Page 102 - Winter2014

disorders / asthma was found to be independent of other farm-related factors or living on a farm, and individuals reported
to consume raw milk were found to have evidence of certain protective immune markers as a possible explanation for
this association.”
The letter, however, then downplays the importance of the studies by noting that they “do not always distinguish
between raw milk and pasteurized milk” and that due to this and other related limitations in the studies “it cannot be
concluded that raw milk was consumed alone and contributed to the stated associations.” In making its conclusion,
FDA ignored the fact that in at least one of the cited studies the authors had specifically determined that milk which
had not been heated had a greater protective effect.
In its letter, FDA also tried to discredit a broad CDC survey finding 3 percent of the U.S. population regularly con-
sumes raw milk by claiming that “the results of that survey may not be taken to mean that the survey respondents usually
or regularly drink raw milk” because the question CDC used was whether people had consumed any unpasteurized milk
in the seven days prior to their participation in the survey. FDA claims less than 1 percent of the population regularly
consumes raw milk meaning the agency believes over two-thirds of the participants in the survey who said they drank
raw milk only did so occasionally.
Even though it is increasingly in the minority, the agency, in the letter, also stuck to its position that milk is milk and
pasteurized milk and raw milk should not be regarded as two different products. This view enables FDA to distinguish
between a “legal” food like oysters and milk; with the latter, according to the agency, having a practical measure to
eliminate the “contamination”—pasteurization.
FDA’s double standard on requiring a guarantee of raw milk safety is shown in the agency’s response to a report by
the Michigan Fresh Unprocessed Whole Milk Workgroup in support of legal access to raw milk. The Michigan workgroup
consisted of members of industry, academia, and government, as well as raw milk producers and consumers and spent
over six years completing its work. FDA seized on a statement in the report that following the report’s guidelines on
the production, handling and consumption of raw milk “will not guarantee that the produced and consumed milk will
never be a vehicle for milk-borne illnesses.” According to the agency, the workgroup does not imply “standards will be
an assurance that the (raw) milk will always be safe…the document does not address FDA’s safety concerns regarding
raw milk.”
The FDA letter is further proof that the agency continues to be the biggest threat to freedom of food choice. OPDC
will be seeking a federal district court ruling overturning the denial of its petition.

ILLINOIS - Proposed Raw Milk Regulations
On September 5th, the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) issued proposed regulations governing raw milk
sales and production; regulations that a number of raw milk producers believe would put them out of business. (See
Wise Traditions Winter 2013 issue for more background.) So many people submitted comments opposing the rules (over
700 submitted comments with the overwhelming majority in opposition) that IDPH extended the comment period on
them from 45 to 90 days.
For over 30 years unlicensed on-farm sales of raw milk have been legal by government policy; the rules IDPH pro-
posed to replace the policy would reduce consumer access to the raw milk produced in Illinois by creating an arbitrary
and overreaching regulatory scheme that would make it more difficult for dairy farmers to make a living. The proposed
rules would;

• Require a raw milk producer with even just one cow or goat to have a permit and would be subject to regular
inspections and testing.
• Prohibit unlicensed producers from giving away milk to guests at their farm.
• Prohibit herdshares and the distribution of raw milk through community subscription agriculture (CSAs) unless the
producer is in compliance with all requirements for Grade A dairies which produce raw milk for pasteurization – a
financially impossible standard for just about all shareholder and CSA dairies. Even if a dairy could afford to meet
the Grade A standards it could still only distribute to shareholders and CSA members on the farm. IDPH issued the
herdshare regulation despite Illinois statute recognizing the legality of dairy livestock boarding agreements.
• Contain a number of sanitary standards that can be arbitrarily applied against producers to shut them down when
there is no threat to public health; for example: “the flanks, udders, bellies and tails of all lactating animals should
be free from visible dirt” and “all milking equipment should be stored in a dust-tight room.”
• Intrude on the farmer-consumer relationship by requiring farmers to maintain records of each transaction with the
customer, name and address, to issue “Department approved consumer awareness information with each sale or
transaction” and to provide “instructions for the consumer to notify the local health department for the area in

98 Wise Traditions WINTER 2014 Wise Traditions

145881_text.indd 98 12/23/14 12:17 AM