use of calcium, your body needs soluble vitamin D. Whole raw milk is chock-full of fat-soluble vitamin D but here?s the catch:
it?s only soluble and digestible when there is plenty of raw milk-fat available for it to dissolve in. So in order to get the calcium and vitamin D
from your milk, you need to drink it raw and full-fat. Skimmed milk contains hardly any vitamin D and therefore less calcium can be absorbed by the body.
? Another fat-soluble vitamin available abundantly in raw milk, is vitamin A. Like vitamin D however, if the fat in the milk is damaged or removed,
the levels of vitamins drop to almost nothing. This can happen when milk is being carted around by tanker, collected from the dairy and delivered
via multiple pumps and pipes to the processing plant. During all this upheaval, the milk becomes aerated and oxidation of the fats occurs.
This can cause milk to taste ?off? and also significantly reduces the amount of vitamins available in the milk. Milk drunk straight from the farm
has not had excessive aeration and pumping. The fat soluble vitamins are conserved and the flavour remains fresh.
So in essence, drinking raw milk straight from the farm and as fresh from milking as you can possibly get it, will ensure you get the full compliment of vitamins, digestive enzymes and health benefits
above item is from the website of Fen Dairy in Bungay Suffolk England
THE CASE FOR BUTTER
By Trauger Groh Biodynamic Farmer, Author & Lecturer
Butter and Honey shall He eat that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good
The use of butter for human nutrition and the processing of milk into cream and then butter is as old as the keeping of cattle as domestic animals. It goes back to prehistoric times. The process is simple and has been in use for thousands of years. Raw milk is put into vats and placed in a cool place. After twenty-four hours, most of the cream rises to the surface and can be skimmed off with a flat spoon, owing to the fact that the fat globules are the lighter part of the milk. Traditionally the cream is then fermented by acid-producing germs. This process takes about 24 to 36 hours in the summer and when it is completed the sour cream is mechanically beaten with wooden tools until the butterfat globules stick together and the protein-carrying liquid ? the buttermilk ? is released. Then the butter is washed thoroughly to get out all remaining protein particles. Finally, the butter is kneaded to remove as much water as possible, then salted and formed.
Since man began to make and use butter, he made it from ripened matured cream ? sour cream. A change to unsoured or sweet cream butter came only during the 1940?s. The reasons for the change were purely technical. Machines work most economically and profitably when they run permanently. Buttering machines were constructed that transformed sweet cream endlessly into butter. Sour cream at this time resisted this process. You had to fill the churn with one batch of sour cream, finish buttering, clean the churn and start again. Thus for purely technical reasons, people became used to sweet cream butter.
The standard book about butter making from 1915, Principles and Practise of Butter Making by McKay and Larson, does not even mention sweet cream butter. Here is what the authors say about making butter:
?To Produce Flavor and Aroma: The chief object of cream-ripening is to secure the desirable and delicate flavor and aroma which are so characteristic of good butter. These flavoring substances, so far as known, can only be produced by a process of fermentation. It is a well known fact that the best flavor in butter is obtained when the cream assumes a clean, pure, acid taste during the ripening. For this reason, it is essential to have the acid-producing germs predominate during the cream ripening; all other germs should, if possible, be excluded or suppressed. . . . When cream has been properly ripened, it is practically a pure culture of lactic-acid-producing germs, while sweet unpasteurized cream contains a bacterial flora, consisting of a great many types of desirable and undesirable germs.?
Here a very important point is touched on: Lactic-acid-producing germs ? very helpful for our digestion ? are able to suppress all other unwanted, even pathogenic, germs. Lactic-acid fermentation is far superior to the heating of milk (pasteurization) in suppressing pathogenic germs. The pasteurization of the milk dramatically changes the fine composition of the raw milk. Even warming to 120 degrees Fahrenheit alters this fine composition that includes various proteins, vitamins, sugars and enzymes. Homogenization destroys the butterfat globules so much that the cream can no longer rise in the milk. The milk is denaturalized.
Buttering cream is, as we have seen, a purely mechanical process. The quality of the cream is the deciding factor, and this means that the cream should be properly ripened and contain a preponderance of lactic-acid producing germs. The cream ripening is usually achieved with the help of a starter. Besides a pure culture obtained by a laboratory, we can use as a natural starter a great many dairy products which are supposed to contain a preponderance of those germs involved in producing the desirable flavor in butter: buttermilk, sour cream, whey, sour whole or skimmed milk. A great advantage of sour cream buttering is that it produces, besides the butter, the refreshing and highly digestible buttermilk. The buttermilk coming out of modern sweet cream buttering tastes flat and cannot be used for human consumption. True buttermilk is no longer on the market. What is on the market under this name is not the result of the buttering process of sour cream. It is usually pasteurized skimmed milk, fermented with a laboratory culture.
At the beginning of this century we still had experienced, old country medical doctors. When they were called to a baby that had an intolerance of cow?s milk, they often gave the farmers the advice to separate a cow from the herd and to feed her only good hay? no grain, no silage (which was not in use anyway), no mangels or rutabagas? and feed the child with the milk of this cow. Most babies then could digest this milk. If in some cases the child could not take this milk, then doctors recommended feeding buttermilk from farm-produced butter. I have myself experienced such a case in my youth where a starving child could be helped that way.
The point I want to make here is that the quality of the butter depends on the quality of the cream and its proper fermentation. The quality of our cream depends on the quality of the milk and the quality of the milk depends on the way the animals are fed on the farm. Cows that are fed as it is usual in this country with concentrates containing grain and soy, in addition to large amounts of corn silage and with only a little hay produce large amounts of milk? 20,000 pounds and more per year? but have constant light diarrhea and often have diseased livers, a fact that shows up only in the slaughterhouse. Their milk is of a totally different quality than the milk of a cow fed with grass and hay. Their lives are on the average ended within five or six years instead of twelve to fifteen years that a properly fed cow can reach.
After the suffering of the cow comes the suffering of the milk. The milk has to be deep cooled on the farm because the milk truck comes only two or three times a week (energy use). In the factory it has to be warmed up for the separator that separates the cream (energy use). Then the cream and the de-creamed milk have to be pasteurized with another high use of energy. Then cream and skimmed milk have to be united again into ?whole milk.? Part of the cream goes into butter. Everything then has to be deep cooled, transported and deep cooled again before it comes into the hands of the consumer (more energy use). In the whole process, many vitamins are lost. No problem! ... synthetic vitamin A is added. Who expects this white liquid or this whitish, tasteless butterfat to have any life-giving properties? In addition to all that is mentioned, the milk has to be pushed and sucked through miles of pipes that have to be chemically cleaned. Here ?more often than you think? a late new germ infection is happening in the pasteurized matter.
Farm to close-to-farm processing saves huge amounts of energy and leaves the life forces of the milk intact. The consumers have to fight for the right to choose raw milk and raw milk products from farms they know and trust. They have to fight for their rights against the close cooperation of dairy industry and state veterinarians.
This country was based on a concept of freedom. We have to fight to reestablish the freedom of choice on all levels! The right to choose the medication I trust; the right to choose the school I trust for my children; and the right to choose the food I trust from the sources I know and can trust
following is a good article summing-up why commercial "homo milk" on the retail store shelves is mis-labelled.
It's more properly called an ersatz industrial fluid ? the nutritional value of which is questionable.
Ignoring Mainstream Propaganda
Junk mail. We all get it. Sure, in a lot of cases it?s called ?spam? these days. But the snail-mail hardcopy still finds its way to the front door.
Like most people, I just give it a cursory glance and relegate it to the recycle bag. Usually, it?s not much more than an annoyance. It?s about stuff I wouldn?t have
or don?t have any use for at all. So it?s really not much of a problem, just wasteful.
But occasionally, something really gets my goat. (Hey, would that I had a goat. I could feed the mail to him!) Sometimes that junk mail is downright dangerous.
Take for example the junk mail from companies like TruGreen wanting me to poison my lawn and the neighbors by paying to have their company come dose the ?hood with toxins.
And why does Hillary keep sending me mail? Thank goodness Trump doesn?t have my address yet.
But the worst example of dangerous junk mail arrived in the box the other day. It comes from the folks at Nebraska Medicine. I guess that?s the multibillion-dollar
layout in Midtown that includes god-knows how many square miles of institutionalized medical services. Now, make no mistake, in the event of acute trauma or physical crisis,
there is no better place to be than an American emergency room. It?s a place where miracles are made every day. But the rest of American medicine? Whew.
And that?s what gets touted in this eight-page ad book that came the other day.
Just before casting it aside, this glossy glimmer caught my eye: Got Milk? The Dairy Debate. ?Hey, debate?? I thought to myself. ?Mainstream medicine getting hip??
Boy, was I mistaken. I read on. The ?debate? lasted exactly one paragraph of meaningless hype. It disappeared faster than a Federal subsidy check on the desk of the nearest
corporate dairy. As soon as the piece started quoting a Nebraska Medicine practitioner identified as a ?medical nutrition therapist,? the story went south.
She started with the statement that ?milk is an excellent source of ? calcium, vitamin D, potassium and phosphorus.? That bit of ignorance is in and of itself a disqualifier for any further legitimacy.
Prose and Cons. Let?s get one thing straight. Milk is not a source of vitamin D. There is no vitamin D in milk. Milk? Vitamin D? No! Nada! Zip!
It is more honest to say, ?Plastic bottles are a source of vitamin D? ? because you can walk into any store and buy vitamin D capsules. Doesn't mean you should eat plastic bottles.
And further, the calcium in milk is not easy for your body to use. It?s not going to help your bones as much as the calcium from spinach or kale, for example. In other words, its bioavailability is questionable.
