HEALTH CANADA SUBMISSION

RAW MILK FOR DRINKING

“For years whole food advocates have been cheering “Rah! Rah!” for raw foods. I used to wonder, what was the big deal? But after three days of raw eating, I am now a convert and have been adjusting my shopping and food preparation habits to integrate raw into my life permanently.”

- Leanne Terrace, Alive Magazine, August 2002
 

By The Natural Milk Coalition of Canada

March 19, 2003
 

INTRODUCTION

As exemplified by the cover page quotation, more and more Canadians are discovering and adopting a raw foods diet. The media has also discovered it. Raw foods are typically more nutritious than processed foods, which is certainly true for raw milk, as presented below. Should any Canadian wish to adopt a raw foods diet, as is their right and as one of the submitters has done, then raw drinking milk is usually an important dietary component.

The purpose of this submission is to request Health Canada and by extension the provincial governments to respond in a positive manner to this growing consumer initiative and amend the law to permit unregulated direct sales of raw milk products between producers and consumers and to also implement a regulated production system for raw drinking milk. Failure to do both exposes the government to Charter challenges.

To justify our request, this submission will show firstly, that raw drinking milk is nutritionally superior to processed milk and secondly, that unregulated sales of raw drinking milk made directly from farmers to educated consumers are safe, as are all regulated sales of raw drinking milk, either retail or direct from farmers to consumers. Uneducated consumers can be protected both by the latter (a regulated system of raw drinking milk sales) and by consumer education programs. In this manner the rights and the health of all raw milk consumers, both educated and uneducated, are respected and protected and no Charter violations exist which we would go to court over.

The submission will also demonstrate how the present mandatory pasteurization law violates the Charter, and appears to have a major deficiency in respect of the sale of raw meat, fish, poultry and eggs and liquor.

However, for the government to consider a voluntary change to the law and to thereby permit the sale of raw milk for drinking, we were asked to address two issues by Health Canada:

1. why do we believe raw milk is healthier than pasteurized milk?

2. how do you make raw milk safe for consumers?

These issues are presented below.

The submission was prepared by The Natural Milk Coalition of Canada, a consumer advocacy group formed to promote the general availability of raw drinking milk. Its website address is www.raw-milk.com.

For ease of reading and understanding, reference is made in this submission to raw drinking milk from cows. However, raw drinking milk from goats and sheep is also being sought, although not mentioned specifically at each instance hereunder.
 

A.  HEALTH RATIONALE FOR RAW MILK

1.      Nutritional importance of milk

Milk in its natural form is a highly nutritious food.  It is a source of energy, calcium, protein, minerals, trace elements, vitamins, bioactive factors, enzymes, phospholipids, pigments and others.  It is an excellent source of high quality protein for children, adults and the elderly, supplying the essential amino acids.  Milk proteins have a relative surplus of some essential amino acids (lysine, threonine, methionine, isoleucine) that can supplement vegetable proteins which often are limiting in those amino acids (Hurley, Univ. of Illinois).  Milk contains all the major vitamins: A, D, E and K found in the milk fat and the B-complex group (B1 or thiamine, B2 or riboflavin, pantothenic acid, niacin, B6 or pyridoxine, B12 or biotin, folic acid) and Vitamin C in the aqueous phase.  All 22 minerals considered to be essential to the human diet are present in milk (Goff, Univ. of Guelph).

The important nutrients in milk are shown in Table 1 (Dairy Farmers of Ontario – Milk Facts).

         Table 1.  Important Nutrients in Milk

Special properties of milk from cows in pasture

Commercially produced milk typically comes from cows kept in stalls and fed with concentrates, hay and/or silage.  The traditional non-intensive method leaves the animals out to pasture more or less all year round, with nutrition based on natural grass.  Cows fed on natural pasturage have a higher content of conjugated linolenic acids (CLA), beta carotene and retinol and lower cholesterol content. The alpha-tocopherol content, unlike that of cholesterol, is always higher from grazing cows (Fedele, 2001). The level of Vitamin A, folic acid and Vitamin D in milk is at its highest in summer when cows are in pasture (McHenry, 1941; Renner, 1983).

Bone health

Milk provides a unique combination of bone building nutrients including:

•  calcium and phosphorus, the building blocks for bones;

• Vitamin D, helps in the absorption of the calcium;

• magnesium, acts as “cement”;

• protein, lays the foundation for building bones; and

• Vitamin A, enables remodelling as it breaks down old bones and replaces it with new ones.

Milk is considered our most valuable protective food, i.e. protects against malnutrition and consequent ill-health (McHenry, 1941).

Some dairy food components have been shown to inhibit the development of colonic tumors in experimental models: calcium and Vitamin D, conjugated linoleic acid, sphingolipids, butyric acid and milk proteins (Lipkin, 1998). Dietary calcium intake has also been linked to high blood pressure lowering (Hatton et al., 1998, McCarron, 1996; Miller, 1998) and benefits for colorectal cancers (Baron et al., 1999; Holt et al., 1998). 

The importance of adequate intake of calcium for bone health and prevention of diseases underscores the importance of drinking milk.

2.   Utilization of milk by the body

The calcium in milk and dairy products is much better absorbed than the calcium in spinach or watercress, which have high oxalate levels (Gueguen, 2001).  Certain plant foods also contain phytates which inhibit the intestinal absorption of calcium.

It appears that lactose in the diet improves calcium absorption (Renner, 1983).  The effect is not due to lactose itself but to its metabolic product lactic acid, which is formed by microbial action in the intestinal tract.  Soured milk products also increase milk absorption.  The improvement in calcium absorption by lactose is that the acid pH value it produces in the intestinal tract increases the solubility of calcium salts and thus makes calcium available for absorption.  Part of the effect may be due to the ability of lactose to form soluble complexes with calcium.  Lactose may also facilitate calcium transport by its action on the mucosa.  In animal experiments, a lactose-containing diet increased the absorption of calcium, magnesium, phosphorus and other trace elements over a diet containing glucose.  It reduced the symptoms of calcium deficiency, reduced the loss of calcium from the bone and increased the calcium concentration in the blood (Renner, 1983).

In order for people who consume milk to derive its nutritional benefits, it must be broken down and digested by the body. 

Inability to digest milk can cause abdominal pressure, flatulence and diarrhea. The symptoms seen in infants who cannot tolerate cow’s milk are colic, diaper rash, diarrhea and eczema. Because of the problems due to cow’s milk seen in children, many physicians have removed milk from the diets of children with health problems, such as allergies or recurrent eye, ear, nose and throat infection.

There are two mechanisms for milk intolerance:  milk protein allergy and lactose intolerance.

Beta lactoglobulin is the primary antigenic component that stimulates the immune hypersensitive response in the infant.  Symptoms are similar to lactose intolerance.  Milk protein allergy response also results as a secondary phenomenon to injury of the small intestine mucosa, such as during lactose intolerance. 

Lactose malabsorption and lactose intolerance are caused by reduced lactase activity in the mucosa of the small intestine.  This can be due to reduced enzyme activity or transport capacity of the cell walls of the small intestine. In the absence of lactase, lactose is not split to the simple sugars – glucose and galactose.  The increase in lactose concentration in the small intestine produces an increased osmotic pressure which causes water to enter the lumen of the small intestine, resulting in stomach cramps, bloating, gas and diarrhea. 

