Notes on Raw Milk: an online Journal
February 15, 2010
The Complete Patient
Many dairies that would love to sell raw milk have opted instead for the attractive income, and seeming security, of producing raw milk cheeses instead. They figure they can still get the equivalent of $10 to or more a gallon of milk by producing artisinal cheese, and avoid the hassles with regulators so long as they age it 60 days as required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. I’m an irregular buyer of a number of these cheeses made from raw cow’s, goat’s, and sheep’s milk, and they’re wonderful.
But enforcement of laws and regulations affecting raw milk are made to be changed, especially if it seems that farmers are carving out an attractive market niche and, horror of horrors, actually making farming profitable. Presumably the raw dairy cops at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have been waiting for an illness outbreak among consumers of 60-day-plus aged raw milk cheeses, but with none occurring, they’re moving ahead to protect us regardless.
According to a report in an industry publication, Cheese Reporter, a top dairy official at the FDA, Stephen Sundlof, director of its Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) believes that the 60-day aging period “is not effective in reducing pathogens in raw milk cheeses.” There needs to be “some other risk management steps” that could be applied. Sundlof said at a dairy conference last month. What makes him think that the 60-day period isn’t effective in reducing pathogens? A little birdie must have told him so.
A change in the aging period regulation could put a crimp on production of a number of raw milk soft cheeses like brie and camembert, among others. Some producers already struggle with the 60-day aging requirement, since certain cheeses are best sold sooner than that, and letting them age for 60 days simply reduces their viable shelf lives.
Moreover, the FDA isn’t proposing to extend the aging period, but rather to require processing of the milk, including pasteurization of milk for certain cheeses. Interestingly, another processing option mentioned is “probiotics or competitive exclusion products.” That’s curious, since I understood the FDA didn’t recognize “competitive exclusion” as a means of ensuring raw milk safety. But pasteurization would no doubt compromise the taste and texture, and perhaps the nutritional value, of a number of soft cheeses…and zap another raw nutrient-dense food.
The phenomenon of regulators arbitrarily making trouble for raw milk producers in the absence of illnesses is becoming ever more common. In the Cheese Reporter article, Sundlof is quoted as expressing concerns about the “continued and escalating interest in raw milk consumption.” I love his use of the word “escalating” rather than “growing” or “expanding.” Escalating is a fear-oriented word, as in escalating danger. I don’t ordinarily think of these guys are literary, but clearly Sundlof picks his vocabulary carefully (including when he talks about farmers becoming “pretty clever” in using cow share arrangements).
FDA continues to set the tone, indeed, lead the way, in continuing to “investigate” raw dairies, and encourage state agriculture and public health officials to do the same. The National Independent Consumers and Farmers Association (NICFA) reports on a Pennsylvania Amish farmer who last week greeted two FDA agents investigating his dairy production. As I reported in my Grist.org article, other states have taken up the FDA’s initiative.
***
Okay, the discussion about the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund was a little rough-and-tumble, but maybe that’s because it’s a discussion that’s been long overdue.
I’ve alluded to farmer criticisms of FTCLDF in a few previous posts. In Wisconsin, the criticisms have bubbled more broadly, and become louder than in any other state.
I appreciate lola granola’s sense of frustration with trying to run a dairy in the midst of the upheaval created by Wisconsin’s regulators. My sense is that the criticisms of FTCLDF grow partly out of unrealistic expectations. When FTCLDF was established in 2007, it conveyed a sense that it would defend all members under fire from government regulators. I just reviewed its member benefits, and it says it provides “potential legal representation to defend distribution of raw milk and other farm products directly to the consumer.” In other words, it will provide legal advice to all members, but will in the final analysis decide which cases it wants to defend, and how it will defend them.
The criticisms also grow out of the fact that FTCLDF is a young and maturing organization. The very concept of an organization dedicated to defending raw dairies and other small farms distributing direct to consumers is a new one. It obviously needs time to gain the necessary experience to feel out the legal system, and determine what kind of load it can handle…and can afford to handle.
I also want to second what several readers have suggested about Pete Kennedy and other lawyers involved with FTCLDF. I’ve come to know Pete very well in the course of reporting on raw milk, and he is about as committed as anyone can be. He’s available to farmers evenings and weekends, and travels to many less-than-glamorous conferences and events—often with his young family in tow—to rally support and inform farmers and consumers alike about what’s happening on the legal front lines. I don’t sense any pocket lining going on—quite the opposite.
