Raw Milk Scandal in Chilliwack B.C.

Raw Milk Scandal in Chilliwack B.C.

Chilliwack, B.C. a rural municipality about 40 minutes east of Surrey, and site of the Home on the Range cow sharing co-op, has come under the gun with allegations of unsafe distribution of raw milk. The B.C Center for Disease control and an independent lab from Burnaby conducted 15 tests on samples from the co-op and 30% of the tested samples came back with high coliform and E. coli counts. In December, a young child became ill with food poisoning that was attributed to campylobacter and E. coli infection. Her family are participants in the cow share program.

The law in Canada prohibits the sale of raw milk-period. However, it is legal to drink it if you own the cow. Farmers who run these types of operations sell cow shares. Shareholders “own” the cows and can therefore drink what is produced. What about the farmer who maintains the herd? How are consistent hygiene and food safety standards adhered to. Where is the proof? How could a consumer “know” whether his/her cow was being adequately cared for regarding feed, living condition and vet checkups? They couldn’t. Therefore there are too many uncontrolled variables in the operation.
Fecal matter, poor hygiene and improper handling are generally the causes behind outbreaks. U.S. states require that the bacterial count not exceed 10 coliform units per million. Out of the 15 samples tested the range of contamination was 570-950,000- well over the legal limit. In British Columbia PASTEURIZED milk can’t be sold if contamination is over 1 unit per milliliter.

In the pasteurization vs. raw milk fight what are the facts? This report is taken from
.foodsafetynews.com
“Sick animals may carry pathogens that can be transmitted to people through their milk and cause life-threatening illnesses such as bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis. In the US, almost all dairy and beef herds are free of these diseases, but travelers to developing areas like Mexico, Africa, and the Middle East are sometimes infected by drinking raw milk, eating raw milk cheeses, or being exposed to sick animals.

Healthy dairy animals such as cattle and goats may shed foodborne pathogens like Campylobacter, E. coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes, and Salmonella in their feces. These foodborne pathogens can cause mild illness in some people, and life-threatening or long-term debilitating disease in others including paralysis, kidney failure, and arthritis. Children, the elderly, and people with weakened immune systems (chemotherapy, AIDS patients) are more likely to become severely ill from these pathogens.

Pasteurization involves heat treatment of milk to a temperature that destroys foodborne pathogens. The only way to keep these pathogens out of untreated raw milk is through very strict sanitation, which can be difficult because of the large volume of feces produced by dairy animals including during the time they are being milked.

Some raw milk advocates believe that only feeding a grass-based diet will prevent shedding of pathogens in the feces of food animals, and later contamination of raw milk or meat. Since grass-fed cows have been linked to outbreaks, and pathogens have been found in their feces and milk, it does not appear that "clean grass-fed" cows or goats are safer than conventionally raised food animals based on diet alone.”

Instead of banning raw milk sales in the United States, some have implemented that these precautionary regulations:

1. Raw milk should be sold only on farms that are certified by the state and inspected and tested regularly. Make ambiguous black market milk/cheese sales and "pet food sales" meant for human consumption clearly illegal
2. Raw milk should not be sold in grocery stores or across state lines--the risks of mass production and transportation are too great; the risk of a casual purchase by someone misunderstanding the risks is too great, as well
3. Farms should be required to have insurance coverage sufficient to cover reasonable damages to their customers
4. Practices such as outsourcing (buying raw milk from farms not licensed for raw milk production) should be illegal
5. Colostrum should be regulated as a dairy product, not a nutritional supplement
6. Warning signs on the bottles and at point-of-purchase should be mandatory. An example: "WARNING: This product has not been pasteurized and may contain harmful bacteria (not limited to E. coli O157:H7, Campylobacter, Listeria and Salmonella). Pregnant women, infants, children, the elderly and persons with lowered resistance to disease (immune compromised) have the highest risk of harm, which includes Diarrhea, Vomiting, Fever, Dehydration, Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, Reactive Arthritis, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Miscarriage, or Death, from use of this product."

Some raw milk advocates claim that grass fed cows don’t shed the bacteria and are “cleaner”, and some go as far as to make “cure all” claims as to health benefits from consumption of unpasteurized milk. These claims are completely unproven and the consumer should be extremely wary.

A respondent to the media coverage of the contamination scandal suggested that feeding cows healthy food produced healthy milk with no attendant problems. While this may be true enough, the difference is that his family was totally in control of the operation, cleanliness, feed distribution and handling of the milk. At the Home on the Range co-op- they seem to have a problem with maintaining consistently safe standards. It is this lack of consistency that hurts the credibility of their mission.
In conclusion, one is safer to drink milk in which the pathogens are dead until the raw milk advocates can prove otherwise.