Lactase activity is often genetically determined.  About 75% of the world’s population have trouble digesting lactose. The exceptions are northern and some central Europeans, several people from Africa (Fulani and Tussi tribes) and some people from India.  Lactose intolerance is most common among Asians, blacks and South Americans.  Twenty percent of Caucasians are estimated to be lactose intolerant.  

In mammals, lactase activity falls after weaning.  At least 90% of all human adults in the world show some degree of lactase deficiency, retaining only 5-10% of the original lactase activity.  The average number of enzyme units in babies is 29 per g of protein, that in lactose-tolerant adults is 17 and in lactase–deficient persons approximately 3 (Renner, 1983).

The combination of heredity factors and reduction of lactase with age suggests that lactose intolerance is the norm among Canadian adults.  Canadian infants’ ease or difficulty of digesting milk will vary with their ethnic origin.   

Milk intolerance results in avoidance, hence lower consumption.  Some individuals take pills which supply lactase or choose milk products which are formulated with lactase enzyme.  The effectiveness of the ingested lactase depends on when the lactase is taken and the amount relative to the lactose ingested.

3.   Enzymes in milk

Milk is a very complex food with over 100,000 different molecular species (Goff, Univ. of Guelph).  More than 40 enzymes have been detected in bovine milk (Renner, 1983; Walstra and Jenness, 1984).  It is believed that there are 55–60 different enzymes in milk (Shahani et al., 1973).   The 12 most prominent enzymes are described below.  The individual milk enzymes are associated with the serum, plasma, fat globules, casein or leukocytes. 

Enzymes are biological catalysts.  They lower the activation energy in order for reactions to take place.  Each enzyme acts on a specific substrate at an optimum pH range for that reaction.  Activators, also inhibitors, metal ions and vitamins are typically involved.  Although the biochemical reaction catalyzed by each enzyme is known, the reactions of all the enzymes in raw milk are extremely complex interactions.  Products of reactions catalyzed by some enzymes would be substrates for other enzyme systems. A complete elucidation of the processes that occur in the body after the milk is ingested has not been determined.  Our present knowledge is limited to the known function of individual enzymes present in raw milk:

• Lipase facilitates the digestion of fat.  It releases fatty acids from triglycerides.  The presence of up to 5 lipases in milk has been established (Renner, page 257).  Most of them are associated with casein.  It does not attack the glycerides of the fat globules unless the membrane is damaged, such as by homogenization or if lipoproteins with the appropriate cofactor are added (Walstra and Jenness, 1984).
• Alkaline phosphatase is a phosphomonoesterase mainly located in the milk plasma and the fat globule.  It hydolyses monoesters (containing one phosphate group) at alkaline pH (near pH 9 for beta-glycerophosphate).
• An acid phosphatase located primarily in milk plasma hydrolyses monoesters at acid pH.  Its concentration is lower than alkaline phosphatase.  Both the alkaline and acid phosphates can release inorganic phosphate from caseins and soluble esters.

• Ribonuclease has been found at levels between 11 – 25 mg/liter of milk.  It hydrolyzes nucleotides.  It is similar to bovine pancreatic ribonuclease
• Lysozyme occurs in small amount (0.1 mg/liter) in cow’s milk.  It attacks polysaccharides of bacterial cell wall, causing lysis of the bacteria.  It is a powerful bactericide. 
• Proteinase is an enzyme associated with casein micelles.  It is present in fresh milk in its zymogen form, plasminogen.   It needs a cofactor to activate it to plasmin. Plasmin attacks peptide bonds in the same way as trypsin.  Optimal activity is at slightly alkaline pH and 37 C. The milk proteins most susceptible to plasmin are beta- and alpha_s2- caseins. It also attacks alpha_s1- casein.  Increased activity of plasmin has been observed after heating at 72 C for 15 sec.  This has been attributed to conversion of plasminogen to plasmin, inactivation of inhibitors present in raw milk, or to enhancing susceptible linkages in the substrate.
• A second proteinase is most active at pH 4.0 and cleaves alpha_s1- casein faster than beta- and gamma_- caseins.  The action is similar to that of chymosin.  It is heat-labile.

• Xanthine oxidase, associated with the fat globule membrane, is very prominent in milk.  It is estimated to have a concentration of 35 mg/liter (Walstra and Jenness, 1984).  It catalyzes the oxidation of several substrates, forming either hydrogen peroxide or superoxide ion.
• Sulfhydryl oxidase catalyses oxidation of thiols to disulfides, using molecular oxygen as the acceptor, reducing the oxygen to hydrogen peroxide.
• Catalase catalyses the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide to water and oxygen.  It accumulates in the cream layer.  It is present in small amounts and increases in milk from mastitic cows.
• Lactoperoxidase is the most abundant enzyme in milk.  It may amount to 1% of the total serum proteins (i.e. 60mg/kg).  It catalyzes the oxidation by hydrogen peroxide of a long list of electron donor compounds.  An important reaction is the oxidation of thiocyanate, a natural constituent of milk, to a product that inhibits certain bacteria.    Hydrogen peroxide is produced by certain bacteria themselves. 

• Superoxide dismutase catalyzes the dismutation of the superoxide ion to hydrogen peroxide and oxygen.  The two subunits each contain one copper and one zinc per mole.  It is a rather heat stable enzyme.  It may be an important antioxidant protecting milk constituents from oxidation generated by reactions catalyzed by xanthine oxidase and lactoperoxidase as well as riboflavin sensitized photoreactions.

How important are the enzymes in milk?

Some people believe that these enzymes are normal constituents of cells or tissues, and during the milking process concomitant with the cell rupture, these enzymes are spilled into milk.  On the other hand, some believe that these enzymes are secreted in milk for the benefit of the young having rather underdeveloped or incomplete digestive systems (Reed, 1975, Shahani et al., 1973).  Enzymes in the diet might have some importance for the infant (Renner, 1983); endogenous lipolytic activity in a newborn baby’s intestines is so low that lipases ingested with the mother’s milk will make a significant contribution to the intestinal lipolysis.  Pancreatic lipase on its own hydrolyses the triglycerides of the milk fat globules only very slowly.  The lipase (in mother’s milk), activated by bile salts, retains its activity even at an acid pH and therefore, plays a large part in the digestion and absorption of the milk fat.  Unlike the pancreatic lipase, this lipase hydrolyses all three of the ester bonds of a triglyceride (Renner, 1983).

Fat absorption from heated mother’s milk was about one third less than that from fresh mother’s milk (Renner, 1983).  Thus, it is evident that the lipase in mother’s milk may have a greater role in the digestion of milk fat than the pancreatic lipase produced in the pancreas.  It is highly likely that the lipase in fresh cow’s milk complements pancreatic lipase in the digestion of milk fat.  Similarly, all other enzymes in the fresh milk are needed for full assimilation of the milk.                                                                                                                        

Our understanding of the role of food enzymes has markedly improved in the past decade.  Food enzymes are present in all raw foods.  Foods in their natural, unaltered state contain the enzymes to break them down, whether left on the counter to decompose or eaten.  An apple, which is high in carbohydrates, contains more amylase than an avocado, which has a high concentration of fat and is high in lipase.  Enzyme action starts in the mouth into the stomach where they pre-digest the foods.  The pre-digestion makes it easier for the food to be digested in the small intestine.  The enzymes also operate in the small intestine, helping pancreatic enzymes in continuing the digestive process. 