The stuff you can buy on the supermarket shelf is a far cry from what is really milk. In a nutshell, it goes like this: Milk comes out of Farmer John?s cows. That could be a herd of 20 in a small milking barn but more likely a herd of five thousand cows who have never seen the sun, penned in a huge metal building. It?s put in tanker trucks and shipped to a giant processing plant. One tanker truck could contain milk from hundreds of different cows from different farms. Once at the plant, it?s filtered to get out pus and some bacteria, heated in the pasteurization process, believed to make it safe but also changing its makeup and destroying enzymes and other nutrients. It?s homogenized by a mechanical process that breaks up the long chain fatty acids into uniform short molecules so that they remain suspended in the final product without cream rising to the top. Forget about the fact that those long chain fatty acids are supposed to remain as long chain fatty acids for proper digestion.
The milk is dismantled into its various components of milk fat, milk serum and liquid. Some of the fat goes into making butter and cream products. The rest is recombined in varying amounts to make skim, low-fat or whole milk. That?s how we get 0%, 1%, 2% and 4% milks at the store. Or did you think there were cows that pumped out a certain type of milk? Then, Vitamins D and A are added to the liquid. It?s recombined into the appropriate marketing formula and packaged as ?milk.? It?s about as far from the milk found in nature as Twinkies are from spinach. The corporate storyline is just a bunch of empty prose, kids.
The Vitamin D Myth. So, that added vitamin D is what allows a college-trained nutritionist to call milk a source of vitamin D. Yes, milk in the store will give you Vitamin D ? just like a plastic bottle on a shelf will give you a vitamin D supplement. But it gets even worse. The vitamin D added to milk, according to the USDA database, is vitamin D2. That?s not even the kind of vitamin D our bodies need! We need vitamin D3. Look it up.
Break No Bones About It. Let?s end with this tidbit. In a 12-year Harvard study of 78,000 women, those who drank milk three times a day actually broke more bones than women who rarely drank milk. Similarly, a 1994 study of elderly men and women in Sydney, Australia, showed that higher dairy product consumption was associated with increased fracture risk. Those with the highest dairy product consumption had approximately double the risk of hip fracture compared to those with the lowest consumption.
Yes, there is a debate about dairy. But it?s not going to be found in the prejudiced, ignorant propaganda put out in junk mail by mainstream medicine.
Now, if you want to talk about raw milk from a reputable, small, clean dairy farm,that?s a whole other story.
Heartland Healing is a metaphysically based polemic describing alternatives to conventional methods of healing the body, mind and planet. It is provided as information and entertainment, certainly not medical advice. Important to remember and pass on to others: for a weekly dose of Heartland Healing, visitHeartlandHealing.com.
below is an article of utmost importance. Unaware that milk which has been cooked = pasteurized = has lost its Vitamin K2, the author is dismissive of "dairy". Otherwise, the insight she's gained from her experience is MOST important for curing ... yes, curing ... psoriasis. REAL MILK has a major part to play in that.
? In the summer of 2014, my psoriasis flared dramatically. By the time I saw my dermatologist, 90% of my body was affected by a combination of plaque and guttate psoriasis. The diagnosis: severe.
Psoriasis is a chronic skin condition that affects three to five out of every 100 people in North America and Europe. It?s a four-billion-dollar-a-year business for pharmaceutical companies in the US alone. It devastates its sufferers and it?s incurable.
Those who suffer with this disease spend thousands of dollars on creams and medications. They fall for pyramid scheme snake oil promises of a cure because they are desperate. They risk their health on pharmaceuticals that can thin their skin, suppress their immune system or damage their liver or kidneys. There are always side effects.
My dermatologist suggested methotrexate, a chemo drug that can possibly affect the liver. To be eligible for MSP (Medical Services Plan of BC) coverage of the newer ?biologics,? it would have to be proven that the methotrexate was either not working or was damaging my body. If I wanted to bypass the methotrexate ? and MSP coverage ? and go directly to biologics, it would cost in the neighbourhood of $20,000 to $25,000 a year. And there is no guarantee the biologics will work.
Here?s where a handful of luck is better than a boatload of knowledge. I searched the Internet and found the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) and joined the NPF-sponsored Team Inspire discussion group. There, I found a thread ? patient hosted discussion ? about a little known combination of the vitamins D3 and K2. And there were impressive photos. With nothing to lose, I ordered the vitamins. I had already eliminated dairy from my diet.
Six weeks after starting this vitamin protocol, I did not have one spot of psoriasis on my body, for the first time in 47 years.
I started my own thread on the NPF Team Inspire site called ??and his jaw dropped.? I chose this title because when my dermatologist saw me after I?d been on this protocol for only five weeks ? his jaw dropped. Within a few months, the thread had grown significantly. Other people were also getting results.
But then things got strange. Trolls began visiting the thread with warnings about the dangers of high vitamin D3 consumption. Warning letters came from Team Inspire. Deletions of posts occurred ? some of them mine and some from those who posted on the thread. More warnings from the ?Team? arrived threatening my suspension from my own discussion group. I wrote to them asking ?Why?? but received no response.
I found another like-minded psoriasis sufferer, Charlie, in Kansas. He was writing about magnesium chloride used topically. Charlie had found out about magnesium chloride by accident when he was working on his pond, tormented by mosquitoes. He noticed his friend wasn?t getting bitten.
It turned out his friend was taking magnesium chloride, orally. Charlie found a bag of road de-icer, which is mostly magnesium chloride and, interestingly, the highest mineral content in the Dead Sea, a destination for thousands of people suffering from psoriasis. He mixed it with water and sprayed it on his arms. It worked and the mosquitoes retreated.
A few weeks later, he noticed the psoriasis on his arms was going away. He sprayed the solution all over his body and although it burned, he kept it up ? several times a day. Four months later, he was psoriasis free for the first time in over 30 years.
I was also using magnesium chloride along with the K2 and D3 so I suggested we join forces and start a new thread. Charlie was concerned he might have trouble running two discussion groups at the same time. His worries were promptly made irrelevant when Team Inspire shut down his thread. No explanation was given.
It had taken five months to get to 1,000 posts on my original thread. Our combined thread hit 1,000 in one month, the fastest growing thread in NPF history. People who had been using the K2-D3 combination saw their clearing jump dramatically with the addition of magnesium chloride. And the reverse was also true. When those who were using only magnesium chloride added the K2 and D3 supplements, their skin cleared more rapidly. We knew we were on to something.
But, as we were beginning to suspect, not everyone was happy about our success.
Here?s the reality. Pharmaceutical companies do not fund research of alternative remedies. There?s no money in it for them. They cannot patent supplements or vitamins. They fund research for allopathic ? treatment by conventional means ? medicines. Period.
Here is the list of the National Psoriasis Foundation corporate members in 2014:
Platinum: Abbvie, Celgene
Silver: Amgen, Janssen
Bronze: Novartis, Pfizer
Corporate: Lilly, Stiefel
Was this foundation being funded by large pharmaceutical companies? Were they in a conflict of interest? We had to wonder, especially after Charlie was again suspended, this time permanently. The more that people sent testimonials about the effectiveness of the protocol, the more we were being targeted.
We gave up, deciding the only way to get this information out to people was to start our own website, in which all the information about this protocol would be free. We used the testimonials that had been sent to us on the Inspire site ? 40 testimonials plus 10 sets of photographs from people who had gotten results.
Within two days, we were threatened by the NPF Team Inspire with legal action if we did not remove all the testimonials from our website. A second letter threatened permanent suspension for me, with the additional threat that all my posts on the Inspire site ? nine months of work ? would be removed.
We removed the testimonials. And Team Inspire removed all evidence that I had ever written on their site. Nothing remains. And I have been permanently banned from the National Psoriasis Foundation site.
My crime? I had shared a natural remedy that was non-patentable and that worked, not just for me, but also for many others. A remedy that costs very little to maintain. A remedy with virtually no side effects.
There is logic to this new protocol. If three to five people in North America and Europe suffer from psoriasis and only one to two per 1,000 suffer from it in Asian countries, some questions need to be asked, including, ?Could diet effect psoriasis??
Excess calcium has been found in psoriasis plaques. Another study stated that people with psoriasis had an inability to metabolize calcium. Until recently, most Asian countries consumed little dairy. As their consumption rises, so does their incidence of psoriasis.
The highest amount of the vitamin K2 (MK-7) can be found in only one food source: natto, a popular food in Japan.
Magnesium chloride is used in the production of tofu, eaten in most Asian countries. And it is used in other Asian foods.
Vitamin D3 is the sunshine vitamin. The use of sunscreen, along with spending most of the workday indoors, has created a D3 deprived population.
How does this protocol work? In a simplified version, vitamin D3 pulls excess calcium from soft tissue (skin) and arteries where it shouldn?t be. Magnesium chloride keeps the calcium fluid. And vitamin K2 (MK-7) directs the calcium to bones and teeth where it should be. Dairy is too concentrated a form of calcium for most psoriasis sufferers to tolerate.
It?s encouraging to see more documentaries showing the questionable workings of large pharmaceutical companies. They have deep pockets and use them to silence or discount the findings of smaller companies that promote less invasive, alternative treatments for numerous diseases.
But we need to beware. Recently, a so-called documentary about psoriasis shows a man whose life has been shattered by the disease, although you never actually see his psoriasis. His doctor puts him on an unnamed medication. It?s a feel-good story. His skin is cleared. Happy ending. However, scroll down through the credits and you see the final credit ? in small print ? is Janssen, a large pharmaceutical company and a Silver Corporate Member of the NPF.
While there is no cure ? hence the expression, ?the heartbreak of psoriasis? ? there are natural remedies that can reduce it to a minor irritation. Haven?t heard of them? Now you know why.
After decades of suffering from psoriasis, my skin has remained clear for over a year and a half.
