I wrote this almost 2 decades ago. Most of the reference documents have been removed, archived or changed. However the basics remain the same.
Raw milk is a product whose safety CAN be assured by means other than pasteurization. The first is herd isolation and constant testing of the herd for diseases such as tuberculosis and brucellosis. The second is a very high standard of cleanliness during milking, the third is the testing of the milk itself. If you wish to drink raw milk, as some do then you KNOW the seller and check his facilities and testing procedures.
Unfortunately this type of program would uncover a whole can of worms the USDA/FDA and more importantly the International Corporate Cartel wants buried very DEEP. It is for that same reason the USDA and the Bush Admin. squashed the attempts of Creekstone to do its own BSE testing for Mad Cow disease.
Here is a bit about the BSE cover-up most people are unaware of and why the USDA/FDA want NO TESTING.
…Before the BSE crisis about 350,000 tons of MBM feed was sold in Britain a year, and relatively little was exported. After the ban the UK government did inform the EU, but there was a surge in exports to Europe. Then, as European states – informed of the danger – banned British feed, exporters opened up new markets, including North America, the Middle East and Asia.
Dr Stephen Dealler, a microbiologist and BSE expert, said: “It was a terrible mistake… Look at the controls they are now trying to apply to stop BSE in France and other EU countries. It is going to be much harder in African and Middle Eastern countries.”
Evidence to the British BSE inquiry headed by Lord Phillips shows that British officials washed their hands of moral responsibility over the dangers of MBM spreading BSE to infection-free countries, the approach was to inform international bodies, leaving it to member states to decide whether to import UK feed and prevent it being fed to cattle.…Report: BSE contaminated feed exported for Eight years after UK ban
Page not archived. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/exports-of-bsecontaminated-cattle-feed-continued-for-eight-years-after-uk-ban-626507.html
While danger spread; government response is marked by denial and delay as new diseases tear through cattle, wildlife – and people
June 1, 2002 Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO) by Lou Kilzer
… It took the United States 10 years to follow Britain’s lead and ban the feeding of cattle-derived meat and bone meal (MBM) back to cattle. But the U.S. allows – indeed, actively promotes – the export of MBM to other countries. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) makes no requirement that warning labels against feeding it to cattle be placed on the product.
One country that exports over a million cattle a year to the United States – Mexico – is just now adopting the ban on MBM as cattle feed. And the enforcement of that ban is suspect.
The FDA has allowed hundreds of meat-processing facilities to fudge on its MBM rules, handing out a handful of warning letters and taking little action to force compliance…
There is a small chance that mad cow disease.. (BSE), is already in this country, according to a risk assessment released today by Harvard University. The risk assessment concluded that even if BSE had entered this country, it wouldn’t become a major public health problem, although human illnesses could occur”.Harvard Risk Assessment 12/3/2001 http://www.organicconsumers.org/madcow/danger6102.cfm
Quantitative assessment of the BSE risk from meat and bone meal in MBM export, pet food, etc. non-ruminant feed mill mixed feed mill non-ruminant: http://www.svepm.org.uk/posters/2007/De%20Vos.pdf — Page not archived
After disease detectives in Great Britain determined that mad cow (BSE), was spread by feeding cattle infected meal, British officials banned the practice. But they didn’t ban the export of feed, spreading BSE to continental Europe and Japan…At the height of the BSE epidemic, the UK exported 500,000 tons, including 168,000 metric tons of MBM (meat and bone meal) between 1990 and 1996. It also exported 3.2 million cattle to 36 countries. A Harvard study said that the exact amount sent to the U.S. was unknown, but it noted that at least 69 tons of “mammalian meal and flour” and 334 cattle were shipped here during the period. https://web.archive.org/web/20020813043834/http://www.organicconsumers.org/madcow/danger6102.cfm
Back to why the USDA/FDA does not want raw milk.
AOL September 30, 2024
Why Are People Drinking Raw Milk? Experts Explain The Benefits—And Extreme Risks
by Susan Choung
….is raw milk safe to drink even? The FDA and food safety experts caution against consuming unpasteurized dairy but that doesn’t stop A-list celebs, like Gwyneth Paltrow from adding raw cream to her coffee every morning.