Lack of enzymes in the food consumed means that the digestion would depend only on the enzymes produced by the body.  The lactose in pasteurized milk, whose lactase has been destroyed, is not broken down by those lacking in lactase activity.  Digestion of the milk fat and proteins is compromised by the absence of the original enzymes in milk which were destroyed by pasteurization.

Recognition of the importance of food enzymes has resulted in the use of enzymes as supplements.  The intake of enzymes is not limited to lactose malabsorption.  Supplemental enzymes are also used for therapeutic purposes for their anti-inflammatory action.

An argument that is commonly presented is that “enzymes are proteins and are therefore broken down by the digestive enzymes or in the stomach.”  Evidence that this is incorrect and that enzymes in foods can cross the gastro-intestinal tract in their intact form is given by several studies.  Radioactive tracing of bromelain - pineapple enzyme used as a treatment for muscle and joint inflammation, showed that 40% of the enzyme is absorbed in an intact form.  Furthermore, Gardner (1988) concluded that intact proteins and high-molecular fragments from these cross the gastrointestinal tract in humans and animals.  Beazell (1941) also showed that 60% of the complex carbohydrates, 30% of the protein, and 10% of the fats are digested in the stomach by the enzymes contained in raw food.  Trypsin inhibitors in uncooked beans survive the digestive system to cause negative effects.  Prochaska and Piekutowski (1994) also suggest that there is some degree of synergy between some food enzymes and human digestive enzymes and that in the absence of active enzymes in food, the foodstuffs are still able to be digested and the nutrient released from food still occurs but not at maximum efficiency. 

Enzymes are also nutritionally important because of the antimicrobial factors such as those provided by the lactoperoxidase-thiocyanate-hydrogen peroxides system.  These act on the cell membrane of bacteria as intestinal antibiotics by either destroying the organisms or inhibiting their growth.

4.   Changes to milk as a result of pasteurization

The application of heat to raw milk at pasteurization temperatures (71⁰C for 15 sec or 63⁰C for 30 minutes) causes these changes:

• Reduction of vitamins

Pasteurization affects Vitamins A, C, D and most of the B vitamins – thiamine (B1), pyridoxine, nicotinic acid, riboflavin, cobalamine, pantothenic acid, biotin and folic acid. Ten to twenty-five per cent of Vitamin B1 may be destroyed.  Known approximate losses are as follows: pyridoxine – 0-8%; cobalamine <10%; folic acid <10%; ascorbic acid 10-25% (Renner, 1983; Porter, 1975; Kay et al., 1953 in Hall and Trout’s book ).  If the milk is exposed to air during pasteurization, about half of the ascorbic acid may be lost (Lampert, 1947).

The argument used to justify pasteurization has been that its effects on the nutritive value of milk are considered to be small.  If the diet contained adequate amounts of the vitamins, the presence of a little less would be of little importance. However, it is questionable whether young children who are consuming milk (that is pasteurized) primarily get sufficient vitamins from other foods.  The vitamins lost from the pasteurization process assume a greater significance as the proportion of milk in the diet increases.  This also holds true for vegetarians and those on a raw food diet whose intake of protein is limited to milk and dairy products. Loss of Vitamin D from pasteurization is acknowledged by the dairy industry by adulterating pasteurized milk with synthetic Vitamin D.

• Reduced absorption of calcium

In fresh milk, calcium comes in soluble packages called micelles (the calcium is electrostatically bound to casein).  Calcium and casein keeps the calcium soluble by preventing it from forming insoluble salts.  Heating milk alters the molecular properties of casein and reduces its ability to keep calcium soluble.  Egan and Rennee (1988) found that heating milk to a high temperature makes the calcium less soluble and reduces the amount the body can absorb.  In experiments with rat’s intestines, the amount of calcium absorbed from sterilized milk was 20% less than the amount absorbed from pasteurized milk.  Magee and Harvey (1926) obtained poorer retention on two pigs of calcium, phosphorus and nitrogen on pasteurized than on fresh milk.

Between pasteurized and raw milk, some changes to casein are reflected by the different response to rennet coagulation (Hall and Trout, 1968).  Pasteurization changes the equilibrium among ionic calcium and soluble and insoluble calcium phosphates. When milk is heated, the proportion of soluble calcium and phosphorus is diminished  (Renner, 1983).   Heat increases the amount of insoluble phosphate (Arthur Hill, University of Guelph, private communication).  Such changes the interrelationship between casein, salts and other proteins  (Hall and Trout, 1968). 

• Denaturation of proteins

The whey proteins, which are of much higher nutritional value, are also denatured by heat treatment (Rolls and Porter, 1973; Levieux, 1980).  Homogenization has a further destabilizing effect (Sweetsur et al., 1983)

Protein digestibility is influenced by the conformation of the protein and the accessibility of susceptible bonds to the enzyme (Barth and Schliemme, 1989).  Heat treatment, such as pasteurization, alters the conformation of the proteins.

Heat-treated whey proteins have been shown to have an adverse effect on baby pigs and calves.  For humans, the effects of the cross-linking of whey proteins may have an effect on nutritional value and by the increased potential to trigger some form of allergic reaction (Levieux, 1980).  Heat-treated lactoglobulin may render milk more harmful to allergic individuals.  The lactoglobulin from fresh cow’s milk had a lower allergy-causing reactivity (Gibney et al., 1980)

Absorption of vitamins and minerals is facilitated by proteins.  Pasteurization destroys the ability of certain proteins in milk to bind the important vitamin folate (Colman et al., 1981; Gregory, 1982). Similar inactivation of other protein carriers for zinc and Vitamin B12 may also be induced by the heat treatment.

Thus, pasteurization affects the availability and quality of milk proteins which can affect the assimilation of trace minerals and vitamins.

• Destruction of enzymes

Many enzymes are inactivated by heat treatment. The process is mostly irreversible. The slightest alteration of the protein can lead to the loss of activity (Schults, 1960).  Milk enzymes vary in their lability to heat, phosphatase generally being recognized as the most resistant.  The complete destruction of phosphatase by pasteurization is the basis of the phosphatase test used effectively to detect inadequate pasteurization (Herrington, 1948).  The presence of any appreciable quantity of phosphatase is evidence that the milk has not been heated sufficiently.

Xanthine oxidase, a true milk enzyme formed in the udder and which performs a particular function in milk, is either partially or completely inactivated (Renner, 1983). 

Lipase is rendered inactive by heat treatment well below that required for pasteurization (Hall and Trout, 1968).  At 145⁰ F, 5 min is sufficient to inactivate lipase, at 165⁰ F, 3 sec is needed.  98% of the lipase is inactivated by heating at 74⁰C for 10 sec. (Renner, 1983).  

The temperatures for pasteurization also destroy the enzyme amylase.  Catalase, diastase, galactase, peroxidase, and reductase are also relatively unstable to heat (Hall and Trout, 1968).  The heat requirements for pasteurization, 145⁰F (62.8⁰C) for 30 minutes or 161⁰F (71.7⁰C) for 15 sec are sufficiently high for practical purposes to inactivate all of these enzymes.