For more information about this protocol ? all information is free ? visit freedomfrompsoriasis.com
...... the above article by Dakota Hamilton, is from page 8 of Common Ground magazine, for May 2016 ....................
Who?s afraid of cowshared milk?
By QUINN MACDONALD
Do you know what a cow is? It seems like a simple question. But have you really thought about it? ( If you grew up on a farm, you?re disqualified. ) That means she?s had at least one calf. Before that, she?s a heifer.
Similarly, you may not have considered the process milk goes through as it moves from a cow to your fridge. Pasteurization -- heating raw milk to 72 degrees Celsius or greater for at least 15 seconds ? has been around for more than a century. And for the last three decades in British Columbia, it?s been the law.
Raw milk is still widely available in many countries around the world, including in some European vending machines, but it cannot be legally sold or purchased in Canada, the only G8 country to outlaw its sale, as part of a 1990 amendment to the Food and Drug Act. Two years earlier, B. C. had passed a law that classified all raw milk as a ?health hazard?, and the law persists as Section 2 (a) of the Health Hazards Regulation under the Public Health Act.
The penalties for selling raw milk? Up to $3 million in fines and three years in prison. The only way to legally consume raw milk in Canada is to produce your own or bring back $20 worth from the U.S. per day.
With 545 dairy farms and 72,000 cows, B. C.?s dairy industry is the third largest in the country, behind Ontario and Quebec ; in 2009, the province?s cows produced over 650 million litres of milk and B. C.?s dairy farms are some of the largest in the country with an average of 135 milking cows each. The industry employs more than 11,000 people and contributes over $1 Billion to the economy. The Milk Industry Act regulates how that milk gets collected and pasteurized at one of 33 processors in B. C.
Raw milk today represents a conflict between personal freedom and social safety, as well as a tug-of-war between industrial farmers, raw milk lobbyists, and their competing health claims. How do we strike a balance between access to a fresh source of nutrients that hasn?t been pumped out of an abused animal and pumped full of anti-biotics while acknowledging potential dangers?
The BC Dairy Association (BCDA), a nonprofit society funded by the province?s dairy producers, includes a ?Raw Milk Q&A? on its website with links to ?real life stories? about what can go wrong. It claims pasteurized milk is a healthier choice ?because you can enjoy all the nutritional benefits of milk without the concern of contracting harmful and possible fatal diseases.?
And yet for all the warnings, people still drink raw milk. They just find ways around the law.
One avenue to raw milk is a cowshare. It?s a type of herdshare agreement in which consumers pay a farmer, or ?agister?, a fee to board their cow ( or a share of a cow), care for it, and milk it. You?d be forgiven for not knowing about cowshares : when it comes to finding raw milk, you need to know someone who knows someone in the know. And agisters often prefer to remain anonymous because of their quasi-legal status. ?It?s a very closed society, secret handshakes and stuff,? says ?Farmer?, a local agister located just outside Victoria who provides services for the owners of a cowshare.
Farmer, 58, speaks with a slight English accent. He arrived in Canada in 1997 to obtain a helicopter pilot?s licence and ended up working with Medevacs in Victoria. Becoming a raw milk agister wasn?t part of his career plan.
?Three months before the cows arrived, I hd no idea this was going to happen,? he says. On a hike in 2013, he met a nutritionist who suggested he drink raw milk, after which Farmer discovered how difficult it was to obtain. He had enough property and decided to help others, starting with a woman in Metchosin looking to get rid of her three cows, Audrey, LouLou and Victoria.
?I hit the ground running,? says Farmer. ?I made a lot of mistakes. I had to throw away a lot of milk.?
In September 2014, Mark McAfee, a raw-milk farmer and spokesman for the Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI) in California, gave a talk at the University of Victoria that is available on line. RAWMI was founded in 2011 because the U.S. also lacked standards for raw milk. The Institute?s guidelines act as a resource for regulators, farmers, consumers and legislators. ?You?ll never h ear us say ?guaranteed perfect? because no food is guaranteed perfect,? McAfee told the audience. ?In fact, the idea that pasteurized milk is perfect is far from true.? The U. S. Centres for disease Control and Prevention recorded 77 deaths associated with pasteurized cheese since 1972; there were zero deaths from raw milk during that time frame.
McAfee says that pasteurized milk is no longer milk but rather a milk product. Most people just don?t have anything to compare it to. ?Unfortunately when you don?t have a market that?s mature, like the raw milk market isn?t mature, then people don?t know what they don?t have, so they won?t go and say, ?Don?t take that from me.!?
How to collect clean raw milk
Victoria the cow meets Farmer at the gate, but first he needs to feed the new calf, Solstice. Born on June 21, the calf will stay on the farm until she?s weaned in four or five months. Calves take around two years to mature enough to produce milk. That costs money. Farmer says it?s easier to buy a ready-to-milk cow on UsedVictoria.com
In the milking parlor, Farmer gets a bucket of oats for Victoria and begins the cleaning process. Cleaning the udder has three purposes : it keeps the cow --- and the milk ? clean, while the massaging also triggers oxytocin production to ?let down? the milk and to promote the health of the udder. Farmer uses a soapy towel, folds it in four, and double cleans all four quarters of the udder, flecking off bits of manure before cleaning around the teat.
The goal is to maintain the teats : remove the shit but keep the hundreds of types of beneficial bacteria that live on them. Farmer hoses away dirt, dries off the teats with paper towel and does the ?stripping? by removing a few streams of milk by hand to check for abnormalities and encourage let down. The cleaning process takes more time than milking.
Fresh milk is warm and tastes slightly sour and more full than pasteurized milk. Farmer drinks the frothy liquid from a small container, something he always does out of respect for the cows.
The inconspicuous farmhouse where Farmer lives was built in 1913. The basement door looks on to the two acres of pasture, so he can keep an eye and an ear on the ?girls? and his helpers while he carries out the next step in the milking process: filtering. Filtering determines whether or not the milk will go into people?s jars. Farmer pours the of the can?s milk through the filter and inspects it. All clear except for a couple of specks. ?When I see things like that I think ?Ehhh, I didn?t do such a good job,? but you know, that?s totally okay, it?s a little grain of something.?
Just because Farmer is thorough doesn?t guarantee others will be ? which supports the case to legalize raw milk rather than leave its production underground. ?I know of other agisters that don?t even check their filters before they put the milk into the jars.? says Farmer.
Milk is tested for two main things: coliforms, bacteria found in the digestive tract of animals ( including humans) and standard plate count, the total number of bacteria in one millilitre of milk. There is also a routine yearly test for tuberculosis, a disease that no longer exists in B. C. Both Farmer and McAffee agree that showing consistently strong, safe test results is how to convince authorities to change the laws. Farmer tests every month and displays the results of the last two years on the fridge in the basement.
Farmer says the total coliform test results tell him how well he?s doing ?out there? in the milking parlor, while the standard plate count number reflects how well he?s doing ?in here?, where he does the filtering, bottling and cooling. Cooling and storage affect test results. To keep bacteria rates low, milk needs to be chilled as quickly as possible, as bacteria doubles every 20 minutes at room temperature. Farmer uses a converted freezer that he keeps at 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Since raw milk is illegal in B. C., the province has no test standards for it. Some commercial dairy farmers also keep high cleaning standards, but the milk from those who care and those who don?t all gets mixed together in one of the processors. Conscientious farmers don?t get compensated for the time spent keeping their operations clean.
A different kind of Herdshare
Farmer?s cows came with roughly 30 clients. That has grown to a total of 70 shares, although some members have multiple shares and others have only half-shares. ( One share is equal to four litres per week.) As Farmer fills the cowshare members? jars, he gestures to seven rows of wire shelves, one per day of the week, lined with name-tagged glass bottles. Members must provide and clean their own jars for the operation to remain legitimate. ?The law allows that you can drink milk from your own cow, but I can?t sell it and I can?t distribute it.? He explains, ?so if I was putting milk in my own jars then that would amount to distribution.? Farmer will reject any jar that appears contaminated.
Farmer doesn?t like the term ?cowshare? because of its association with people who operate illegally. He calls himself a ?bovine mechanic? and compares the process of doing an oil change for a car owner. This mentality sets Farmer apart from other would-be agisters who own their cows. Because Farmer?s cows came with member owners, he never developed a sense of control over them.
Farmer has also innovated how to run a cowshare. ?I knew nothing about it,? he admits, ?and it?s just a beginner?s mind: How should this be done?? He says his operation is now 95 per cent legal. Under the current contract, which covers both ownership and his services, he still has the final say over who can be a member; this power clouds clear ownership. He and the other members are working to turn the herdshare into a non-profit, which will then handle shares and hire Farmer purely for his bovine mechanics. ?It?s not tested in court,? he admits, ?but I believe we can have an entirely legal operation here.?
A 2003 reply letter to the herdshare from the Ministry of Agriculture about enjoying a ?dividend? from joint cow ownership explained that the Milk Industry Act ?does not prevent you from consuming unpasteurized milk from a cow which you own.? What if someone owns a cow but lacks the space or ability to care for the animal and hires someone else to do so ? can the owner still drink its raw milk? In a second letter, sent in 2015, Provincial Health Officer Dr. Perry Kendall pointed out that ?raw milk is considered a health hazard? and suggested ?the double boiler method for home pasteurization,? but, yes, the owner could drink it.
?So we know that the authorities agree that it can be done,? says Farmer. And yet the raw-milk trade remains illegal in B. C. ?It is ridiculous how they?ve got these regulations structured.?