I’d also like to second what Bob Hayles, Steve Bemis, Alexis Bogue, and others say about the importance of contacting legislators concerning new legislation and enforcement of existing regulations affecting raw milk and other foods. If there’s nothing going on in your state, contact your Congressional representatives in Washington about opposing the pending federal food safety legislation (which could come up for a vote in the Senate any time in the next few weeks), which will give the FDA vast new powers to limit our food choices beyond the considerable power the agency already has, and applies ruthlessly.
No action is too small. In Framingham, MA, which has been the center of a debate about whether to license a dairy near Boston to sell raw milk, citizens have taken to circulating a petition urging local public health officials to stop stalling and let Doug Stephan sell milk. Politicians and regulators alike notice citizen involvement and opinion.
Click here for the full report
Update on the War on Raw Milk
February 15, 2010
Grist
By David Gumpert
When the current phase of a nearly century-long government campaign to convince American consumers to abandon raw milk launched in 2006, heavy-handed intimidation tactics were the order of the day.
Kentucky farmer Gary Oakes was questioned so intensively by agents from the Ohio Department of Agriculture and U.S. Food and Drug Administration while delivering milk to consumers in a Cinciannati parking lot that spring that he was hospitalized three times for symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Michigan farmer Richard Hebron had more than $8,000 of dairy products confiscated in a “sting” operation outside Ann Arbor on Columbus Day weekend of 2006; for five months afterwards, he was threatened with criminal prosecution that might have landed him in jail, before finally being let off with a small fine. And Mennonite farmer Mark Nolt endured three raids on his raw dairy—including confiscation of expensive milk and cheese-making equipment—by state police, FDA, and Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture agents during 2007 and 2008.
The fact that the heavy-handed intimidation operations against raw dairies have abated over the last couple years shouldn’t be mistaken for a letup in the federal and state campaign against raw milk, though. Rather, there has been a shift in tactics.
Those earlier assaults on owners of small farms generated enough unfavorable publicity that federal and state authorities have opted for a less distasteful approach. The emphasis now is on ever-closer regulatory oversight of raw milk sellers and distributors, as well as court actions.
A major target over the last year has been private buying groups. These groups of anywhere from a few dozen to hundreds of consumers have organized in states where raw milk either is banned for general sale, or else available only from dairy farms. They have grown out of the exploding popularity of raw milk and the resulting demand by consumers to be able to conveniently obtain raw milk without traveling hours to a farm. In many states, they have long been tolerated … until now.
In Georgia last October, state agriculture authorities confiscated more than 100 gallons of raw milk purchased by members of a buying group from farms in neighboring South Carolina, where raw milk can be legally sold. The group had been in operation for five years without any problem.
In November, Missouri’s attorney general sued a farm couple after their daughters sold raw milk to undercover public health investigators. The girls were distributing the milk to regular buyers from a health store parking lot, which is legal in Missouri. But when the girls apparently agreed to sell some extra milk to the undercover agents, they entered a gray area. Yet undercover agents and state attorney general involvement would seem a little extreme, if indeed there was a transgression.
Even liberal Massachusetts, which has for years tolerated buying groups delivering raw milk from farms in the central and western parts of the state to buyers in the Boston area and elsewhere, has gotten in on the act. It has sent cease-and-desist orders to three buying clubs in the last month, even though Massachusetts hasn’t had a single illness from raw milk in more than a decade.
The commissioner of Massachusetts’ Department of Agricultural Resources, Scott Soares, contends that it’s raw milk’s growing popularity that has made his people nervous, rather than any grand strategy to sabotage raw milk sales. “We’re seeing a lot more interest and growth in raw milk,” he says. “We recognize there’s a demand for raw milk.” His department supports raw milk sales by farms as a means of economic development, but says its main concern about the buying groups is that because they aren’t regulated, there is “a loss of control when milk leaves the farm and there are no guarantees the milk will be held at the proper temperature.”