She lives in California, where the sale of raw milk is legal, provided it has a warning label. (FYI: Her purveyor for raw milk has been linked to at least 165 salmonella cases, the largest outbreak in the U.S. in over a decade.) [So why in hades has it not been shut down? – GC]
…And talk about politics making strange bedfellows: Former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.said, “I only drink raw milk,” in a video clip that made rounds on Twitter/X. Pesky government food regulations be damned!….
Here are some of the pros (notice the fight has been a very long one)
published in Magazine Digest – June 1938 Armchair Science is a British Medical Journal
Raw Milk Vs. Pasteurized Milk
Pasteurization’s great claim to popularity is the widespread belief, fostered by its supporters, that tuberculosis in children is caused by the harmful germs found in raw milk. Scientists have examined and tested thousands of milk samples, and experiments have been carried out on hundreds of animals in regard to this problem of disease-carrying by milk. But the one vital fact that seems to have been completely missed is that it is CLEAN, raw milk that is wanted. If this can be guaranteed, no other form of food for children can, or should, be allowed to take its place.
Dirty milk, of course, is like any other form of impure food — a definite menace. But Certified Grade A Milk, produced under Government supervision and guaranteed absolutely clean, is available practically all over the country and is the dairy-farmer’s answer to the pasteurization zealots.
Recent figures published regarding the spread of tuberculosis by milk show, among other facts, that over a period of five years, during which time 70 children belonging to a special organization received a pint of raw milk daily. One case only of the disease occurred. During a similar period when pasteurized milk had been given, 14 cases were reported.
Besides destroying part of the vitamin C contained in raw milk and encouraging growth of harmful bacteria, pasteurization turns the sugar of milk, known as lactose, into beta-lactose — which is far more soluble and therefore more rapidly absorbed in the system, with the result that the child soon becomes hungry again.
Probably pasteurization’s worst offence is that it makes insoluable the major part of the calcium contained in raw milk. This frequently leads to rickets, bad teeth, and nervous troubles, for sufficient calcium content is vital to children; and with the loss of phosphorus also associated with calcium, bone and breain formation suffer serious setbacks.
Pasteurization also destroys 20 percent of the iodine present in raw milk, causes constipation and generally takes from the milk its most vital qualities
Looks like pasteurized milk is great news for Big Pharma and the supplement manufacturers.
The Health Benefits of Raw Milk from Grass-Fed Animals
By naturopathic physician, Ron Schmid, ND 2002
My testimony was framed to respond to objections to raw milk raised by the state health department and to document the benefits of raw milk. To quote from that testimony:
“The state epidemiologist writes that ‘It has yet to be demonstrated that raw milk has any beneficial health effects. . . ‘ He cites articles attached to his letter. In one article, ‘Unpasteurized Milk, The Hazards of a Health Fetish’ (Journal of the American Medical Association, 10/19/84), the authors make a series of misstatements about the research of Francis Pottenger before concluding that raw milk has no health benefits. I detail these charges as follows in the paper I’ve given the members of the Committee.
“Now what Pottenger actually did in some of his experiments is this. He used four groups of cats. All received for one-third of the diet raw meat. The other two-thirds of the diet consisted in either raw milk or various heat-treated milks. The raw milk/raw meat diet produced many generations of healthy cats. Those fed pasteurized milk showed skeletal changes, decreased reproductive capacity and infectious and degenerative diseases.
“Now just who was Francis Pottenger? He was the son of the physician who founded the once famous Pottenger Sanatorium for treatment of tuberculosis in Monrovia, California. He completed his residency at Los Angeles County Hospital in 1930 and became a full-time assistant at the Sanatorium. From 1932 to 1942, he also conducted what became known as the Pottenger Cat Study.
“In 1940, he founded the Francis M Pottenger, Jr. Hospital at Monrovia. Until closing in 1960, the hospital specialized in treating non-tubercular diseases of the lung, especially asthma.
“Dr. Pottenger was a regular and prolific contributor to the medical and scientific literature. He served as president of several professional organizations, including the Los Angeles County Medical Association, the American Academy of Applied Nutrition and the American Therapeutic Society. He was a member of a long list of other professional organizations.
“Pottenger’s experiments met the most rigorous scientific standards. His outstanding credentials earned him the support of prominent physicians. Alvin Foord, MD, Professor of Pathology at the University of Southern California and pathologist at the Huntington Memorial Hospital in Pasadena, co-supervised with Pottenger all pathological and chemical findings of the study.
“One particular question that Pottenger addressed in his study is one that modern science has largely ignored. It has to do with the nutritive value of heat-labile elements-nutrients destroyed by heat and available only in raw foods.