When asked directly, Kendall remains opposed to legalizing unpasteurized milk and would not promote a regulatory framework for its sale. Unpasteurized milk, he says, has health risks, mostly food poisoning, especially for children and seniors. Kendall hasn?t seen positive test results from raw milk farmers in B. C. and says that persuasive evidence would require a big data set. Based on test results from Quebec, which has a regulatory regime for raw milk cheese, and from U. S. states that regulate unpasteurized milk, Kendall has still observed unacceptable levels of bacterial contamination and a higher risk of human illness.
?You can?t test every product, every litre of milk from every cow, every time you milk them.? says Kendall. ?I know people want to drink it. However, scientifically, I don?t think there?s much in the way of evidence to suggest it is beneficial.?
How to get raw milk legalized divides the raw-milk community. Farmer disagrees with outspoken advocate Michael Schmidt, the owner of Glencolton Farm in Ontario, who was convicted of distributing raw milk in 2011 ? and whose farm was raided again by authorities this fall. As a ?loose cannon?, Farmer says Schmidt has brought attention to the issue but also created publicity blowback for agisters.
Other raw-milk ?mechanics? have copied Farmer?s less controversial approach. ?I don?t have the baggage of people who?ve been doing it for decades and actually own the cows,? he says.
Getting operations quasi-legal, however, puts raw-milk producers in a paradox where the regulations don?t need to be changed. The status quo doesn?t help anyone who wants raw milk but doesn?t want to belong to a cowshare. And it doesn?t help dairy farmers or cowshare members recover revenue by selling the extra milk.
?It can?t be done legally within the existing structure,? says Farmer. ?But it would be better if we can change the regulations and make an honest living out of it.?
Cleaning up the Conditions
The final step in the milking process is cleaning up. Back in the milking parlor, Farmer says his ability to ensure his equipment is clean distinguishes his farm from larger commercial dairies, which use miles of pipe and large amounts of equipment ? making pasteurization necessary. He mops the rubber mats with diluted detergent and talks about how people are turning to raw milk herdshares to reconnect with the source of their food and understand how the animals are treated.
?A litre of raw milk is a fair amount more expensive than the stuff you buy in the grocery store,? says Farmer. ?But that?s a price they?re willing to pay.?
Farmer?s cows eat only non-GMO feed: grass from his field seven months of the year and hay for the rest. He plans to reseed his pasture next year with Indiginous grasses and legumes. As a treat during milking, his cows get a small amount of grain, using non-GMO pellets from a supplier in Duncan.
Farmer operates h is cows on a milking lifespan of 10 years; anything after that is a bonus. The ?girls? are between four and six-and-a-half years; the matriarch, LouLou, is nearing her peak. On commercial farms, the average lifespan is five years, as older cows are replaced with heifers and sold for meat. After 10 years, the volume of milk declines and the cows lose their value as producers, so the cowshare will decide as a group what to do then.
Testing the Health Benefits
At least 25 per cent of Farmer?s cowshare clients drink raw milk to benefit medical conditions, including Lyme Disease, Parkinson?s and gastric problems. Proponents of raw milk?s health benefits are often influenced by the ?Campaign for REAL MILK,? from the Weston A. Price Foundation. Founded in 1999, the foundation focuses on ?real? instead of processed foods and lobbies for universal access to raw milk.
Linda Morken, the head of the Victoria chapter, got involved with the foundation while treating a chronically-depressed immune system. ?I had a chest cold that lasted six weeks,? says Morken. ?That was the turning point.? Her research led to information about gut flora, which can affect physical and mental health. As chapter leader, she informs members about local sources for farm-fresh foods.
Morken is quick to point out that she?s just a grandma, not a nutritionist. She gets constant requests from people seeking raw milk and passes along names to raw-dairy farmers. Because of the law, she never gives out information on her own accord. ?There is more demand than there is supply,? says Morken.
Morken has written letters to the B. C. Minister of Health and editorials for local papers. ?It?s a simple food-rights issue,? she says. She also believes raw milk should be legalized so it can be regulated. ?I?d be afraid to drink raw milk that was not being raised according to standards that people who know how to keep raw milk safe, have developed,? she says, citing the work of McAffee.
The evidence, however, for the health benefits of raw milk remains anecdotal. In July 2015, John A Lucey, a professor of food science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and director of the Wisconsin Centre for Dairy Research, published a review titled ?Raw Milk Consumption: Risks and Benefits.? The article explains how ?recent scientific reviews by various international groups have concluded that there was no reliable evidence to support any of those suggested health benefits.?
The same review claims that pasteurization causes no changes in the protein quality or mineral concentration and only minor losses of vitamins. However, effects of the industrial dairy process not related to pasteurization ? such as packaging material, light exposure, storage time and temperature,and type of feed ? can impact the nutritional quality of the final milk product.
According to Dr Perry Kendall, reviews commissioned by the Office of the Provincial Health Officer suggest there is a risk with no real benefit. He is also troubled by how online advocates promote the benefits of raw milk for children, who are at a higher risk for serious outcomes and who, unlike adults, cannot make their own informed decisions.
And what if proponents of raw milk one day sway politicians to legalize their drink of choice? ?If the government did want to create a regulatory regime, I would like to be engaged in defining how strict it would have to be,? says Kendall. ?It would have to be self-financing, and I would want a caveat that said you do not give this product to children.?
Linda Morken thinks more research can be done to understand bacteria?s role in human health. ?I get dis-illusioned by the fact that our modern world thinks we have to prove everything in a reductionist kind of way,? she says. ?when it?s already been proven by thousands and thousands of years of tradition where people didn?t have the illnesses we see today.?
Both she and McAffee talk about raw milk benefitting allergies and asthma. Lucey?s scientific review did not find any data to link pasteurized milk to an increase in respiratory allgergies; however, he did cite epidemiological studies that suggest growing up on or near a farm can decrease the risk of allergies and asthma.
And here is the crux of the debate. As McAffee says, ?We have city folk wanting to have immune systems like country folk.? A 2010 paper in Preventative Veterinary Medicine showed that nearly 90 per cent of Canadian dairy farmers consume milk unpasteurized. Maybe our disconnection from the land bothers modern urban consumers. We have learned where our other food comes from ? so why not dairy?
People can switch to nut milks, but nut plantations have big ecological footprints, while dairy remains a high source of protein and fats. ( And who really wants to trade cheese and ice cream for a nut-milk substitute. ) While it might be hard to raise cows in the city, getting in touch with the source of our milk products can empower consumers to make better choices about their food. Until there?s a change in the regulatory framework of raw milk, however, that choice will remain out of reach for most of us.
Farmer tells a story of two girls from a nearby school who walked past a neighbour?s field where he had pastured his herd for the day. The girls stopped to take selfies with the animals. One of the girls asked, ?Are these cows??
?Of course they are!? said her friend.
?Well, they?re not black and white.?
Farmer laughed. His own three ?girls? are tawny light-brown jerseys, favoured for raw milk because they have the highest milk fat content of any cow. The schoolgirls only knew the stereotypical black-and-white cow, usually a Holstein, like Daisy the Island Farms? mascot. That was the animal you get the milk from. In reality, a Holstein is just one of 800 breeds around the world.
?It?s so out of touch. It?s crazy,? says Farmer. ?And I think it?s true for so many people.?
Fall . Winter 2015 . 2016 CONCRETE GARDEN
as of December 12 2015 : I seek pasture land on which to graze a couple of dairy cows, somewhere from North Saanich to Metchosin ; could be just a small acreage now lying fallow? or? ? I?ll look at anything. I have skills and tools to do fencing ; repair buildings etc. Contact Gordon S Watson . < My email is [ email@example.com ] 250 884 4167 telephone
A recent development in the Campaign for REAL MILK proves my long-standing contention that it is NOT unlawful for one to drink raw milk from a cow, or goat or sheep, in which he or she has a property interest. Below is the letter from the Chief Medical Health Officer confirming that much. In light of this third witness on provincial stationery, I?m convening an artisanal dairy which will operate according to the best practices of the Raw Milk Institute. **
The purpose of which, is : to supply those who underwrite it, with fresh whole pure un-adulterated, un-cooked milk, taken from grass-fed cows? a vital foodstuff not available from the commercial system.
The REAL MILK produced by such a New Model Dairy is strictly for the use and enjoyment of those who jointly-own the herd. It is never sold to the public. Since it never engages the commercial system, raw milk from a cowshare is not caught by the Public Health Act Revised Statutes of British Columbia After the initial subscription price, each member then pays a weekly fee to the person who actually does the work ? known as the ?Agister?. That would be me
February 18 2015
Dr. Perry Kendall,
Provincial Health Officer
Dear Dr. Kendall,
During the process of buying a cow, I was chatting with a friend, and she told me that you cannot buy a cow in BC unless you are the only one milking it, and that unless you are a commercial dairy, you are not allowed to hire anyone to milk your cow for you. She said there was a court case that ruled farmers can?t be hired to care for others? animals because it would ?cause a health hazard?.
I plan to keep the cow at my friend?s farm, because I don?t have room at my place. My friend told me that I was the only one who would be allowed to milk it and that even if I could quietly hire someone to milk for me, they couldn?t even put my milk in a jug to take home. Obviously that?s not the case, but because of this conversation, I need you to clarify some things for me:
1. Is there really a law against me hiring someone to milk my cow?
2. Is there really a law against his person bottling my milk for me?
3. Is there really a law against me taking my milk home?
I?m sure you wouldn?t really advise me to drink milk straight from my cow, but surely there are no laws against it?
I don?t want to lose out on the opportunity of buying this cow and I can?t find the answers to these questions anywhere, so if you could get back to me quickly so I have clear direction, I?d really appreciate it.
[ name and signature redacted ]
RESPONSE from Dr Kendall
February 26 2015
Dear, [ name redacted ]
Thank you for your letter of February 18, 2015
Other than a prohibition against selling or distributing unpasteurized milk, as per the Public Health Act and other relevant Acts and regulations, I am not aware of constraints per your questions 1, 2 and 3.