Ground zero in the regulatory assault on raw milk is Wisconsin, which officially prohibits the sale of raw milk, but has similarly turned a blind eye to private buying groups of various sorts over the last decade. The agency blames ever-bolder raw milk producers and buying groups for upsetting the delicate balance that had existed. According to Donna Gilson, spokesperson for Wisconsin’s Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection. “Newspaper stories started popping up about farmers selling raw milk. Some of the stories said they had found a legal way to do it. There is not a legal way to do it. They were right in our face with it.”
Since then, at least seven dairy farms and buying groups have either received orders prohibiting their raw milk activities, or demanding detailed information about their activities, from Wisconsin’s DATCP, in anticipation of a stop order. Some dozens of other dairies have received warning letters.
“We’ve never seen anything as aggressive and coordinated as what’s happening in Wisconsin,” says Pete Kennedy, president of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, which helps defend raw dairies under state and federal assault.
Click here for the full report
Milk for Mom May Lower Baby’s MS Risk
February 10th, 2010
All Headline News
By David Goodhue
A recent study suggests women who drink milk while pregnant reduce the chances of their children being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis as an adult.
Harvard researchers gave 35,794 mothers of nurses a questionnaire in 2001 about their experiences and diet during pregnancy. Of the women, 199 of them developed MS over a 16-year year period.
The researchers said in a statement that the risk of MS is lower among women born to mothers who drank milk regularly or had other sources of dietary vitamin D while pregnant.
Other than fortified milk, sources of vitamin D include fatty fish like salmon and exposure to sunlight, the researchers said.
The study will be presented to the American Academy of Neurology’s 62nd Annual Meeting in Toronto from April 10 to April 17.
Click here for the full report
China Milk Whistle Blower Accused of Social Disorder
February 3rd, 2010
guardian.co.uk
By Tania Branigan
Chinese police have referred to prosecutors the case of a father who campaigned over toxic baby formula. Zhao Lianhai, whose own child was made ill by the melamine contamination, is accused of trying to provoke social disorder.
The handover to prosecutors comes one day after the government announced a fresh crackdown on tainted milk products.
Zhao was detained in November by police, who say there is “ample evidence” to support a charge of provoking a serious disturbance.
Zhao set up a website for affected families and called for the creation of a national memorial day for victims. At least six babies died and 300,000 were taken ill after drinking products made by Sanlu, a dairy firm that closed as a result. The scare led to product recalls around the world.
“From September 2008 to September 2009, Zhao Lianhai used ‘protecting rights’ as well as the Sanlu milk powder issue as an excuse to hype and agitate people who did not know the truth to disturb social order … by shouting slogans and illegal gathering,” said the police statement, published on the blog of a lawyer.
The statement also cited Zhao’s backing for a young woman who was raped by a guard while in an illegal detention house. Investigators said he had used her case “as a way to hype and agitate many people who did not know the truth and foreign media [to] gather at the [gate of the Beijing public security bureau], disturbing the area’s social order.”
The statement added that evidence included videos, witness accounts and a confession from Zhao.
Zhao’s lawyer Peng Jian said it usually took around a month and a half for prosecutors to decide whether to press charges.
He added: “I cannot predict what the result will be because I heard the case has got a large amount of evidence, which I haven’t had a chance to review yet. If he ends up being prosecuted we will defend him as not guilty.”
Zhao was detained two hours after he and another father whose baby had been taken ill received an official apology from police in Haidian over their previous detention of the other man.
Yesterday, China announced a 10-day emergency campaign to root out tainted products – at least some of which had been confiscated when the scandal first broke out in late 2008. According to the state news agency Xinhua, they had been repackaged instead of being destroyed.
Melamine is normally used to make plastics and fertilisers. But when added to watered-down or poor quality milk, it appears to boost protein levels – allowing substandard products to pass nutrition tests.
Last month, it emerged that officials in Shanghai waited almost a year before warning the public that a company in the city was producing melamine-laced products.
Click here for the full report
Chinese Milk Scare
January 26, 2010
Reuters
by Ralph Jennings
Authorities in southwestern China have ordered three batches of milk products off shelves because they contain a chemical that killed at least six children in 2008, causing global concern over the made-in-China brand.
The health department in Guizhou province stopped the sales of dairy products made by three Chinese companies, the state-run China Daily newspaper said.