“In his article ‘Clinical Evidences of the Value of Raw Milk,’ Pottenger writes: ‘Some of the factors transmitted by milk are thermo-labile [sensitive to heat]. Though their destruction may not produce death, their deficiency may prevent proper development of the child. This may show in the development of an inadequate skeleton or a decrease in resistance. . . . delay in development of osseous centers is noted more frequently in those children. . . receiving heat treated milk. It is particularly absent from the raw milk fed children. . . . I am basing this discussion on analysis of 150 children whose parents have consulted me because of respiratory allergies. Many other workers. . . have also shown that treating milk by heating interferes with its proper assimilation and nutritional qualities. . . . The best milk from a nutritional standpoint is raw milk. . . . Heat-treating milk interferes with calcium metabolism causing. . . delay in bone age and small bones. . . . The interference with calcium metabolism as shown in the bones is only a physiological index of disturbed metabolism throughout the body.’
“I have prescribed raw milk from grass-fed animals to my patients for nearly fifteen years. Time and again I have seen allergies clear up and dramatically improved health. Particularly in children, middle ear infections usually disappear and do not recur on raw milk. Both children and adults unable to drink pasteurized milk without problems have thrived on raw milk. In hundreds-perhaps thousands-of my patients using raw milk, not one has ever developed a salmonella, campylobacter, or other raw-milk-related infection.
“In the letter cited above, the state epidemiologist states that ‘The processes of certification and/or inspection do not guarantee that raw milk will not be contaminated with pathogenic organisms.’ He also lists a host of microorganisms that are alleged to be transmitted by raw milk, not mentioning that, as the literature accompanying his letter makes clear, the only organisms even potentially associated with the consumption of certified raw milk are salmonella and campylobacter. And in one of the articles he cites, ‘The Hazard in Consuming Raw Milk’ (in The Western Journal of Medicine), the authors actually state that ‘Salmonella and campylobacter diseases in humans are generally not serious. But in persons with compromised health (particularly those with malignant conditions and immunosuppressed by disease or therapy), these infections may be serious.’
“So, the gist of the state’s argument against certified raw milk is that it might possibly on isolated occasions cause serious disease in some people whose immune systems have been compromised by the toxic effects of chemotherapy. And because of this very slight risk, those of us who might choose to drink certified raw milk for the benefits I have catalogued should be denied that right.”
Here is the REASON the FDA went on the attack.
Please read the whole thing because it is really eye opening what has been done to the actual safety of our food.
“…While I believe a meaningful, uniform, universal ID system for all livestock with adequate tracking will evolve, as a state animal health official, I would be less than responsible if I did not encourage industry and government to move quickly to get a handle on our ability to traceback animals today for diseases such as brucellosis, tuberculosis, and others that present risks of exacerbation and the extreme costs associated with such…” Dr. Sam Holland, State Veterinarian, South Dakota from REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON LIVESTOCK IDENTIFICATION – 2005
Why the sudden need to stampede the USA into a track back system?
This is an example of the USDA’s response to one disease over the last decade. The chart shows how USDA cut back testing after WTO was created and the VP of Cargill wrote the WTO Agreement on Agriculture 1995.
Note the significant drop in Government testing!
UCD VET VIEWS CALIFORNIA CATTLEMAN, JULY-AUGUST 2002
Summary of Tuberculosis Surveillance in California Cattle
Number of Cattle Tested……..1995…..1996…..1997…….1998…….1999……2000…..2001
By Animal Health Officials…10,576…5,100 ….2,861 …..3,530…..1,425 ….1,967…..2,500
By Private Veterinarians …15,921…17,100…19,930…18,189…22,863…19,930…19,587
Submissions at Slaughter……….39……….58 ………64………..39………..58……….64………385
What about the danger of Bovine Tuberculosis in the USA since the passage of WTO and the lifting of tariffs and quarrantine mandated by WTO?