• Destruction of antimicrobial factors in milk

A number of enzymes have bactericidal properties and are, together with lactoferrin, involved in the immune system.  These are lactoperoxidase, xanthine oxidase and lysozyme.  For this reason, there has been discussion of adding the appropriate enzymes to cow’s milk preparations to impart to them the protective properties of mother’s milk.

Lysozyme is resistant to digestive enzymes and therefore, passes through the digestive tract in its active state (Renner, 1983).  It has a direct effect on bacteria because it breaks down the bacterial cell wall, chiefly of gram-positive organisms but also of E. coli.  It also has an indirect bactericidal effect because it enhances the activity of antibodies.

There are also biologically active proteins, namely the immunoglobulin fraction, lactoferrin and lactoperoxidase which have anti-infective properties.  Extracts of these from the colostrum have been used to treat human diseases caused by various pathogens (Ruiz Jr., 1993).

Lactic acid has an inhibitory effect on pathogenic bacteria.  Some lactic acid-producing streptococci have been shown to produce antibiotic-like substances which may partially inhibit pathogens; however, this cannot be depended upon to provide a safe milk product  (Heeschen , 1994).

Lactoperoxidase activity of cow’s milk is high.  The lactoperoxidase-thiocyanate-hydrogen peroxide system imparts bactericidal properties to milk.  Thiocyanate is present in milk, especially that of cows on pasture, and hydrogen peroxide is produced by microbial action.  This system can be used to retard the deterioration of milk. 

When the milk is pasteurized, these antimicrobial agents indigenous in milk are inactivated.  The milk becomes more susceptible to later spoilage.  The anti-infective function of the anti-microbial agents upon consumption is thus lost. 

• Hydrolysis and oxidation of milk fats and solubility effects

When milk is heated, hydroxy acids are converted to lactones (Renner, 1983) and also carbonyl compounds such as aldehydes and methyl ketones.  Methyl ketone of raw milk is 10 nml/g of fat, compared to 2 nml/g for pasteurized milk.

Rearrangement of the triglycerides, changes in relative unsaturation and saturation of the glycerides may be the result of heat on fat (Hall and Trout, 1968).  Pasteurization causes oxidized flavors.

5.   Feeding experiments with raw and pasteurized milk

Scott and Erf (1931) conducted feeding experiments on rats with certified (unpasteurized) milk and pasteurized commercial market milk over a period of months.  Those fed the unpasteurized milk were all in good condition with sleek coats, clear eyes, playful and of gentle disposition, while those fed upon the pasteurized milk were dull, listless, irritable with rough coats and dull eyes. The weight curves and blood counts also showed variations.  Those fed unpasteurized milk had higher weight gains and an average gain of about 2.3 million red cell count.  Those fed pasteurized milk had an average loss of 1.7 million red cell count over the same period.  Three repeat experiments duplicated the results:  retarded growth and very anemic rats fed pasteurized milk.

Other experiments showed marked changes in reproductive ability of rats fed heated milk.  Rats fed upon the raw milk produced 41 living young representing 524 nursing days, those on pasteurized milk had 22 living young who had 169 nursing days, while those on boiled milk failed to reproduce entirely.  A study of infants fed raw and pasteurized milk showed better weight gains from raw milk rather than pasteurized milk (Ladd et al., 1926).  This result could be due to the fact that the milk was raw or to better balanced feeding of the cows.  Calcium and phosphorus balance experiments carried out on children showed better retention of calcium from fresh milk compared to dried milk, other factors remaining unchanged (Kramer et al., 1928).  In adults, fresh milk gave higher calcium balances than pasteurized milk

Kramer, Latzke and Shaw (1928) conducted experiments with rats, carried out over 9 consecutive generations.  A somewhat greater effect on growth was observed in raw milk, but no histopathological changes were produced by the long continued feeding with the different processed milks. 

The pasteurization of winter milk reduced its value for rats more than it reduced its value for summer milk.  This may mean that heat destroys a part of some substance which is more abundant in summer milk than in winter milk (Harrington, 1948).

Ten thousand school children were divided into 2 groups.  One group was given fresh milk while the other group was given pasteurized milk over a period of 4 months.  Fisher and Bartlett (1931) analyzed the results and pointed out that the response in height to raw milk was significantly higher than that to pasteurized milk.  The pasteurized milk was only 66.0% effective as the raw milk in the case of boys and 91.1% as effective in the case of girls in inducing increases in weight, and 50% as effective in boys and 70% as effective in girls in bringing about height increases.

These studies were conducted during the years when pasteurization was newly introduced.  Pasteurization was intended as a temporary expedient, but over time was accepted and protected as the cure for pathogens in milk.  It is unfortunate that these early studies, which may not meet present day standards of experimentation, were not continued.

6.   Bacteriological characteristics of raw milk

Milk inside the mammary gland is deprived of all contamination (La Jaouen, 2001).  As it leaves the udder, it is contaminated with bacteria, but these are harmless and few in number, except when the cow is infected with mastitis (Goff, University of Guelph). It is during the milking and the various processes in its collection and transport that contamination occurs.  Pathogenic organisms are derived from the cow itself (e.g. one with an infected udder), the human handler and the environment.

In the past, the important pathogenic bacteria were Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Brucella spp. (the causative agent of undulant fever), causing tuberculosis and brucellosis, respectively.  International efforts have largely eradicated these animal diseases.

Currently, the three pathogens of concern are Salmonella, Listeria and E. coli 0157.  Other pathogens are Yersinia, Streptococcus agalactiae and Campylobacter.

A 1987 FDA survey examined the recovery of Salmonella in fecal samples and showed that the incidence rates (0.6%) of Salmonella in farms with less than 100 animals were lower compared to farms with over 100 cows where the incidence rates were 8.8%.  Incidence of Salmonella in milk would be expected to occur at a much lower frequency than in feces. (Donnelly, 2001).

Extremely low levels (0.5 to 1.0/ml) of Listeria monocytogenes exist in commercial bulk tank milk. It is widespread in nature and is not specific to raw milk. The organism has been reported to be excreted by up to 77% of healthy adults.  Good hygiene during milking and in the milking environment is important in limiting the contamination of raw milk with Listeria (G. A. Prentice, 1994).  It is interesting that the growth rate of Listeria (and presumably other pathogens) in milk is a function of degree and extent of milk treatment.  The fastest rate of growth is observed in UHT milk, followed by HTST, heat-treated and raw milk (Donnelly, 2001).

E. coli 0157:H7 can contaminate raw milk on the farm with contamination rate reported of 2% in Canada (Donnelly, 2001). Contaminated animal drinking water was the most probable vehicle for infection of animals.

A remarkable demonstration of low bacterial counts and absence of pathogens in raw milk is provided by the Organic Pastures Dairy Company owned by the McAfee family in California.  Cows are constantly on organic pastures and never confined.  The cows receive no antibiotics, hormones and GMO’s.  A mobile milking parlour goes to the cows on pasture.  Tests by the California Department of Agriculture and Food several times a month have never found any pathogens.  The bacterial counts are very low and contain less than the State standards of 15,000 bacteria count per millilitre (see the Table in the Appendix from www.organicpastures.com).

