The current system and proposed changes of raw milk sales in Vermont.
Written by Meg Alison Urie
April 19th 2015
Written by Meg Alison Urie
April 19th 2015
![Picture](/uploads/2/4/2/3/24231648/3038124.jpg?406)
Like all changes, there are considerations that consumers and producers need to take into account. Popular questions over what if illness occurs that need to be addressed for the safety and continuance of raw milk on the market. If a child falls ill and the cause can be trace back raw milk consumed by a known farm, the liability rests on the farm. No doubtingly crippling the farm but also the family of that child. On the contrary, who is to say that all food isn't relevant to risk? Recalls happen, disease, sickness, allergies and unexplainable illness happen. Human are not perfect which is why there are options and safety protocols for the best well being of individual consumers. Granted the overall morbidity and mortality rates have fallen significantly since the advancement of pasteurization (USDA, 2015), the risk is left up to the consumer in hopes they fully understand and acknowledge the “what if’s”. Food safety was not intended to be defined and controlled by the neighborhood raw milk supplier, but again, the choice remains on consumer shoulders. Dr. Todd Pritchard, Nutrition and Food Safety professor at the University of Vermont questions if faith based food security is the way it consume. Or maybe it is just Vermont’s ever food conscious inhabitants looking for a natural fresh source.
Wether it will fade or become the new norm in buzz words, fresh raw milk is making a statement across the green mountain state. The idea of the minimally processed and transported product resonates with many Vermonter’s looking for an alternative dairy source then those accustom to. With quality and good practices, raw milk could be a success for many farmers big and small, and also for consumers looking to branch their diets. There are risks to consider and the reason why pasteurize, but deeper knowledge comes with trial and adjustment. Allowing the debate to settle and experimentation to occur will tell if the new bill is all consumers and producers want it to be, if it is effective and safe, and if there will be need for more revision in the future. A complex and controversial subject is never black or white but part of a non defining grey scale left up for individual interpretation.
Wether it will fade or become the new norm in buzz words, fresh raw milk is making a statement across the green mountain state. The idea of the minimally processed and transported product resonates with many Vermonter’s looking for an alternative dairy source then those accustom to. With quality and good practices, raw milk could be a success for many farmers big and small, and also for consumers looking to branch their diets. There are risks to consider and the reason why pasteurize, but deeper knowledge comes with trial and adjustment. Allowing the debate to settle and experimentation to occur will tell if the new bill is all consumers and producers want it to be, if it is effective and safe, and if there will be need for more revision in the future. A complex and controversial subject is never black or white but part of a non defining grey scale left up for individual interpretation.
![Picture](/uploads/2/4/2/3/24231648/9082353.jpg?277)
Portrait of a Player in the Food System:
Dr. Todd Pritchard, Nutrition and Food Sciences
University of Vermont
Dr. Todd Pritchard works in the Nutrition and Food Science Department at the University of Vermont. After graduating from UVM in 1985, he went on to receive his PHD and now teaches many insightful and important classes with in the department as well as advise the University’s Alpha Gamma Rho house.
Dr. Pritchard had much to say about the raw milk bill that is currently under consideration. “It is not a new push for Vermonters, it is just Vermont pushing to keep adding more,” Pritchard said. Pritchard testified against the bill when it was under debate a few years ago, focusing on many aspects that were wrong with in the bill, specifically the wording and accountability. “Not if, but when an outbreak happens, lots of damage will be done,” he went on to add that when dealing with raw milk, the farms selling are risking a lot upfront and setting themselves up for lawsuits.
There are many questions for the skeptical. The bill H426 sounds like a great idea for Vermont in a food systems sense by knowing neighborhood farmers and where our products are made, but is faith based food safety really way to go? Dr. Pritchard remarked that some farmers may not know what they are practicing is wrong in harvesting. Some farms are still run on old school practices that without pasteurization may not as clean or safe. This does not mean that smaller farms that use older techniques are bad, just simply that things have progressed and might have changed the standards by which they use and implement methods.
Dr. Pritchard's main concern was with the three big pathogens associated with dairy; Listeria monocytogenes, Campylobacter jejuni , and Salmonella (E.coli O157H7 also but not as detrimental). Listeria monocytogenes is of the worse and scariest pathogen by which death, still born, early embryonic death, and severs sickness can occur especially in sub populations of infants and elderly. Pasteurization prevents, reduces, and eliminates the harmfulness of these pathogens making it a no brainer for most parents.
Many smaller farms claim they can not afford to properly test for these bugs becuae they have to use a private third party. Since they would not be selling their milk to a plant or processing department, their milk is not tested for them. Basic testing like bacteria plate count and somatic cell are preformed, but are not pathogen specific. Another point Dr. Pritchard made was, “the numbers in these counts are not always the true story,” otherwise saying that the bacteria are not specifically tested to be pathogenic or not. Small farmers that intend to sell raw milk should want to test for these pathogens and want to have the best possible product. Consumers should want tests done if they care this much about being able to buy product. Consumers should be willing to pay the difference. It goes without surprise that the raw milk will typically be sold at the same or higher price then traditional store pasteurized milk, however there is no middle steps for the milk to trade hands so the profits will go directly to the farm.
Dr. Todd Pritchard, Nutrition and Food Sciences
University of Vermont
Dr. Todd Pritchard works in the Nutrition and Food Science Department at the University of Vermont. After graduating from UVM in 1985, he went on to receive his PHD and now teaches many insightful and important classes with in the department as well as advise the University’s Alpha Gamma Rho house.
Dr. Pritchard had much to say about the raw milk bill that is currently under consideration. “It is not a new push for Vermonters, it is just Vermont pushing to keep adding more,” Pritchard said. Pritchard testified against the bill when it was under debate a few years ago, focusing on many aspects that were wrong with in the bill, specifically the wording and accountability. “Not if, but when an outbreak happens, lots of damage will be done,” he went on to add that when dealing with raw milk, the farms selling are risking a lot upfront and setting themselves up for lawsuits.
There are many questions for the skeptical. The bill H426 sounds like a great idea for Vermont in a food systems sense by knowing neighborhood farmers and where our products are made, but is faith based food safety really way to go? Dr. Pritchard remarked that some farmers may not know what they are practicing is wrong in harvesting. Some farms are still run on old school practices that without pasteurization may not as clean or safe. This does not mean that smaller farms that use older techniques are bad, just simply that things have progressed and might have changed the standards by which they use and implement methods.
Dr. Pritchard's main concern was with the three big pathogens associated with dairy; Listeria monocytogenes, Campylobacter jejuni , and Salmonella (E.coli O157H7 also but not as detrimental). Listeria monocytogenes is of the worse and scariest pathogen by which death, still born, early embryonic death, and severs sickness can occur especially in sub populations of infants and elderly. Pasteurization prevents, reduces, and eliminates the harmfulness of these pathogens making it a no brainer for most parents.
Many smaller farms claim they can not afford to properly test for these bugs becuae they have to use a private third party. Since they would not be selling their milk to a plant or processing department, their milk is not tested for them. Basic testing like bacteria plate count and somatic cell are preformed, but are not pathogen specific. Another point Dr. Pritchard made was, “the numbers in these counts are not always the true story,” otherwise saying that the bacteria are not specifically tested to be pathogenic or not. Small farmers that intend to sell raw milk should want to test for these pathogens and want to have the best possible product. Consumers should want tests done if they care this much about being able to buy product. Consumers should be willing to pay the difference. It goes without surprise that the raw milk will typically be sold at the same or higher price then traditional store pasteurized milk, however there is no middle steps for the milk to trade hands so the profits will go directly to the farm.