Bovine TB was confirmed in three dairy herds during 2002-2003.[California] ….Although the source of the infections was not confirmed, the investigations indicate TB was most likely imported in infected cattle…. http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/ahfss/Animal_Health/pdfs/Tb_in_California_2006.pdf — archived page removed
…
“The high prevalence of bovine tuberculosis in Mexican cattle was discussed. A multiagency investigation in New York city identified 35 cases of human M. bovis infection. Fresh cheese from Mexico was identified as the likely source of infection” (Winters et al., 2005). http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/science/riskprofiles/FW0320_Mbovis_in_meat_final_May_2006.pdf — archived page removed
What was the USDA’s response to “The high prevalence of bovine tuberculosis in Mexican cattle”
in April 2001, the USDA’s Veterinary Services published an interim rule requiring Mexican feeder steers to originate from herds that had recently been tested for TB. The USDA then agreed to grant waivers to the whole-herd testing…http://www.boergoats.com/clean/articles/texasanimalhealthcommission/mexicancattle2002-03-07.htm
Page not found. Updated to: Federal Import Requirements for Mexican Feeder Cattle in Effect April 1, 2002: USDA Increases Mexican Cattle Surveillance https://web.archive.org/web/20040929195955/http://www.boergoats.com/clean/articles/texasanimalhealthcommission/mexicancattle2002-03-07.htm
(I guess we did enough screaming.)
Texas imports a million cattle a year from Mexico. The cattle port-of-entry at Santa Teresa, NM is the largest entry.
Cattle crossing facilities on the U.S. side of the border are operated primarily by private firms… at Santa Teresa, NM, Chihuahuan cattle producers [Mexican] operate both sides of the cattle port-of-entry… https://web.archive.org/web/20011117084712/http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/Agoutlook/june2001/AO282d.pdf
SO what happened after the waivers of whole herd testing was granted”
For Mexican Feeder Cattle in Effect April 1, 2002… Dr. Logan… said, the disease is extremely rare in U.S. herds. However, more TB-lesioned cattle are being detected at slaughter, and ear tags indicate that many of these animals are of Mexican origin. https://web.archive.org/web/20030413013230/http://www.tahc.state.tx.us/news/pr/2002/302TBMx.pdf
Summary of Selected Disease Events April–June 2007
Oklahoma
On May 1, 2007, the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture reported a case of bovine tuberculosis (TB) discovered as a result of slaughter surveillance…. Subsequent testing of the index herd identified a TB- positive cow with a Colorado ID tag… The herd has been depopulated…Bovine TB was last reported in Oklahoma in 1982, and Oklahoma has been classified by the USDA as tuberculosis-free since 1984.
New Mexico
On June 14, 2007, the State of New Mexico confirmed that a dairy herd in Curry County was infected with bovine tuberculosis…Two infected herds were confirmed with TB in late 2002, .
Additionally, it is anticipated that both New Mexico and California will lose their TB “free” status in 2008, from AGENCY STRATEGIC PLAN: FOR THE FISCAL YEARS 2009-2013 BY TEXAS ANIMAL HEALTH COMMISSION
What is the USDA/FDA position on testing by non-government (or non corporate cartel) entities???
The USDA is abandoning a known effective method of disease prevention, the first-point testing program, where the live cows in a herd are tested, in favor of a method that allows the disease more time to spread since the cows are at the end of their life before testing is done. Also Texas complains of the USDA shutting down disease testing labs by withdrawing funding. This is in line with the USDA’s refusal to allow Creekstone to test 100% of their slaughtered cattle for BSE and Japan’s response of increasing their cattle herds. See: http://www.cornucopia.org/2008/09/appeals-court-prevents-company-from-testing-for-mad-cow-disease/
Government targeting of independents.
The Henshaws were not allowed to test their animals or to even SEE the government test results.
….The claim is that the USDA did this because of Pseudorabies, yet the government did not follow it’s own standard operating procedures of testing as outlined in the USDA’s own documents. The USDA spilled bodily fluids from the slaughtered pigs all over the road where any disease could be transmitted to other farms and other animals. Slaughter is not required for testing for Pseudorabies. These issues seriously puts into question the validity of the disease claim and/or the competence of the government officials involved…. https://web.archive.org/web/20080922034213/http://nonais.org/2006/09/29/henshaw-incident/
The Faillice family had similar treatment from the USDA. When the standard test results were all negative and the animals had all been slaughtered, an experimental testing procedure was used and then the samples “lost” and “Destroyed” Of interest was the fact the Faillice family lived in England and were Experts on Mad Cow disease. (sorry about no direct link you would have to read the book Mad Sheep
There is a darn good reason to bury this report because it gives very good evidence that the USDA and FDA are intentionally allowing disease into this country and ALLOWING it to go unchecked by shutting down testing labs and NOT testing at farms.