However, I should point out raw milk is considered a health hazard as it may contain disease causing bacteria. Consumption of raw milk can lead to serious illnesses such as listeriosis, salmonellosis, and other serious conditions particularly for the very young, pregnant woman, the elderly, and people with compromised immune systems. For this reason, we advise people to only consume commercially pasteurized milk and to not consume raw milk. However, if you still wish to consume the milk from your cow, you can reduce your risk of illness by following the double boiler method for home pasteurization outlined in the HealthLinkBC fact sheet ?Pasteurized and Raw MILk? located at http://www. healthlinkbc.ca/healthfiles/hfile03.stm. A copy is attached for your reference
P. R. W. Kendall
OBC, MBBS, MHSc, FRCPC
Provincial Health Officer
Ministry of Health Office of the Provincial Health Officer 4th Floor, 1515 Blanshard Street PO Box 9648 STN PROV GOVT Victoria BC V8W 9P4 Tel: 250 952 -1330
the article above, was written by the local Weston A Price chapter leader.
From here on down, it's all my work
From May 2007 to September 2010, we had the Home on the Range private dairy underway. Our herd of Jerseycows provided fresh whole unprocessed milk to us, its owners = eventually, serving about 450+ households from Hope to the west side of Vancouver British Columbia. The cowshare began with Alice Jongerden as the Agister but she was put out of business by Fraser Health Authority in the fall of 2010. We reconvened in a new cowshare, in which Michael Schmidt was the Agister for a while. Agistment services were provided by the 'Our Cows Team'. As of September 27 2011, Health Canada confirmed that the raw milk being produced bythe Our Cows cowshare is deemed a "cosmetic". Thus, the stuff came to town in glass jars labelled "Cleopatra's Enzymatic Bath Lotion". .
There are about a dozen raw milk dairies in British Columbia still operating on a similar basis, ie. "cowsharing", that I know of ... don't be discouraged = REAL MILK can be had if you persist to find those who appreciate it.
Milk from the 'Our Cows' herd was not 'certified organic". Our Jerseycows were on pasture all year 'round with no antibiotics ; no rBGH ; no soy meal nor 'animal byproducts' ie offal, in the feed. They were given a small ration of grain at milking time to train them to come into the milking parlour. Milk from our herd was as good as you're going to get ... which is why it cost so much by the time it got to town = $19.50 per gallon, all taxes in
While researching the law over the last decade, I read the Milk Industry Act of British Columbia, as it stood from 1955 'til 1996. Turns out the original Act had sections by which a farm could be certified to sell raw milk to the Public. In his Royal Commission in to the marketing of milk Commissioner J V Clyne touched on the controversy over the health aspects of raw milk versus Pasteur-ized. He recommended that all milk which was to be offered for sale be pasteurized. But he said that there must always be a way for those who want raw milk to get it. Twice I've asked the Milk Marketing Board for the protocol to apply for such Certification. They just blew me off, saying, essentially, they didn't comprehend what I was talking about.
On February 13 2013, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia at New Westminster, I answered the allegation made against me by Fraser Health Authority, of "contempt of Court". The charge was that I did contravene the Order in the Jongerden case by "supplying and distributing raw milk for human consumption". Only a year and a half since Prosecutrix Susan Beach laid the charge figured she'd be running a Stalin-ist show-trial like unto the travesties called Human Wrongs Tribunals, which she's used to. Whereby the Justice system is perverted to harass an Accused for his political activity and/or opinion. But I, and the lawyer for Michael Schmidt, convinced the judge to canvass the thing properly. Mister Justice Wong reserved his decision 'til June 5th 2013. He found us guilty, and sentenced us to 3 months in gaol. That sentence is suspended on contion of good behavior for one year. So I'm in the penalty box 'til June 4th 2014, at midnight. After which I'll be picking up where I left off and proceeding with the Campaign to have REAL MILK de-criminalized in BC.
After ten years' lobbying on this issue, our success - until the little glitch lately - plus the activity of other raw milk dairies throughout BC, makes me confident that the tipping-point of public understanding about raw milk has been passed. the capper being : Health Inspector George Rice admitting under oath in the hearing, that, in his 33 years' experience in the lower Fraser Valley, he had no evidence of anyone ever getting sick from drinking raw milk.
The fact that Fraser Health did not put any evidence before the Court demonstrating that milk from our dairy ever was actually harmful to any given person, proves our point = raw milk dairying can be done safely. The fact that we were never prosecuted by the Crown for selling raw milk, is more than enough proof that a cowsharing arrangement for personal use is exempt from the Milk Industry Act Notwithstanding the communists and idiots in high places perverting Justice as they attempt to outlaw us for feeding ourselves ... for a while, we did have the benefit of wonderful raw milk, to use and enjoy in whatever ways we believed best. So much for the much-vaunted "evidence-based health-care policy", eh?!.
One of the best proofs that artisanal raw milk can be produced safely, is, the experience in England. With a hundred licenced raw milk dairies operating, they haven't had an instance of illness from someone consuming it, there, for over a decade. One farm has 45 years' experience, without any illness arising from the milk. One has to wonder what it is they know, that the so-called "health authorities" in British Canada can't figure out. I urge that new cowshares be started all across Canada in order to meet booming demand for REAL MILK.
for those in the lower Mainland of BC, the closest place to actually PURCHASE REAL MILK - as opposed to participating in a cowshare, is ; the Jackie's Jerseys depot at Cost Cutter 1733 H Street #101 Blaine Washington State
Gordon S Watson < firstname.lastname@example.org >
I saw visions of mists rising from languid streams, their deep banks overhung with mosses and ferns, of thick and spreading English oaks in June with red-and-white spotted Alderney cows lying placidly in their shade, chewing cuds of rich English grass and clover and lazily twitching away flies with their tails Jane Austen
sources of raw milk products in British Columbia
Sacred Circle Farm ~ Unity Within Community 2319 Kemp Lake Road, Sooke B. C.
over the line to the united States
raw milk can be obtained just over the US border and brought back into Canada, quite legally.
When I spoke with the Canada Customs Agency a while ago about regulations, I was told that one may bring $20 worth or twenty kilograms of dairy products per day in to Canada unrestricted, as 'groceries'. No duty to be paid
____________ _______________ ___________________
Jackie's Jerseys 5643 Aldrich Road Bellingham, Washington 98226
from Seattle, going North take I-5 exit 262 (Axton Rd., Ferndale) Right at light and head East. Head straight until you reach Aldrich Rd., turn right, and the dairy is the first on your right
telephone 360 398 1889
Jackie's Jerseys raw milk is sold at
315 Cherry St.
Sumas, WA 98295
Contact Bob @ 360-988-4721
Sumas is directly south of Abbotsford. Bromley's market is within sight of the Huntingdon border crossing, in British Columbia.
Community Food Co-op
1220 N. Forest St.
Bellingham, WA 98225
Contact Chuck @ 360-734-8158
Community Food Co-op
315 Westerly Rd.
Bellingham, WA 98226
Contact Emily or James @ 360-734-8158
3328 State Rt. 530
Arlington, WA 98223
Contact Mark Lovejoy @ 360-435-9272
8858 Guide Meridian Rd.
Lynden, WA 98264
Contact Dave or Tim @ 360-318-8869
Following are letters from the government of British Columbia answering my requests for a legal way for us to obtain raw = REAL = milk. Below that are my letters, which led to the ones from the Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Health.
January 15th 2007
Attorney General Wallace Oppal
Minister of Health George Abbot
Minister of Agriculture Pat Bell
Since my previous letters about REAL MILK I have learned even more about how bad the white, industrial fluid passed off as ï¿½homo milkï¿½ is. I could get exercised about your administrationï¿½s failure to perform its duty to protect the Public Health, particularly the outrage of so-called ï¿½milkï¿½ being adulterated with concentrated milk protein from third world countries. God only knows how that astounding perversion of common sense is going to come back to haunt us. But I can only do so much. I am concentrating on making available to people who care about good food, an alternative to the garbage which is out there in the retail sector.
The last few times I went around this, I hoped to get something with which I could head off the ignorant, heavy-handed way the authorities come down on citizens who simply want a glass of REAL MILK. Mr Duffelï¿½s letter of September 15 2005, your file 629995, is close to a Letter of Comfort but it is not enough, against what Michael Schmidt is suffering in Ontario, lately.
Partnering with people who appreciate REAL MILK, I intend to get a few cows and have a farmer look after them for us. When we put our herd in the care of a farmer, who will board the cows including milking them, then ready our milk for us to take home, we will be practicing agistment. Agistment is a word not used in Canada but it is well-understood in the British tradition for at least five centuries. Australians use it in contracts for the boarding of horses, beef cattle and sheep. It means putting oneï¿½s animals in the care of another. The key point is that we are private citizens, co-operating to get the kind of milk we prefer, for ourselves and our families. We will not be engaged in commerce.
Therefore I put forward for your consideration the argument that as we jointly own a cow, or a herd of cattle, and take home milk from that herd for ourselves, we are not doing anything morally wrong, we are simply exercising our right to use and enjoy our property. Section 9 of the Law and Equity Act Revised Statutes of British Columbia guarantees our British tradition of agistment.
There is a different argument to be made that, now with the integrity of the food chain suspect, we have the right, even the duty, to do what we feel is necessary to ensure our own health and personal security.
If the provincial government has any reason why we ought not to engage in agistment in order to be self-sufficient in food, please tell me. I hereby request clarification on the position of your administration concerning my proposition, above.