As a test of their raw milk, Organic Pastures Diary introduced Salmonella, Listeria and E. coli 0157 to the raw milk in a strict environment. The Salmonella was killed and both the Listeria and E. coli 0157 were reduced and died off over a number of days.  It is believed that the lactoferrin, enzymes and beneficial bacteria in raw milk do not sustain the growth of pathogens.

7.   Section conclusions on the health rationale for raw milk. 

The nutritional importance of milk in its raw, natural state as food is established.  Studies have shown that when the cows are grazed on pastures, the milk contains higher concentrations of nutrients (Vitamins A, D and E and conjugated linolenic acids) compared to cows confined in stalls.  Feeding experiments carried out in the 1930’s with animals, showed positive results on physical characteristics, behaviour, growth and reproduction.  Limited tests on children indicated positive results reflected by height and weight gain.

Pasteurization results in reductions in vitamins A, C, D and E and some of the B vitamins.  Calcium solubility is affected by the heating which makes the calcium less bioavailable. Some proteins are denatured, and enzymes are inactivated by heat.  The destruction in enzymes exerts a two-fold effect – reduced digestibility of milk and destruction of the anti-microbial factors indigenous in milk.  The first prevents effective utilization of milk by those who consume it, and this is especially relevant to the substantial fraction of the population who is lacking the enzyme lactase.  Destruction of the anti-microbials in milk deprives the milk and those who consume it of its bactericidal properties and renders it more susceptible to bacterial contamination.  Thus, the milk is not protected from pathogens which survive the pasteurization or are introduced post-pasteurization.

Raw milk from healthy cows (tested for diseases, raised under stress-free growing conditions, i.e. not confined to stalls) and on pastures all year round, collected under strict hygiene conditions can be free of pathogens and safe for human consumption.

Additional publication

Further to the topic of this section, and containing additional arguments in support of raw milk, we direct your attention to an excellent publication entitled, “The Case for Unpasteurized Milk”, prepared by the Association of Unpasteurized Milk Producers and Consumers in England at http://www.magma.ca/~ca/rawmilk/demand.htm.

B.  THE SAFETY OF RAW MILK FOR DRINKING

The second issue, which Health Canada asked us to address in our submission, was how to make raw milk safe for consumers. We will show that unregulated sales of raw drinking milk made directly from farmers to educated consumers are safe, as are regulated sales of raw drinking milk made directly from farmers to consumers and for retail. Uneducated consumers can be protected both by the latter (regulated raw drinking milk sales) and by consumer education programs. In this manner the rights and the health of all raw milk consumers, both educated and uneducated, are respected and protected and no Charter violations exist which we would go to court over.

Not only do we address the issue of how to make raw milk safe for consumers, as requested by Health Canada, but we also show that consumers have a right to raw milk under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore, we also present, as part of this section, Charter arguments for raw milk.

8.      What is ‘safe’ food?

The first problem we encountered herein was discovering Health Canada’s definition of “safe”. In our research we had seen comparative food poisoning charts showing that each year, a certain number of people became ill from all classes of foods, both processed and raw, and including poisonings from pasteurized milk products (www.magma.ca/~ca/rawmilk/graph.htm). We also discovered, quite surprisingly, that the largest outbreak of food poisoning in modern times was caused by pasteurized milk (http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~mow/salice.html) and that the largest number of deaths in a single outbreak was caused by pasteurized cheese (www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000562.htm).

It was, therefore, natural for us to expect that Health Canada would have a definition of food safety which would take all of this into account. We expected some sort of sensible rationale for permitting the sale of products which cause continuous (and sometimes excessive) levels of food poisonings year after year, whereas a product such as raw milk, which can be made just as “safe”, is banned.

We found, however, that the framework for food safety regulation has key definitions which are qualitative, imprecise, prejudiced towards processed foods and applied on an irregular and inconsistent basis across different foods to which are associated varying degrees of consumer responsibility and assumed consumer knowledge regarding food safety, e.g. sushi (potentially contaminated with parasites and pathogens) versus raw milk. This framework permits government regulators to unfairly and prejudicially maintain their opposition specifically against raw milk products, notwithstanding Health Canada’s own Senate Committee evidence (www.parl.gc.ca/english/senate/com-e/agri-e/06ev-e.htm) that at least one form of raw milk distribution is “safe”, i.e. distribution from farmers directly to consumers (presumably educated ones) where the milk is made knowing it will be consumed raw.

Raw milk as seen under present health regulations

Under present federal and provincial laws, someone who owns a cow can consume raw milk from his cow. It is illegal for him to distribute it to members of his family or others.

After some study, it became apparent to us the present laws see only one kind of raw milk. There is not one kind of raw milk but three:

1.  raw milk intended for processing (pasteurized for off-farm retail sales);

2.  raw milk intended for raw consumption, uncertified (for on-farm direct); and

3.  raw milk intended for raw consumption, certified (for on-farm direct and for off-farm retail sales).

Educated consumers who buy raw milk directly from a farmer who produces it for raw human consumption, and who take the milk from farm to home refrigerator in a short period of time, are consuming a product that is just as safe as any other, based on statistical incidents of food poisonings. Health Canada’s own Senate evidence discussed below confirms this fact.

However, raw milk which is made by a farmer who knows it will be pasteurized before consumption, trucked perhaps hundreds of kilometers to an off-farm plant, pooled with the output of perhaps hundreds of other farms (any one of which could contaminate it all), put through an elaborate and complex production process subject at every stage to many mechanical, human or handling errors, then shipped to retail stores where it is placed on open shelves where it can remain for a week or more before reaching a home refrigerator, is a very different kind of raw milk.

There are two very different types of health risks associated with any kind of raw milk based on the mechanism of consumer delivery - one of which is comparatively small (on-farm/direct) and one of which is potentially immensely large (off‑farm/retail). Not only has the government failed to distinguish the different risks, but it has erroneously cross-applied them.

It is the potentially large risk created specifically by raw milk intended strictly for modern off-farm processing which has unfairly led to the banning of all raw milk distribution in Canada, when only this one particular type of raw milk should have been banned or made safe to begin with. This crucial distinction has not been lost in many other jurisdictions throughout the world besides Canada, where raw milk is freely available. The Canadian government has ignored important differences in raw milk production. It has failed to recognize and publicize the risks introduced by modern off‑farm dairy processing, by diverting attention with isolated incidents of infection of uneducated consumers of raw milk (www.healthplanning.gov.bc.ca/hlthfile/hfile03.html) and by failing to develop, maintain and publicize actual food poisoning statistics for all food groups against which raw milk consumption could be evaluated in an unprejudiced manner.

This is the essence of this submission: Raw milk can be made safe for human consumption. The raw milk that can be made safe is expressly for raw consumption. It is distinct from raw milk made strictly for and used by the current Canadian off-farm mass production dairy industry.

Definitions of food safety, et al.

Part of the difficulty we experienced in coming to understand the safety issues surrounding raw milk was a lack of clear definitions for many of the concepts.