Without the increase in food borne disease and the media’s propaganda spreading fear, there would be not reason to implement the new “Food Safety” law passed Congress during the December 2010 lameduck session. Senator Burr, after promising NC farmers he would not vote for the bill, was a co-sponsor. The new Law is specifically designed to wipe out independent farmers as similar laws have done in the European Union. The FDA has already stated it will “harmonize” with EU and other international laws per an agreement signed by Bush and the WTO AoA treaty.
Those treaties and the NEW Law are NOT designed to do a blasted thing about actual food safety. They are only there to help the International Cartels remove “barriers” to trade…. and to remove the independent farmer competition.
From the original before it was modified under the same date of course 
TEXAS ANIMAL HEALTH COMMISSION 2009 – 2013 AGENCY STRATEGIC PLAN
The surveillance element or function is the most intensive of the six functions with respect to resources and personnel. Surveillance includes all activities designed and implemented to identify and locate any possible focus of infection or exposure to diseases of animal/poultry health significance in the livestock, poultry and exotic animal population. TAHC surveys animal populations for possible disease problems by collecting blood samples at livestock markets, on farms or ranches, and at slaughter plants…. Additionally, TAHC foreign animal disease diagnosticians investigate all reports of potential foreign animal diseases in order to achieve early diagnosis of a foreign animal disease, should it be introduced into the state.
USDA is moving toward supporting fewer labs nationwide, with the remaining labs serving as regional labs and supporting larger geographic areas….. If this funding is not maintained, this lab will be closed and the out-of-state samples will not be processed by remaining TAHC laboratories….
The first-point testing program is the “early warning system” for the brucellosis program, enabling detection of infection prior to sale of cattle within the state. With the discontinuation of first-point testing, slaughter testing will become the primary method for brucellosis surveillance. There is a key difference between first-point testing and slaughter testing. An animal identified through first-point testing as possibly infected is alive. This allows the agency to collect additional samples (blood, milk and tissue) and conduct additional diagnostic serologic and culture tests to determine if the animal is in fact infected with Brucella abortus. An animal identified through slaughter testing as possibly infected is no longer living and therefore additional testing of that animal is not possible. As a result, the process to be followed requires the identification of the herd the animal came from and conducting a whole herd test to determine whether or not infection is present in the herd. The traceability back to the original owner or farm of origin is also much higher in a first-point test positive versus a slaughter positive, because the animals are individually identified with permanent identification devices, are identified to an owner at the time of testing and market records improve traceability of the animals. …
..All states are expected to collaboratively participate in cooperative disease control and eradication programs or face significant animal movement restrictions from USDA and other states. Movement restrictions would significantly reduce the marketability of Texas animals and increase the cost of market access.
[NAFTA and WTO trade agreements impact]
…New national disease control programs, emergency management responsibilities, and trade agreements with foreign countries have a significant impact on TAHC. These new or expanded programs continue to stretch TAHC’s already stressed resources to their limits.
[foreign diseases imported due to trade agreements and the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures]
…The responsibilities of TAHC have significantly increased as programs for disease control and surveillance have expanded, animal and premises identification systems have been initiated, and participation in emergency planning and response activities impacting animal health require more agency resources. Additionally, new disease challenges are emerging. Some are domestic diseases that are increasing in significance. Others are foreign diseases that may be imported as result of the exponential increases in international importations of animals and animal products. Our industries and our economy are threatened by diseases and pests that heretofore we only read about in disease text books or heard about in lectures….
Since 1999, there have been seven foreign animal diseases diagnosed within the United States (West Nile Virus, Exotic Newcastle Disease, High Pathogenic Avian Influenza, Hemorrhagic Disease of Rabbits, Monkey Pox, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, and Wildebeest Associated Malignant Catarrhal Fever). Unfortunately, there does not appear to be an end in sight for outbreaks of foreign or domestic diseases and these diverse activities related to disease control and eradication….
As usual the situation is not nearly as cut and dried as the government and its propaganda arm, the Mass Media would paint it.
Analysis of the real problems with US food safety:
Peanut Quality – How did the Food Inspection Fail?
Legislators overlook serious flaw in USDA’s HACCP food – Policy
See John Munsell’s comment in this article: “Who needs Al-Qaeda when you have got E. coli?“
One E. coli O157:H7 Outbreak I Think I could have Prevented
As Robert Kennedy has pointed out, it is not just vaccines that are a problem.