Even though I abhor the personal income tax as communism in action, I am going to use the internal rationale of the federal and provincial income tax Acts to shed some light on the situation with raw milk. I say that what we intend to do with our cows is similar to the way a race horse syndicate qualifies under the hobby farming section of the federal Act. Since the Income Tax Act RSBC defers to the federal Income Tax Act [ utterly unconstitutional, but weï¿½ll leave that for another day ] then each of those individuals who wants to avail himself of section 31 of the federal Income Tax Act will automatically be seen by Ian Forman, BCï¿½s Commissioner for Income Tax, as a farmer, to a certain extent. Each of them would be asserting his right to farm.
Under the income tax acts, a ï¿½herdï¿½ can be even one animal. For us to share what is produced by our herd of dairy cows is not qualitatively different than members of a syndicate divvying-up prize money won by their stable of race horses, ie. partners sharing in the risks and rewards obtained from a jointly-owned asset.
Please find enclosed the DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY in a recent Court decision in Ohio. I believe that difficulty with the law concerning raw milk, as spelled-out by Judge Hein, is analogous to the situation in British Columbia. Also : a news release concerning whatï¿½s going on in Maryland. The situation in British Columbia is similar to that in Ohio and Maryland. Our Legislature has the power to outlaw the sale / distribution /consumption of raw milk sold / distributed in commerce. But does that include the power to deny it to people who are NOT involved in commerce? No it does not.
A blanket prohibition which pretends to outlaw citizens underwriting the production of food for ourselves is contrary to Canadian values : it is absurd to tell a nation not two generations off the farm that our Biblical heritage of dairying is illegal 'that we can't have the good stuff . that we have to just shut up and go over to the supermarket and be content with the dreck on the shelves there.
Thirty years ago, those who promoted pasteurization could get away with scare-mongering, saying that ï¿½every glass of raw milk was a vector for disease' because the scientific study had not been done to make the case for raw milk. Now it has.
Disabuse yourself of the notion that pasteurization makes milk perfectly safe. Especially, disabuse your-selves of the notion that homogenization is somehow 'a good thingï'. In order to deal with these issues, officials are obliged to inform themselves of the case for REAL MILK as set out in the books The Milk Book by Dr Wm Campbell Douglass, The Untold Story of Milk by Ron Schmid. And WHATï¿½S IN YOUR MILK An expose of Industry and Government cover-up on the DANGERS of the Genetically-Engineered Milk Youï¿½re drinking, recently published by Dr Samuel Epstein.
Notice that Safeway has rejected recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone. Before you tell me that rBGH isnï¿½t allowed to be used in Canadian cattle, get out and get in touch with the facts. ; every day farmers in the lower Mainland drive across the border to buy Posilac, and bring it back to shoot up their cows with. The milk from which is pooled and consumed by British Columbians. The fact that the UBC demonstration farm was caught shipping milk from cows-on-drugs tells us all we need to know. Polluters only stop when they get caught.
Your administration will probably be aware of the decision of the Food and Drug Agency in the United States of America, decreeing that milk and meat from cloned animals is safe. This is just more evidence that the FDA has become utterly perverted from its original purpose ; now it is the actual enemy of the People. That insanity is an outworking of fascism, the FDA being in the pocket of the Big Agricultural / Food processor corporations. Cow-sharing is a perfect example of how, once people completely lose confidence in Big Government, we look after ourselves.
This issue - of consumers demanding REAL MILK - is not going to go away. I know of many people who go down to Washington State and buy raw milk there ~ perfectly legally ~ then bring it back to Canada = perfectly legally. I went around this with Canada Customs : I was told candidly that their position is : raw milk purchased in Washington is the personal property of that Canadian citizen. The limit is 20 kg per day, or $20 Cdn ï¿½ whichever is the less. After that amount, ridiculously prohibitive duty applies.
As a Christian Libertarian, I want as little government interference in my life as possible. But two decades of political activism on various topics have made me realistic on this issue. I and some of the people for whom I speak, would be happy with the set-up for raw milk dairying which is in place in Washington State, where there are about 24 micro-dairies with Grade A licences. I know that dozens of people go down there regularly to get raw milk. It is more likely hundreds. For your research purposes, go to Bromleyï¿½s Market in Sumas or Whole Foods in Bellingham. Then please tell us REAL MILK fans why it is that Whole Foods in Bellingham can handle raw milk safely, but Whole Foods in West Vancouver cannot? You and I know they could, given the opportunity. Thus, there is no other, more logical reason why fresh whole raw milk is illegal in British Columbia but ï¿½restraint of tradeï¿½.
Some time back, on an unrelated topic, I was talking to lawyer George Wool. Prior to being called to the Bar, Mr Wool was a member of the RCMP Commercial Crime squad for 12 years. He told me that one of the projects he worked on was investigating the way law firms would contribute to political parties, then get rewarded with sweetheart contracts. He said ï¿½we had enough evidence to put one third of the law firms in Canada on trialï¿½. An amazing statement, but I believe it because of who it came from.
How that relates to raw milk is, without a doubt, the same quid~pro~quo is at work behind closed doors in the dairy biz as in the lawyering racket. One way or anther, the dairy cartel influences politicians to have raw milk outlawed so as to pad profitability.
Enclosed please find Sally Fallonï¿½s essay explaining how small scale dairying which is oriented to serving local markets, is the salvation of the family farm. Of course, such real free enterprise is what the gigantic corporate ï¿½vulture capitalistsï¿½ cannot withstand. My point being : Regulation 181/88 of the Health Act RSBC was not brought about for any good reason to do with Public Health. It was contrived to maintain the profits of the Big Dairies. It is inimical to the Public Good.
All the laws to do with raw milk donï¿½t have to be amended. I suggest that we ï¿½health fanaticsï¿½ could be accommodated by a formal statement expanding what (then) Minister of Agriculture van Dongen put in his letter [ November 24 2003, your file 0280-30 reference 67746 ] assuring us we wonï¿½t be criminalized for using and enjoying our own property. If not, I shall go to Court for a Declaration of Right
Gordon S. Watson
Hereï¿½s what I received September 19 2005 in reply to requesting the BC Govt. to clarify what gives with the REAL milk. At first, I was disappointed because it seems to be a step back from the previous letter from the Minister of Agriculture. But thinking about it some more, this is a good thing because it pronounces govt. policy is predicated upon the consumerï¿½s ï¿½fully-informed consent about risksï¿½. What a concept !
UNlearned in the law as I am, I believe this letter can be taken to legitimize a cow-op as long as the shareholders pick up their own milk at the farm.
Of course, this is by no means the last word. Iï¿½ll be getting back to Mr. Duffell with a Freedom of Information request for everything the policymakers had in front of them to come to that position. And in that request Iï¿½ll pose a few of the more obvious contradictions between the way raw milk is dealt with versus other products with live bacteria= sushi, raw oysters, steak tartare, raw fruit juices, etc. The best one I came up lately is the fact that at some local beaches during the summer, the coliform count in the water is posted and updated. So people can swim at their own risk in effluent which demonstrably contains human pathogens. But thatï¿½s OK - I guess !
British Columbia 629995
September 15th 2005
Mr. Gordon S. Watson
Dear Mr. Watson
The Honourable George Abbott, Minister of Health, has asked me to respond to your letter of July 8, 2005, directed to the Honourable Wallace Oppal, Attorney General of British Columbia.
You asked for clarification of the governmentï¿½s policy regarding the distribution of raw milk, and specifically whether several people can jointly own a cow or a herd of cows and share the unpasteurized raw milk from that cow or herd.
The Milk Industry Act and the Milk Industry Standards Regulation currently regulate raw milk. This legislation prohibits the sale or supply of any dairy product (including raw milk) unless it has been pasteurized in accordance with the Act and Regulations. This means that raw, unpasteurized milk cannot be sold or supplied to anyone other than a licensed dairy processing plant.
It is Ministry policy to consider that raw milk is not sold or supplied if it is consumed by a person who owns and has direct care and control of the cow -- in other words, a person who knows how the animal and the raw milk is being handled. In these circumstances, the person who consumes the raw milk is considered to have adequate information to assess the risks associated with that particular raw milk. This narrow policy exception does not apply to raw milk that is sold or supplied to someone who is not directly involved in the care and control of the cow and the raw milk.
While I acknowledge that there may be jurisdictions that permit the sale or supply of unpasteurized raw milk to people who do not directly care for or control the cow or cows that produced it, that is not the policy in British Columbia.
I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your concerns, and the time you have taken to bring this matter to the Ministerï¿½s attention.
(signed) SE Beechers??
For Ron Duffell A/ Executive Director Health Protection
Honourable Wallace Oppal
Attorney General of British Columbia
Honourable Pat Bell
Minister of Agriculture and Lands
Ministry of Health Executive Director Health Protection
Population Health and Wellness
1515 Blanshard Street Victoria BC V8W 3C8 telephone (250) 952-1433 Facsimile (250) 952 - 1713
November 24 2003
File : 0280-30 Ref: 67746
Gordon S. Watson
Burnaby BC V5E 1M4
Dear Mr. Watson
The Honourable Geoff Plant, Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations, has forwarded a copy of your letter for review. In your letter, you ask for clarification regarding your use and enjoyment on the ï¿½dividendï¿½ from joint ownership of a milking cow.
I can advise you that according to the Milk Industry Act, a person must not sell, offer for sale, or supply any dairy product unless the dairy product has been pasteurized. The Act does not prevent you from consuming unpasteurized milk from a cow which you own.
Thank you for taking the time to advise me of your concerns.
[ signature ]
John van Dongen
pc: Honourable Geoff Plant
Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries Office of the Minister Mailing address: PO Box 9043 Stn Prov Govt
Victoria BC V8W 9E2 Web address : http://www.gov.bc.ca/agf/
Phone (250) 387 - 1023 Faxï¿½ (250) 387 - 1522
Honourable John van Dongen, Minister of Agriculture
I understand that the Attorney General forwarded to your attention my letter of August 3 2003, concerning raw milk. It seems to me that Mr. Plant mustï¿½ve made a mistake, directing it to your Ministry, because the thrust of it has more to do with operation of the laws to do with milk vis-a-vis Public Health, than it does agriculture.