The products were found to contain melamine, which can cause kidney stones and is meant for making plastics, fertilizers and even concrete. Its high nitrogen content allows protein levels to appear higher when it is added to milk or animal feed.
Guizhou health authorities were unavailable for comment.
China executed two people in November for their role in a huge melamine-tainted milk scandal that killed at least six children and sullied the made-in-China brand.
Nearly 300,000 children fell ill in that scandal in 2008 after drinking milk intentionally laced with melamine, sold mainly in that case by the now bankrupt Sanlu Group.
7 Foods You Should Never Eat
Prevention
By Anne Underwood
Which foods should you avoid?
Clean eating means choosing fruits, vegetables, and meats that are raised, grown, and sold with minimal processing.
Often they’re organic, and rarely (if ever) should they contain additives. But in some cases, the methods of today’s food producers are neither clean nor sustainable. The result is damage to our health, the environment, or both. So we decided to take a fresh look at food through the eyes of the people who spend their lives uncovering what’s safe—or not—to eat. We asked them a simple question: “What foods do you avoid?” Their answers don’t necessarily make up a “banned foods” list. But reaching for the suggested alternatives might bring you better health—and peace of mind.
1. Canned Tomatoes
Fredrick Vom Saal, PhD, an endocrinologist at the University of Missouri who studies bisphenol-A, gives us the scoop:
The problem: The resin linings of tin cans contain bisphenol-A, a synthetic estrogen that has been linked to ailments ranging from reproductive problems to heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. Unfortunately, acidity (a prominent characteristic of tomatoes) causes BPA to leach into your food. Studies show that the BPA in most people’s body exceeds the amount that suppresses sperm production or causes chromosomal damage to the eggs of animals. “You can get 50 mcg of BPA per liter out of a tomato can, and that’s a level that is going to impact people, particularly the young,” says vom Saal. “I won’t go near canned tomatoes.”
The solution: Choose tomatoes in glass bottles (which do not need resin linings), such as the brands Bionaturae and Coluccio. You can also get several types in Tetra Pak boxes, like Trader Joe’s and Pomi.
Budget tip: If your recipe allows, substitute bottled pasta sauce for canned tomatoes. Look for pasta sauces with low sodium and few added ingredients, or you may have to adjust the recipe.
2. Corn-Fed Beef
Joel Salatin, co-owner of Polyface Farms and author of half a dozen books on sustainable farming, gives us the scoop:
The problem: Cattle evolved to eat grass, not grains. But farmers today feed their animals corn and soybeans, which fatten up the animals faster for slaughter. But more money for cattle farmers (and lower prices at the grocery store) means a lot less nutrition for us. A recent comprehensive study conducted by the USDA and researchers from Clemson University found that compared with corn-fed beef, grass-fed beef is higher in beta-carotene, vitamin E, omega-3s, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), calcium, magnesium, and potassium; lower in inflammatory omega-6s; and lower in saturated fats that have been linked to heart disease. “We need to respect the fact that cows are herbivores, and that does not mean feeding them corn and chicken manure,” says Salatin.
The solution: Buy grass-fed beef, which can be found at specialty grocers, farmers’ markets, and nationally at Whole Foods. It’s usually labeled because it demands a premium, but if you don’t see it, ask your butcher.
Budget tip: Cuts on the bone are cheaper because processors charge extra for deboning. You can also buy direct from a local farmer, which can be as cheap as $5 per pound. To find a farmer near you, search eatwild.com.
3. Microwave Popcorn
Olga Naidenko, PhD, a senior scientist for the Environmental Working Group, gives us the scoop:
The problem: Chemicals, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), in the lining of the bag, are part of a class of compounds that may be linked to infertility in humans, according to a recent study from UCLA. In animal testing, the chemicals cause liver, testicular, and pancreatic cancer. Studies show that microwaving causes the chemicals to vaporize—and migrate into your popcorn. “They stay in your body for years and accumulate there,” says Naidenko, which is why researchers worry that levels in humans could approach the amounts causing cancers in laboratory animals. DuPont and other manufacturers have promised to phase out PFOA by 2015 under a voluntary EPA plan, but millions of bags of popcorn will be sold between now and then.