This began when we asked Health Canada for their definition of food safety. We were expecting one which took into account the fact that all food groups cause food poisoning on a regular basis (www.magma.ca/~ca/rawmilk/graph.jpg) and against which we could therefore easily compare raw milk. However, we were surprised to receive from Health Canada a qualitative idealistic definition, prejudiced towards processed foods, which took no account of empirical results. Upon reflection, this position appears designed to support big business and to protect Health Canada from litigation because pasteurized milk food poisonings can be conveniently blamed on manufacturing errors, which are promptly investigated and forgiven, and pasteurized foods continue to be sold on the market because the law is prejudiced towards them to begin with.

For a definition of food safety, we were initially directed by Health Canada to the Section 4 definition in the Food and Drugs Act, which states:

No person shall sell an article of food that:

(a)  has in or on it any poisonous or harmful substance;

(b)  is unfit for human consumption;

(c)  consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, disgusting, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance;

(d)  is adulterated; or

(e)  was manufactured, prepared, preserved, packaged or stored under unsanitary conditions.

This definition of food safety is qualitative and absolute rather than quantitative and takes no account of the realities of food poisonings that actually take place. It permits pasteurized dairy products which have caused massive food poisonings and many deaths to continue to be sold and it allows Health Canada to declare that raw drinking milk is unsafe under any conditions, when their own Senate evidence demonstrates otherwise.

Upon questioning this point with Health Canada, we again received general qualitative concepts of safety as per the Food and Drugs Act and the Codex Alimentarius. For example, “Food safety is the assurance that a food will not cause harm to the consumer.  The food should also be suitable, meaning that the food is
acceptable for human consumption.” However, our basic question was left unanswered.

At this point we gave up our line of inquiry because we came to perceive that government policy on milk is structurally designed in law and in its interpretation and application to serve the interests of large scale mass produced retail distribution, and as such, the interests of a smaller community of consumers, interested in a more wholesome all‑natural product have been brushed aside and ignored. This is accomplished by setting up a regulatory system based on qualitative idealistic standards (as per the Food and Drugs Act above) and ignoring comparative actual results of food poisonings. This present system implicitly favours processed foods because they can be sterilized to meet the standard whereas the back-end manufacturing risks can be ignored. But in the end the complexities of manufacturing and distribution render processed foods just as risky as natural ones, if not more so, and meaningful actual comparative food poisoning statistics, which would clarify the issue, are conveniently absent. If they were available, pasteurized dairy products would likely have to be banned right along with raw dairy products.

Therefore, for purposes of legalizing the sale of raw milk, we propose a realistic definition of food safety based on empirical results. The Senate evidence discussed below shows a single outbreak of 1,500 reported cases of food poisoning which triggered Health Canada to initiate legislative changes to try to correct their perception of the causes, causes which in our opinion are open to significant debate. However because their proposed legislative changes were dropped under political and commercial pressure, we will therefore take the 1,500 reported cases as a quid pro quo threshold for raw drinking milk, defined by real world scrutiny and definition of what Health Canada considers to be an acceptable food poisoning tolerance.

The above outbreak was caused by pasteurized cheese made with raw milk intended for mass production, but through production mishandling it was not properly pasteurized. Yet pasteurized cheese continues to be sold. By the same token, unless raw drinking milk were to cause an outbreak of similar proportions, it should rightfully be sold too and not prohibited. The facts indicate that for the government to continue with its ban on raw milk means it should also ban the sale and distribution of pasteurized cheese, given the demonstrated risks to public health which surprisingly are not dissimilar to those which prompted the original ban on raw milk. And again we ask, why not ban pasteurized cheese along with raw milk – it’s just as risky to the consumer.

This situation offers a perfect example of regulatory logic prejudiced towards processed foods. The government would justify the continued sale of pasteurized cheese by saying that pasteurized cheese is in an inherently safe product if manufactured correctly, whereas raw dairy products are not inherently safe and therefore cannot be sold. And further, the subject outbreak was caused by a manufacturing error, which was investigated and was found to be an accident and should not have happened, and therefore pasteurized dairy products may continue to be sold. We did in fact hear this type of justification from government officials. However, this logic grossly misrepresents true public health risks in favour of processed foods and it serves to deny consumers their rights to more wholesome all‑natural raw dairy products if they so choose.

Another example of prejudiced food safety logic emerged when an Ontario health official we had been speaking to, sent us an email containing a report of a US raw milk outbreak. Her entire preamble states, “as fyi....there isn't a week go by that I don't get at least one of these! Decided to send along because this is a fairly large outbreak involving 50 or so people.” We replied that at the rate of one raw milk outbreak a week of 50 infections, it would take 75 years to equal the number of infections caused by say one US pasteurized milk outbreak of 197,000 infections in 1985 (http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~mow/salice.html). She did not respond to our observation. This demonstrates again that health officials regularly ignore the statistics or use them selectively to impose their beliefs prejudicially. Curiously, this same official told us she regularly consumed raw milk while growing up as a child.

A stronger reinforcement to this example of prejudiced food safety logic is a simple comparison of published reports of food poisonings from raw milk versus pasteurized milk. On the one hand against raw milk, there is the above noted report from the British Columbia Ministry of Health of 22 raw milk infections from 5 separate outbreaks, likely by uneducated consumers (www.healthplanning.gov.bc.ca/hlthfile/hfile03.html). And note that none of these victims appear to be educated raw milk consumers, such as say any dairy farmers or their family members. On the other hand against pasteurized dairy products, we have a US outbreak of 197,000 food poisonings, a US outbreak of 29 deaths and a Canadian outbreak of 1,500 reported food poisonings, all noted above. No amount of consumer education could have spared these consumers, other than knowing about the inherent risks of consuming pasteurized dairy products, which is generally withheld from the public. And the numbers speak for themselves. The only basis we can see for a continued ban on the sale of raw milk is regulatory prejudice, made possible by a clever structuring of the food safety definitions and rules and the system of their interpretation and application.

Because raw milk has been removed from commercial distribution in Canada, there has been little need for a lexicon of terms that relates to the issues pertinent to raw milk for drinking. Therefore, we have included the following list of terms and definitions to help explain our understanding of the salient issues in this submission:

i)        Safe raw milk is raw milk which is safe for human consumption in its raw state; and unsafe raw milk is raw milk which is unsafe for human consumption in its raw state and which may or may not be made safe by pasteurization.

ii)       Raw milk for drinking is raw milk produced so that it can be safely consumed in its raw state, but it can also be utilized for mass production; and raw milk for pasteurization or processing is raw milk made for mass production which must necessarily be pasteurized to ensure pathogenic safety and it cannot be safely consumed raw.

iii)     Certified raw milk is raw milk produced under government regulations which would assure its safety for human consumption in its raw state through improved production methods, testing and inspections; and uncertified raw milk is raw milk as it is currently produced in Canada, i.e. without any government regulations assuring its safety for human consumption in its raw state.

iv)     Consumer distribution methods will be defined as being either direct or retail, i.e. direct farmer to consumer sales, or retail sales on store shelves.

v)      Pooling is the process whereby the raw milk from two or more farms is mixed together prior to processing. This means that the milk from any given farm cannot be traced to the final packaged product. Segregation is the process whereby milk in its final packaged form can be traced to its source from one specific farm.

vi)     Producers are the farmers who make raw milk. Processors are the dairies which pasteurize and package raw milk for retail distribution.