Nevertheless ; enclosed please find a recent news article updating and nicely explaining the basis of my proposition. I want you to realize that peopleï¿½s demands for
first, fresh whole organic raw milk
second, gourmet dairy products made from raw whole milk, which we can be sure donï¿½t have Bovine Growth Hormone in them
third, nutraceuticals of animal origin
are not being met by the present production / distribution system. Your government has the duty to actively remedy these problems.
With raw dairy products, weï¿½re into the same situation as what happened with Olera Farms / organic eggs over the last decade : when the established egg producers were all fat and sassy, thinking they ï¿½had it madeï¿½ with their places in the governmentï¿½s protection racket ï¿½ they wouldnï¿½t give Mr. Reid the time of day as he set out to provide consumers the superior product which he knew the market wanted. But when he proved that there was a profit to be made in the high-price end of a genuinely free marketï¿½.well !! The cartel soon found a way to get their mitts on part of whatï¿½d heï¿½d created, didnï¿½t they ? Despite them having refused to do their statutory duty to develop that market! Many of us are disgusted with the way his initiative, instead of being rewarded, was outlawed. The fruits of his hard work were stolen from him in legal fees by those who coveted his success. Point being ; Iï¿½m taking pains to see that the same thing doesnï¿½t happen to me with raw dairy.
Demand is accelerating for REAL MILK ï¿½ and also products made from it. Once people taste the difference, and learn the nutritional superiority / health benefits of fresh whole raw version, they will not settle for the thin, denatured, lowest-common-denominator stuff which we were deceived for a generation to call ï¿½milk ï¿½. Did you notice in my material that homogenization of milk has been PROVED to cause arteriosclerosis ? Wait ï¿½til the lawyers get ï¿½hold of that one.
As sketched out in my letter to the Attorney General, I am sure that British Columbians still maintain the right to use and enjoy our own property in the form of cattle on the hoof. And I say that a consequence of that right is that we can associate in a common law partnership for doing jointly whatever we may do as individuals.
Just as thereï¿½s nothing stopping me from drinking raw milk taken from a cow which I wholly own, neither should there be any let or hindrance upon me, or others who hold an interest in her, from enjoying the same perfectly natural milk from a cow , or a goat, which we each own part of. Think of it as ï¿½the right to farmï¿½ practiced on a household scale.
Your government says that youï¿½re getting rid of red tape ï¿½ good for you ! Letï¿½s see Minister Falconer address Regulation 181/88 of the Health Act Revised Statutes of British Columbia. Letï¿½s see that election promise put on government stationery. Legitimizing a way for people to obtain raw dairy products could be done very simply, by way of an amendment to the Milk Industry Act
RS BC which would categorically exempt from prosecution individuals who have an interest in the animal, or herd, which produced that very milk.
I request that your government make it perfectly clear to all concerned, by way of a Letter of Comfort to me, that individuals who own shares in a cow, in common, will not be prosecuted for simply exercising our right to enjoy the dividend from what that chattel produces, particularly, her milk. And for precision, such a Declaration ought to address the situation where individuals who own an interest, or several shares, in a herd of cattle are entitled to use and enjoy what that asset as a whole, produces.
Gordon S. Watson
August 3 2003
Attorney General of British Columbia Geoff Plant
Enclosed please find items pertaining to whole fresh raw cowï¿½s / goatï¿½s milk, for which I use the term ï¿½REAL MILKï¿½ so as to differentiate it from whatï¿½s commercially available. Since the beginning of history, people have produced and consumed REAL MILK and thrived on it, yet in this province today it is categorically outlawed.
Please look at my letter to the Minister of Health where I explained the insanity of those who want REAL MILK being denied it by law, while other substances which are known poisons are freely available from government outlets. The Minister at that time did nothing. Therefore I am now proposing a couple of ways people who want REAL MILK can have it without being prosecuted.
The simplest solution for the official stupidity described in my letter to the Minister of Health, and below, is for your government to immediately repeal Regulation 181/88 of the Health Act RSBC. But I am not optimistic that common sense remedy will happen because the entrenched commercial interests would balk.
Therefore I propose a ï¿½walk-aroundï¿½ of the law, (as the slang term is in your office) so we can get what we want without all the expense / inefficiency of a full-tilt constitutional challenge to the legislation.
As part of my efforts to get REAL MILK flowing here, I had a conversation with a farmer in California who produces and sells it - quite legally ! - down there. At the moment, he doesnï¿½t have any extra to ship us. But what do you think would happen if he got a bee in his bonnet about being prevented by B. C. and Canadian laws from doing business with me ?
To start with, we have the WTO ruling on our side. I expect you, and your legal advisers, are already thinking long and hard about the legality of the dairy monopoly in light of recent rulings of the World Trade Organization. I urge all concerned to read the Competition Act Revised Statues of Canada vis-ï¿½-vis British Columbiansï¿½ demand for REAL MILK. I draw your attention to section 21 of the Natural Products Marketing Act RSBC wherein the bright lights who drafted it acknowledge they knew it was unconstitutional ab initio ! I donï¿½t need a law degree to figure out that the rules against raw milk are on very thin ice.
The last thing I want is an ordeal of a court case. So my position on the legality of REAL MILK is ; ï¿½letï¿½s be reasonableï¿½. I want to stay out of court if possible. Is it worth all the hassle of sending in your high-priced legal beagles to defend the communistic centrally-dictated supply system when itï¿½s understood all ï¿½round that the entire ï¿½Marketing Boardï¿½ house-of-cards is crumbling, anyway ?
But back to ï¿½healthï¿½. There is more than enough scientific evidence now to prove that the product merchandised as ï¿½homo milkï¿½ on retail store shelves is inferior to REAL MILK since much of the food value is stripped away in processing. Worse, the case can be made that once homogenized and pasteurized, so-called ï¿½milkï¿½ is dangerous to public health.
Medical science has known for half a century that widespread homogenization of the milk supply is the major factor causing hardening of the arteries. The public continues to be duped so the dairy monopoly doesnï¿½t have to spend what it would take to reform its production / distribution system. It is nothing less than a crime that while the homogenization of milk is known to be a menace to health, that fact has been suppressed from public understanding.
How ironic that the good stuff, REAL MILK, is illegal, meanwhile the bad stuff, proven to harm human health, is sold openly. I remind you of what happened in the ï¿½tainted blood scandalï¿½, where certain businesses continued even after they knew that what they were doing was deadly. As you read this, officials in British Columbia are responsible for having knowledge now about the harm homogenized milk does, yet are failing to do their duty to protect the public.
It is a well known fact that cooking milk in a certain way - called ï¿½pasteurizationï¿½ - destroys vital enzymes and renders portions of the proteins and minerals unavailable within the human metabolism. Knowledge that pasteurizing milk degrades its nutritional value has been suppressed for the same reasons the studies about homogenization are hidden : profitability of the dairy cartel and to hide culpability for undermining public health. Not to mention, the enormous profits in the aftermarket for the very ï¿½supplementsï¿½ which are removed out of the original raw milk. The ruining of the taste is no small issue, either.
What becomes clear is that this situation - governments sacrificing public health in order that big business shall prosper - persists only because bureaucrats are bamboozled by deceptive propaganda. Raw milk has been outlawed as part of ï¿½moving the yardsticksï¿½ in the marketplace ï¿½ so consumers whoï¿½ve forgotten what REAL MILK is will unthinkingly accept the inferior product presented on supermarket shelves. Just a co-incidence that the ones who benefit from driving out competition - Dairy World = Ault Dairies = the Bronfmann empire et al. - are major contributors to political parties ?
Twenty miles from where I live, raw cowï¿½s / goatï¿½s milk are freely available at a good price, from dairies which differ from small holders in B. C. only in that they have a permit from the state of Washington. What is it they know down there - and the 30 other states in the US where raw milk is sold legally - that the governors of British Columbia canï¿½t figure out ? What is it the people in the European Economic Community ( a market of a mere 300 million consumers ) know about handling dairy products that British Columbiaï¿½s dairymen canï¿½t grasp?
As for the dairy cartelï¿½s usual first-line of argument - health issues - I urge you to delegate someone to study the material being published by the promoters of REAL MILK so as to be prepared to explain to me, and the thousands of people like me who simply want to obtain good food, why one of natureï¿½s most perfect foods - whole fresh raw milk - is illegal ?
I can tell you right now there is no good nor sufficient reason. The pretence that raw milk is a ï¿½health hazardï¿½ is a canard. Having investigated this situation in depth I conclude that there is no other, more logical explanation for it but restraint of trade.
In 1984 I started distributing various products to health food stores. Over the next two decades I watched organic food go from being a fringe category, ï¿½til now, where itï¿½s about 15% of the fresh food market by dollar value. Last year, the lady with whom I started in business back then brokered nearly two million dollars of organics to the largest food store chain in B. C. Twenty years ago, agricultural officials sneered at organic agriculture as ï¿½pittance farmingï¿½ yet today, your government actively promotes it.
Point being : informed consumers will get what they want, one way or another. There is no denying an idea whose time has come ; interest in raw dairy is at the same stage now as the organic fruit & vegetable segment was in 1984 ï¿½ a niche which turned into a major industry. If your government is truly responsive to the people, then it is incumbent upon you to accommodate the demand for REAL MILK instead of hindering it by illogical regulation.