The solution: Pop natural kernels the old-fashioned way: in a skillet. For flavorings, you can add real butter or dried seasonings, such as dillweed, vegetable flakes, or soup mix.
Budget tip: Popping your own popcorn is dirt cheap.
4. Nonorganic Potatoes
Jeffrey Moyer, chair of the National Organic Standards Board, gives us the scoop:
The problem: Root vegetables absorb herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides that wind up in soil. In the case of potatoes—the nation’s most popular vegetable—they’re treated with fungicides during the growing season, then sprayed with herbicides to kill off the fibrous vines before harvesting. After they’re dug up, the potatoes are treated yet again to prevent them from sprouting. “Try this experiment: Buy a conventional potato in a store, and try to get it to sprout. It won’t,” says Moyer, who is also farm director of the Rodale Institute (also owned by Rodale Inc., the publisher of Prevention). “I’ve talked with potato growers who say point-blank they would never eat the potatoes they sell. They have separate plots where they grow potatoes for themselves without all the chemicals.”
The solution: Buy organic potatoes. Washing isn’t good enough if you’re trying to remove chemicals that have been absorbed into the flesh.
Budget tip: Organic potatoes are only $1 to $2 a pound, slightly more expensive than conventional spuds.
5. Farmed Salmon
David Carpenter, MD, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany and publisher of a major study in the journal Science on contamination in fish, gives us the scoop:
The problem: Nature didn’t intend for salmon to be crammed into pens and fed soy, poultry litter, and hydrolyzed chicken feathers. As a result, farmed salmon is lower in vitamin D and higher in contaminants, including carcinogens, PCBs, brominated flame retardants, and pesticides such as dioxin and DDT. According to Carpenter, the most contaminated fish come from Northern Europe, which can be found on American menus. “You could eat one of these salmon dinners every 5 months without increasing your risk of cancer,” says Carpenter, whose 2004 fish contamination study got broad media attention. “It’s that bad.” Preliminary science has also linked DDT to diabetes and obesity, but some nutritionists believe the benefits of omega-3s outweigh the risks. There is also concern about the high level of antibiotics and pesticides used to treat these fish. When you eat farmed salmon, you get dosed with the same drugs and chemicals.
The solution: Switch to wild-caught Alaska salmon. If the package says fresh Atlantic, it’s farmed. There are no commercial fisheries left for wild Atlantic salmon.
Budget tip: Canned salmon, almost exclusively from wild catch, can be found for as little as $3 a can.
6. Milk Produced with Artificial Hormones
Rick North, project director of the Campaign for Safe Food at the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility and former CEO of the Oregon division of the American Cancer Society, gives us the scoop:
The problem: Milk producers treat their dairy cattle with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST, as it is also known) to boost milk production. But rBGH also increases udder infections and even pus in the milk. It also leads to higher levels of a hormone called insulin-like growth factor in milk. In people, high levels of IGF-1 may contribute to breast, prostate, and colon cancers. “When the government approved rBGH, it was thought that IGF-1 from milk would be broken down in the human digestive tract,” says North. As it turns out, the casein in milk protects most of it, according to several independent studies. “There’s not 100% proof that this is increasing cancer in humans,” admits North. “However, it’s banned in most industrialized countries.”
The solution: Check labels for rBGH-free, rBST-free, produced without artificial hormones, or organic milk. These phrases indicate rBGH-free products.
Budget tip: Try Wal-Mart’s Great Value label, which does not use rBGH.
7. Conventional Apples
Mark Kastel, former executive for agribusiness and codirector of the Cornucopia Institute, a farm-policy research group that supports organic foods, gives us the scoop:
The problem: If fall fruits held a “most doused in pesticides contest,” apples would win. Why? They are individually grafted (descended from a single tree) so that each variety maintains its distinctive flavor. As such, apples don’t develop resistance to pests and are sprayed frequently. The industry maintains that these residues are not harmful. But Kastel counters that it’s just common sense to minimize exposure by avoiding the most doused produce, like apples. “Farm workers have higher rates of many cancers,” he says. And increasing numbers of studies are starting to link a higher body burden of pesticides (from all sources) with Parkinson’s disease.
Click here for the full report
The solution: Buy organic apples.