9.      Summary of findings

We present our overall findings on the safety of raw milk in the chart below. The rows represent the four types of raw milk, whether retail or direct, and whether certified or uncertified. The columns represent the different types of farming operations that supply raw milk, whether for mass production, for raw human consumption, or a combination of both:

The proof for the safety conclusions of direct uncertified distribution is taken from Health Canada’s Senate evidence; for direct certified distribution, from the UK system; for retail uncertified, this treats raw milk like raw meat where consumers are responsible for their own pathogenic safety by heat treatment; and for retail certified distribution, from the Massachusetts and California systems all discussed below.

People have become ill from drinking raw milk mostly because, in our opinion, they were uneducated consumers. The submitters know a large number of educated raw milk consumers none of which have ever become infected from consuming raw milk. But whether consumers are educated or not, when infection does occur, the source of the raw milk is a crucial factor for determining the cause.

High intensity farm operations geared strictly for the mass production market produce raw milk which is very likely a health hazard if consumed raw. These farmers can take production short cuts resulting in things like fecal matter in farm holding tanks or contamination of equipment and they can ship milk from sick cows because pasteurization takes care of it all. These actions would never occur in a farm operation where all the raw milk is for drinking, since it would seriously jeopardize or even terminate the business. And one such farmer, who distributes all his milk raw for drinking, feels there is no need for any government regulation since his educated customers would advise him immediately if his quality dropped – his own business is therefore self-regulating. Farms, which have both human and mass production uses, can either produce all their raw milk as safe for human consumption, or designate one or more cows exclusively for raw drinking milk. Cows which are raised in a non-intensive manner and whose milk is produced following superior standards of hygiene have unusually low raw milk bacteria count levels (as discussed in section 6 above and the Appendix) as do some other cows by virtue of their husbandry.

To an educated raw milk consumer, the varying degrees of risk based on the type of farming operation described above are readily apparent. One who wishes to drink raw milk would select the type of farm operation to supply the raw milk.  In any statistical compilation of food poisonings, the differences in farming operations should be taken into account, to make the compilation meaningful.

10. How raw milk can be made safe

We have found that raw milk can be made just as safe as other foods intended for human consumption, although not necessarily so. Some raw milk is safe, some is not. It is a question of production and processing techniques and whether the raw milk is intended strictly for mass production, human consumption or both. People become infected from raw milk when they consume the wrong raw milk. And if this wrong raw milk finds its way into retail products for mass distribution without being pasteurized, then a large scale public health risk is created. Otherwise, the right raw milk is safe for human consumption.

Consumer education in this matter is also an important element which is usually ignored by regulators. When uneducated consumers drink raw milk that no educated consumer would ever consider, infection occurs. The government typically blames the raw milk rather than the uneducated consumer and continues the myth that all raw milk consumption is bad. Government policy on raw milk has gone to extremes to protect uneducated consumers from harm. The real agenda may be to support the processed foods industry. In so doing, the government has seriously infringed on the rights of educated raw milk consumers. But, the rights and safety of all raw milk consumers can be respected and protected by other means.

Government policy on raw milk is also inconsistent with other beverages such as liquor, where uneducated consumers die regularly. In fact, the daughter of one of the submitters almost died of alcohol poisoning when at 15 years of age she first consumed hard liquor being unaware of the risks of a full glass on an empty stomach. If Canadian consumers take the risk for this kind of fatality without being able to sue the government for failing to protect them by removing such a dangerous beverage from store shelves, then raw milk should be as equally available as liquor. If it is argued that this near tragedy could have been averted by consumer education, then the same can be said for direct distribution of raw milk were it to be legalized, as Health Canada’s Senate evidence demonstrates below. In fact, if the government maintains its ban on raw milk sales, the submitter may sue the government for damages under Section 4(a) of the Food and Drugs Act, based on his daughters’ near death, and using the government’s same rationale for banning raw milk.

In our opinion, raw milk became a safety issue because as the modern dairy industry developed, it adopted milk pooling to reduce costs and to mass produce. This introduced the potential for widespread consumer risk when unsafe raw milk was used or found its way into retail products without being pasteurized - a small amount of unsafe raw milk could now infect large numbers, which did happen and which forced government action to be taken. Pasteurization was then chosen as the method to make safe the pooled raw milk which was unsafe, although other methods were available which would allow for the mass production and distribution but leave it in its raw state, i.e. certified raw milk.

But mandatory pasteurization was implemented in a particular manner. Rather than being applied to the production method which created the widespread public health risk, i.e. off-farm processing of pooled milk for retail sale, it was universally applied to all milk sold. This unfairly brought on-farm direct sales of raw milk under the mandatory pasteurization law, when on-farm direct sales of raw milk did not create and was not responsible for the widespread public health risk (i.e. unsafe raw milk in pooled milk for retail sale) which required that action be taken (either pasteurization or certified raw milk production). This forced the elimination of nearly all direct supplies of raw drinking milk and created an economic advantage for dairy processors which continues to this day.

Furthermore, the government has maintained that pasteurization is the only solution to unsafe raw milk in the off-farm processing of pooled milk, whereas a certified raw milk production system could be used in conjunction or instead. Therefore, the mandatory pasteurization law together with government inaction on implementing a certified raw milk distribution system has eliminated nearly all sources of raw milk for most consumers, i.e. through both direct and retail distribution, except if you own your own cow or a share of one.

On the other hand, in an on-farm production environment where the raw milk comes from one specific farm and is not pooled, where educated consumers buy directly from known producers, and where producers are conscientious about making raw milk intended for drinking, then raw drinking milk becomes as safe as any other food. In fact an estimated quarter of a million Canadians are now safely consuming raw milk under these conditions, according to the Senate evidence discussed below.

Furthermore, conscientious production and processing methods could be extended even further so that safe raw milk and milk products could be distributed not just directly but also at the retail level, thereby restoring an entire class of products to the marketplace which have been needlessly eliminated. This should appeal to both producers and processors because there is market demand for both types of product and the profit margin on raw milk products is significantly higher than for pasteurized ones.

Statistics and methods for raw milk safety

As indicated above, raw milk can be produced in a safe manner provided it is produced under strict hygienic conditions intended for human consumption. Should traces of a pathogen be accidentally introduced in the raw milk, the anti-microbial properties provide consumers with an extra safety margin unavailable with pasteurized milk. The safety of raw milk and the methods necessary to achieve it have been understood for a long time. As an example, we quote statistics and methods published in 1947 in “The Harvest is a Barren One” (www.realmilk.com/prop2.html).

“According to U.S. Department of Agriculture milk statistics for 1945, there were over 27 billion quarts of milk consumed in fluid form, of which approximately 18½ billion quarts were pasteurized and 8½ billion were consumed raw (this includes fluid milk consumed on farms where produced.).

“On the basis of these figures, the relative frequency of milk-borne disease can be easily determined by dividing the number of raw and pasteurized quarts consumed by the number of diseases traced to raw and pasteurized milk respectively. We find that there was one case of disease for every 12,400,000 quarts of pasteurized milk consumed and one case of disease for every 18,900,000 quarts of raw milk consumed.”