Around the world, people have awakened to what went on during the last century ï¿½ our food was denatured for the convenience + profit of monolithic corporations. Corporations are permitted to operate on the presumption that it is in everyoneï¿½s best interest peopleï¿½s needs are met for a profit. But, overall, they have done the opposite ; hand in hand with compliant / corrupt governors, corporate interests deliberately ï¿½dumbed-downï¿½ the food supply in order to suit their selfserving convenience. Dividends paid to their shareholders were derived from value literally stolen out of our, and our childrenï¿½s, mouths. Nowhere is that better illustrated than with whole raw fresh milk.
When intelligent consumers realize this, we lose confidence in Big Government. Realizing that we have to take care of ourselves, one of our high priorities is ï¿½healthï¿½, which translates into people taking control of the quality of our food at source.
People I know who are convinced of the value of REAL MILK are determined to obtain what we believe is essential to maintaining and enhancing our quality of life. We want to do that in a simple, honest way. We want to avoid all the wrangling / expense of a court battle. Still, I am ready to go that route on this issue, if necessary.
Unlearned in the law as I am, it seems to me that the provision in the Canadian Bill of Rights concerning property, as well section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms, entitles every one to produce co-operatively, whole raw cowï¿½s and goatï¿½s milk for his / her personal use and enjoyment without interference from overbearing regulators.
I am not asking for free legal advice ; but I am entitled to clarification of certain laws in order to know how to govern myself properly. So my question is : letï¿½s say I and a dozen other people each throw in $100 to buy a cow, then pay someone a weekly fee to board that cow for us, which fee includes milking. Thus, each of us has a property interest in her.
According to our agreement, each partner has a property interest in what our asset, Bossy, produces - primarily milk * - proportionate to the amount of investment, and also dependent upon ante-ing up the boarding fee ; no fee that week = no milk that week. * In such a common law partnership, there will eventually be other products ie pedigreed calves / colostrum / meat / hide / horns / manure, to which we are entitled - in kind or in money - as profit from our investment.
As we divvy up such produce, we are taking possession of our own property. I say that we ought to be able to take that dividend home from the farm, to use and enjoy without fear of the ï¿½milk policeï¿½ coming ï¿½round and hauling us away to be prosecuted for breaching some ignorantly-contrived statute. What do you say ?
Gordon S. Watson
May 14th 2001 A. D.
Minister of Health for British Columbia,
Parliament Buildings Victoria
Enclosed please find a copy of a news article about raw milk, along with a print-out of the information at the internet site mentioned therein. This article is a classic example of propaganda ... Big Brother using the lapdog press as its ventriloquist dummy for merchandising a cover-story to prop up the communist monopoly over the essential means of production.
The purpose of my letter is three-fold:
first, to have an official response from your Ministry right away on the questions posed;
second, to put into your hands material telling the other side of the story about raw milk so as to have a scientific basis for changing the law in B. C. ;
third, to have your ministry retract the misinformation currently posted on the website.
Whereas your website @www.hlth.gov.bc.calhlthfile/hfileO3.html. states
"There is absolutely no evidence to support the contention that raw milk is more nutritious than pasteurized milk." "There is no scientific evidence that raw milk makes you more resistant to disease."
"There is no scientific evidence that raw milk better promotes the development of teeth."
Each of those is demonstrably false. I find it appalling that government "experts" on health are unaware of the work of Weston A. Price, Pottinger and Steinman who did some of the basic research in human nutrition, particularly, teeth. In light of their work, and many more scientific studies since, your official statments are utter nonsense.
Herbert Spencer said
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is condemnation without investigation. "
Enclosed find a copy of The Milk Book How Science is Destroying Nature's Nearly Perfect Food" by Dr. Wm. Campbell Douglass; ISBN # 1-885236-04-2. Anyone with intellectual integrity who reads it will find out how stupid your ministry's statements about raw milk are. With this book now in hand, your Ministry has the duty of care to correct the false advertising I bring to your attention.
As explained below, unless the law is changed so that British Columbians choose their own food without interference from an ill-informed, meddling government, there is the distinct possibility of a Constitutional Challenge to the law which outlaws commerce in raw milk. To prepare for that eventuality, and pursuant to the Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Act Revised Statutes of British Columbia, I require and hereby demand copies of the following; all material in the possession of your Ministry concerning the assertions on the above-mentioned website under "For example",
5 members of a family became ill with Salmonella from raw goat's milk.
On Central Vancouver Island, 9 out of 13 kindergarten children became ill with Campylobacter after drinking raw milk while on a school visit to a local farm.
In Vernon, numerous cases of Campylobacter were traced to the consumption of raw milk.
In the Kootenays, a 35 year old woman needed surgery and a long stay in hospital due to Brucella infection She had previously consumed raw milk from several sources.
In Ladysmith, a 4 year old girl developed neck abscesses due to Yersinia Infection. The family had consumed raw milk for many years. The older brother previously had a similar abscess in his neck and lip.
On the Queen Charlotte Islands, 2 people developed Toxoplasmosis after consuming raw goat's milk.
You will be aware that Regulation 181/88 of the Health Act Revised Statutes of British Columbia defines "health hazard" as "milk for human consumption that has not been pasteurized ...", Thus it is an offence for people to buy, sell or trade in fresh, whole, raw cow's or goat's milk.
On the ground that it is far-superior to my health, I believe that I ought to be able to enjoy fresh whole raw milk without interference from government. Therefore this letter is the opening salvo in a political campaign to have the Health Act and the Milk Industry Act changed so raw milk is lawfully available.
My own personal experience, along with many people I know, bears out Dr. Douglass' assertions. In a nutshell, what he presents is that
. properly produced and cared for, whole raw cow's and goat's milk are some of the very best sources of nutrition for human beings; . the substance currently marketed as 'milk' is far-removed from the real thing;
. by the time the substance being sold today as 'milk' reaches the consumer, it has been so altered that most of its nutrients are unavailable to human metabolism. Pasteurization destroys essential enzymes. Homogenization causes artheriosclerosis ;
. arguments concerning the 'unhealthfull-ness' of raw milk are calculated mis-information originating with the dairy cartel, as part of a criminal conspiracy to restrict trade so as to prevent competition for its much-inferior product.
Aside from the scientific studies showing it to be nutritionally far-superior, the legal situation wherein fresh, whole, raw cow's / goat's milk is so maligned that simply handing it over the fence-line is an offence, is absurd. To illustrate just how absurd, contrast the situation where, today, I can walk into the liquor store and purchase a quart of gin, go out on the sidewalk and gulp the whole thing down. Of course I will then go into shock very likely leading to death. Exercising my "choice" to kill myself by alcohol poisoning is not illegal. But should I purchase a quart of fresh, whole raw milk from this morning's milking, your government will come down on me and the farmer like a ton of bricks, arrest us, then put us through a criminal trial.
Not only does the government NOT interfere in my freedom to choose my own alcoholic poison, it actively promotes the booze industry. Everyone knows that alcohol abuse is a major problem, yet your government happily regulates and promotes a substance known to cause harm, alcohol. Every session the legislature grovels still lower to the liquor interests, re-writing regulations to enable alcoholics to get their fix easier. To a government addicted to deficit-spending, the income from booze taxes outweighs genuine concern for the Public Health.
But what used to be known as good and proper and healthful- i. e. fresh, raw, whole cow's and goat's milk - the most natural, life-giving thing on earth, which, according to the Bible is our heritage - is categorized as a "health hazard"! Suffocating state-interference turns that which is right, i. e. production of food, into a crime. Meanwhile, what used to be well-understood as vice, the booze racket, is now carried on under color of law. People who, during Prohibition, were demonized as 'gangsters' and 'merchants-of-death' are now seen as up-standing members of the community... as long as they split their ill-gotten gains with government. Today, people like me who simply want to get back to basics in order to regain our health, after awakening from the deceptions of the food corporations, are outlaws.
Regulation 181/88 was enacted upon a bogus premise, i. e. that milk cannot be produced / delivered clean enough to be disease-free unless it is pasteurized. Searching the laws of the United States on the topic of the sale of raw milk for personal use, I've located twenty states which permit it to be purchased legally. Perhaps the Minister will explain how 400 million people in the European Economic Community get away with drinking raw cow, goat and sheep milk, without major problems, yet, supposedly, we in British Columbia can't manage to do it?
I remind you of the recent newspaper interview wherein former Health Minister Evans said that he enjoyed un-pasteurized apple juice. Regarding apple juice, he was quoted "British Columbians should be able to make a choice." Yet on the same website as your scaremongering about raw milk, we find the Ministry's official stance that raw juices ought to be outlawed. Why not Mr. Evan's common-sense approach to whole, raw, fresh cow's milk?
I remind all concerned of the criminal prosecution of Jim Strauss, charged in Kamloops last fall with "practising medicine without a licence" for selling his heart drops. I buy and use Mr. Strauss' product. I aver that it certainly does have a genuinely therapeutic affect on me. When Mr. Strauss brought a Constitutional Challenge to the law under which he was charged, Crown Counsel stayed the charge. I think the Crown did that because they sensed the position they were called to argue was untenable. Similarly, I believe that a constitutional challenge may succeed in deterring the Crown from trying to justify both a] - Regulation 181/88, and b] - the relevant sections of the Milk Industry Act. If I start supplying my fellow health-food fanatics with raw milk, and a charge against me of breaching those laws does go ahead, then I could make a good case for having the Court strike the Regulation down. In such a Constitutional Question the validity of the entire Milk Marketing Monopoly will necessarily be canvassed.
I urge everyone in your Ministry to reconsider this issue from the perspective of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I believe that, out of section 7 of the Charter one can extrapolate a right to choose what foods he or she prefers to eat. And that that idea can be extended to trade in foods / medicines. Preparing for such a Constitutional Question, and pursuant to the Freedom of Infonnation & Protection of Privacy Act, I require and here