Budget tip: If you can’t afford organic, be sure to wash and peel them. But Kastel personally refuses to compromise. “I would rather see the trade-off being that I don’t buy that expensive electronic gadget,” he says. “Just a few of these decisions will accommodate an organic diet for a family.”
Looking For Better Advertising Regulations Regarding Food and Drugs
January 18, 2010
Guardian
By Alex Renton
Heinz has received an embarrassing ticking-off from the Advertising Standards Authority for the nauseating TV advert for its baby milk, Nurture, above. The ASA said on Monday that the claim that the formula would support growth in the brain, body and immune system of a baby was “unsubstantiated” and “unacceptable”.
Campaigners for honest food are delighted. This is a boost in the next front in the long-running war over children’s food claims: promises that food supplements can aid mental development. (How long-running? In the 1890s John Harvey Kellogg said that his cornflakes would prevent masturbation in young men, while in 1903 Grape Nuts promised a cure for malaria and loose teeth.)
Already Nestle’s Gerber brand in the United States is marketing follow-on purees for toddlers with the words “helps support brain and eye development” prominent on the packet. This claim – accepted by the authorities in the US – is based on research around DHA and other forms of Omega-3 oils.
Despite scepticism over on this side of the Atlantic – one eminent scientist told me recently the claim that DHA could help nerve system development and cognitive function was “bullshit” – manufacturers have been preparing for what they believe will be a positive ruling from the European foods standards body soon. Will the ASA ruling upset that process?
For now, it is three cheers for the ASA, which has been showing its teeth on food manufacturers’ porkies lately. Christine Haigh of the Children’s Food Campaign points out the resemblance with the case last October in which Danone’s adverts claimed that Actimel was “scientifically proven to help support your kids defences” were ruled against. “We believe the Food Standards Agency needs to investigate how widespread this practice is,” says Haigh.
Sadly the ASA, like the Press Complaints Commission, is more bark than bite. It cannot make Heinz and its ad agency Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO say sorry to those poor parents it bullied to buy Nurture, which costs 70% more than the Farley’s product it replaced when launched in July 2008. In fact, a proper self-regulatory body would make “agency of the year 2009″ AMV BBDO pay back their fee to the mums and dads. Shouldn’t it?
Click here for the full report
Animals Fed Genetically Modified Foods are Different
January 15, 2010
GM Watch
In a landmark ruling, the NZ Commerce Commission has accepted evidence from Prof Jack Heinemann, from an exhaustive review of the literature and on the basis of his own extensive professional experience, that animals fed on GM components ARE different from those which are reared using non-GM feed. This is a direct challenge to EFSA and FSA, who have maintained consistently that there are no differences between GM- fed and non-GM-fed animals, and that there is therefore no need for labelling or segregation of feed supplies to meet consumer demand for GM-free products.
This issue came to a head because of complaints that NZ poultry producer Inghams claimed, in a high-pressure advertising campaign, that its chickens contained no GM ingredients, in spite of using up to 13% GM soy-based feed. In one of its adverts, Inghams said: “Research confirms that animals that consume feed with a component of GM are no different compared to animals that have been fed a low GM or GM free diet.”
The Commission has now told Inghams that it was breaching the Fair Trading Act by making false or misleading claims. Inghams continued to argue on its website that the use of GM soy did not compromise an absolute GM-free status and animals that ate feed with a GM component were no different to animals that may have been fed a low GM or GM- free diet. This position was verified by numerous feeding studies, the website said. The company cited publications by a New Zealand Royal Commission, the Royal Society and the Federation of Animal Science Societies. However, those publications were at least 7 years old; and the company accepted the CC ruling and stopped the advertising as soon as Prof Heinemann’s investigation was commenced.
Prof Heinemann’s Report, entitled “Report on animals exposed to GM ingredients in animal feed” (July 2009), makes interesting reading. It surveys all of the published animal feeding studies which are cited by EFSA, FSA and other bodies, and subjects them to a careful analysis. He refuses to be drawn on human health and safety safety issues (since that was not his brief) but concludes that there are many deficiencies in the studies which purport to show “no effects” from the consumption of GM animal feed. Sometimes, in animal feeding experiments, GM components have been used in both the test group and the control group, which would have the effect of masking GM effects. Many animal feeding experiments are too short to reveal physiological changes. Other deficiencies are related to variability in the GM DNA of feed supplies, the sensitivity of the testing methods used, and the use of surrogate proteins rather than whole GM feed in the testing protocols.
Nonetheless, there are abundant studies (including some conducted under the auspices of the GM industry itself) that show statistically significant physiological changes in GM-fed animals, and that reveal the presence of “DNA and protein unique to GM plants within animals and animal products.” Prof Heinemann also concludes: “There is compelling evidence that animals provided with feed containing GM ingredients can react in a way that is unique to an exposure to GM plants. This is revealed through metabolic, physiological or immunological responses in exposed animals.”
This is a very important study which should form the basis of a direct challenge to EFSA and FSA to change the wording on their websites and to abandon their fondly-held beliefs that GM components fed to farm animals do not enter the animal and animal product food chain.
2.Report on animals exposed to GM ingredients in animal feed
Prepared for the Commerce Commission of New Zealand
by Professor Jack A.Heinemann, PhD
24 July 2009
Summarised by GMWatch. NB: in some cases we have simplified language. If this results in any loss of scientific accuracy, the fault is ours. Readers who need accuracy of information are advised to consult Prof Heinemann’s original report.
This report addresses the questions:
*could DNA from GM plants be transferred to the animal?
*could GM plants be incorporated into other products sold as chicken products, including bread or stuffing?
*could proteins from GM plants be transferred to the product or could the GM feed alter metabolites [any substance involved in metabolism, either as a product of metabolism or as necessary for metabolism] in the animal?
*could GM feed cause physiological or immunological responses in the animal?
Summary of conclusions
There is substantial literature that reports the detection of DNA and protein unique to GM plants within animals and animal products. Based on studies, it is not possible to conclude that animals and derived products are free of GM material when they have been exposed to GM plants through i) feeding, ii) proximity to other animals on GM feed, or iii) subsequent processing. The most consistent finding in the literature is that animals not exposed to GM feed were unlikely to be contaminated with GM material.
There is compelling evidence that animals provided with feed containing GM ingredients can react in a way that is unique to an exposure to GM plants. This is revealed through metabolic, physiological or immunological responses in exposed animals. In the absence of appropriate testing, we can’t assume that raising an animal on GM feed will not affect the final product – even if there is no detectable residue from the GM material.
The cumulative strength of positive detections reviewed in studies leave no unreasonable uncertainty that GM plant material can transfer to animals exposed to GM feed in their diets or environment, and that there can be a residual difference in animals or animal products as a result of exposure to GM feed.
On current GM policy for retailers in Europe
Retailers are linking the use of GM feed with the GM status of their animal products. For the United Kingdom and Ireland:
“All of Marks & Spencer’s fresh meat and poultry, salmon, shell eggs and fresh milk comes from animals fed on a non-GM diet. The Kepak Group, which controls 60% of Irish beef exports, requires some farmers who produce meat for its flagship KK Club brand to exclude the use of GM animal feed,
“All Kepak’s chicken meat comes from birds reared on a vegetarian, non-GMO diet. The Silver Pall Dairy in Co Cork has signed multi-million euro foreign direct investment deals with Baskin Robbins (the world’s largest ice-cream retailer) and with Ben & Gerry’s, to produce GM-free ice cream (made from milk from cows fed a certified non-GM diet) for the European market.
“Tesco, Sainsburys, M&S and Budgen Stores all have quality labels for meat and dairy produce from livestock fed on certified GM-free animal feed. All of Marks & Spencer’s fresh meat and poultry, salmon, shell eggs and fresh milk comes from animals fed on non-GM diet. Moreover, standard poultry sold In most UK supermarkets now carries a label certifying GM-free feed”.
Similar practices are reported for Italy, France and Switzerland. TraceConsult™, which describes itself as a consultancy, reported on 20 July 2009 that the Swedish Dairy Association “were suddenly unable to continue their claim of supplying GMO-free milk” due to inadvertent distribution of GM feed to member farmers.
On whether consumers can avoid eating GM DNA in animal products
Would a consumer eating an animal raised on GM feed be able to avoid ingestion of DNA, protein or other substances unique to a GM plant, or able to avoid animal physiological or immunological responses to substances unique to GM plants? According to the evidence, no.
The research is clear on the following. If a consumer wanted to avoid eating GM DNA, then this consumer would have a high likelihood of success through purchasing meat products from animals raised on GM-free feed. For products that are breaded or stuffed, that consumer could probably avoid exposure to GM DNA if the ingredients in the breading and stuffing were certified organic or GM-free. If a consumer wanted to avoid eating proteins or metabolites unique to GM plants, then this consumer would have a high likelihood of success purchasing meat products from animals raised on GM-free feed. If a consumer wanted to avoid the ingestion of metabolites or proteins in animals that were only present, or present at different concentrations, when the animal was fed a GM plant, then this consumer would have a high likelihood of success through purchasing meat products from animals raised on GM-free feed.
Click here for the full report
Study Pushes Baby Formula For Profit Over Natural Breast Feeding
January 8, 2010
Natural News
By David Gutierrez
A recent study lauding the benefits of fortified infant formula has been greeted with skepticism by child development specialists, who suspect that the study is only the first part of an attempt to promote formula over breast milk.
“It is clear that the food industry fascination with nutraceuticals (strategically fortified food products) is now spreading into infant formula,” said Barbara Moore of Shape Up America! “This is a disturbing new development. We have parents thinking that sticking their tiny infants in front of a Baby Einstein video will improve their child’s mental development when the data suggest that parent-child interactions (and plenty of them) are the most critical factor for such development. Now parents will be encouraged to forego breastfeeding — which is optimal for both mothers and babies — in favor of a hyped up infant formula.”
A recent study concluded that children who consumed infant formula fortified with the omega-3 fatty acid DHA had higher cognitive function than children who consumed unfortified formula. Breastmilk was not included in the study, and the formula used in the study was provided for free by a manufacturer.
Miriam Labbok of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill said she was doubtful about the study’s findings.
“It might be reasonable from these industry-funded studies to consider that this would be a good additive to formula if you are forced to stop breastfeeding,” she said. “However, 1) none of these studies compare to continued breastfeeding, 2) you could also get these [nutrients] from other sources if you stop breastfeeding, and 3) there are hundreds, if not thousands, of other components in human milk that cannot be replaced.”
Pediatrician Lori Feldman-Winter of New Jersey noted that many mothers come to her believing that DHA-fortified milk is healthier for their infants than breastmilk.
“The marketing has actually dissuaded mothers from choosing exclusive breastfeeding, which is preferred from all the outcomes that we understand,” she said.
All major health and pediatric associations recommend exclusive breastfeeding for at least the first six months of life, if not longer.
Click here for the full report
Organic Milk Linked to Lower Rates of Allergies, Asthma, and Eczema
December 28, 2009
Natural News
By David Gutierrez
Young children who consume exclusively organic dairy products are significantly less likely to develop allergies, asthma or eczema by the age of two, according to a study conducted by researchers from the Louis Bolk Institute in the Netherlands and published in the British Journal of Nutrition.
“This is the first example of a definite health impact of organic food consumption being published in a peer-reviewed journal,” said Carlo Leifert of Newcastle University, who is leading a study into the connection between organic food consumption and health.
Researchers followed 2,500 pregnant women until their children were two years old, recording information on their health and their lifestyle and dietary habits. They found that the rate of allergies was 36 percent lower among children who drank or ate organic milk, cheese and yogurt and whose mothers had consumed these products while breastfeeding than among children and mothers who had eaten either only non-organic dairy products or a mix of organic and non-organic products.
“There was a clear relationship between organic dairy use and less eczema,” said researcher Machteld Huber. “The difference was significant but only for children exclusively eating organic dairy products.”
“We didn’t find a relationship if they had [both] organic and conventional dairy products.”
Researchers do not know whether the increased allergy risk from non-organic dairy is caused by extra toxic ingredients, such as antibiotics, by lower levels of key nutrients, such as omega-3 fatty acids, by some combination of the two, or by some other factor.
“Organic milk doesn’t contain any pesticides, added hormones or antibiotics,” said Stuart Martin of the Scottish Organic Milk Producers Association. “When an organic cow becomes sick our farmers are encouraged to treat it homeopathically first and only use antibiotics as a last resort. Meanwhile, the milk from that cow is removed from the milk stream and is not used at all.”
Click here for the full report