These US statistics corroborate Health Canada’s Senate evidence that raw milk consumption can be safe and is presently so in Canada. They also demonstrate there is a safety risk from drinking pasteurized milk, which can arise from improper handling, under-pasteurization, unsanitary conditions, un-sterilized packaging or resistance of some micro-organisms at the pasteurization temperature. This should challenge Health Canada to compile and publish comparative safety statistics based on actual results and to establish fair and unprejudiced laws accordingly, not only for other foods like alcohol, sushi, raw fermented meats (salami and bratwurst) and pasteurized dairy products, but also in relation to other consumer products like tobacco and firearms.

Further observations about safe raw milk production methods are quoted as follows:

“Dr. Prucha, recalling the early days of pasteurization, has this to say: “There was much opposition to pasteurization of milk and at best, it was looked upon as a temporary expedient to obtain a safe milk supply until the time when the dairy industry would learn to produce clean and safe milk.”

“Thus pasteurization was originally adopted as a means to a proper end, and then defended only as a temporary expedient. It was naturally assumed that the dairy industry would discontinue the destructive process of pasteurization when it had leaned how to produce a clean and safe milk supply and as its acquired knowledge was put into effect. It did not take the industry very long to learn how to produce a clean and safe milk supply, and the knowledge has been on hand and available for many years.

“When pasteurization was first put into effect, every possible effort was exerted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the dairy industry to determine just what was necessary for clean and safe milk production. After extensive experiments it was discovered what those requirements should be, the four most essential factors being:

1)   Sterilized utensils.

2)   Clean cows with clean udders and teats.

3)   The small-topped milk pail (the newer milking machines have the pail completely covered).

4)   Refrigeration at 50 degrees after milking.”

“Other important factors were found to be clean and healthy milk handlers and an unpolluted water supply. Wherever these recommendations have been observed, the results have been excellent. In fact, through these experiments it was learned that any farm and any farmer can, with proper incentive, produce clean milk.”

Mandatory pasteurization was debated from its inception.  Procedures for producing safe raw milk were established long ago. Therefore consumer demand for both raw and pasteurized dairy products can be met with a safe starting product, i.e. raw milk produced hygienically. Other elements for safe milk production also mentioned in the article are bacteria count limits for raw milk and cattle testing for tuberculosis and brucellosis (when these diseases were still prevalent).

Health Canada Senate evidence

On June 6 1996, the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry convened to consider regulatory amendments banning raw milk cheese, published in Part I of the Canada Gazette on March 30, 1996 (www.parl.gc.ca/english/senate/com-e/agri-e/06ev-e.htm). Said amendments were subsequently abandoned, in part because of a unanimous resolution passed by the National Assembly of Quebec “which reads exige du gouvernement. It is more than a demand. It orders the Canadian government not to continue with these regulations.” And in part by commercial opposition from “the young raw milk cheese industry in Quebec. They argued that this proposal was no more than a further federal attack against Quebecers.”

Dr. Joost Harwig, Director, Bureau of Microbial Hazards, Health Canada, presented the following evidence. “We have seen Canadians become ill from salmonellosis and what we call Verotoxigenic E. coli, both of which are found in raw milk, even though raw milk consumption is very low in Canada. It constitutes about 1 per cent of all fluid milk consumed. If these organisms go into raw milk cheese, they would actually survive.” (emphasis added)

Dr. Harwig was asked, “Was there any particular incident or health concern which lead to amending this regulation at this point in time?” He replied, “Within Canada, there were three incidents of salmonella food poisoning associated with raw milk aged cheese. The first two were not very impressive, involving only three or four people and relating to cheese produced in southwestern Ontario. That does not mean only three people were affected. There was evidence of three people being affected, but our surveillance and reporting systems are quite deficient. When we discover three linked cases, we can probably safely assume there were 300 or perhaps even 1,000 others. In this particular incident, it became clear that, unlike what we have in our present regulation, the salmonella was able to survive longer than 60 days. In fact, the longest period which was tested was 125 days. In a second incident in 1984 or 1985, a cheddar product was distributed from a plant in Prince Edward Island. The cheddar was to have been produced from pasteurized milk but, through human error, the pasteurized milk subsequently was contaminated with raw milk (intended for processing). That raw milk actually carried into the pasteurization vat very low levels of salmonella. The resulting cheese was not recognizably different from an ordinary cheddar both in acidity and dryness. That cheese was distributed right across Canada and caused recognized illness in 1,500 or more people. We can safely assume there were many more that did not make it to the reporting system. Once again, it became clear from that outbreak that salmonella was able to survive, even in this hard cheese variety, for as long as eight months. That made us doubt the validity of our present regulation calling for a storage period of 60 days. Those are two reasons which led us to look at this regulation and to propose an amendment.”

There are several important observations and comments to make from Dr. Harwig’s testimony.

• Canada’s raw milk consumption is 1% of total consumption. We were advised by Dairy Farmer’s Of Ontario that about 80% of the population consumes milk (MacNaughton, private communication). Therefore, about a quarter of a million Canadians presently consume raw milk. This approximates with US statistics, whereby a study of 7,493 adults conducted by the Center for Disease Control found that 1.5% of the participants consumed raw milk (www.cdc.gov/foodnet/pub/iceid/1998/ladd_wilson_s.htm).

• Since our pasteurization law has eliminated all retail supplies of raw milk, the 1% raw milk consumption must therefore be direct. And since Health Canada must address any identified public health hazards we must conclude that direct raw milk consumption is deemed to be safe. Otherwise, Health Canada would have been obligated by its mandate to ban all raw milk consumption as it so attempted with raw milk cheese.

• Health Canada’s application of its own food safety definition has a tolerance factor, it is not an absolute standard. An outbreak of 4 reported cases representing possibly 1,000 infections was insufficient for Health Canada to take any action. Whereas Health Canada did initiate change upon an outbreak of 1,500 reported cases, representing possibly 450,000 infections (using Dr. Harwig’s multiplier). But since Health Canada eventually backed down under political and commercial opposition, the 1,500 reported cases (possibly 450,000 actual cases) externally defined for Health Canada what is to be a minimum acceptable safety standard.

• The magnitude of infections caused by the large raw milk cheese outbreak demonstrates quite clearly why raw milk has become a safety issue in the modern dairy industry, more precisely because of milk pooling in off-farm processing for retail sale. A small amount of contaminated raw milk, which might only affect a handful of people under direct sales, can affect hundreds of thousands of people because of milk pooling and retail sales.

• Raw milk was blamed for the outbreak when the real cause was a production failure. The raw milk which caused the problem was made for mass production purposes and therefore it necessarily required pasteurization to make it safe. But through production mishandling, the raw milk was not fully pasteurized. However, the government unjustifiably blamed the raw milk and went so far as to propose legislation banning all raw milk cheese production when the real problem was production mishandling. We took this as yet another example of the strong pre-existing prejudice against raw milk widely held by regulatory personnel.

• Dr. Harwig also states in evidence, “I, too, as a child, drank raw milk on the farm.” We want this same right and for our children too.

In summary, this evidence shows that Health Canada knows the significant extent of direct producer-consumer raw milk consumption already taking place in Canada and that it falls within safe limits, otherwise they would have had to ban it. The evidence also points out the prejudicial manner in which Health Canada interprets and applies its own concept of food safety depending upon the circumstances at hand.

11. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Our law restricts the access of most but not all Canadians to a nutritionally superior product, which violates the Charter on two counts – discrimination and the right to a superior product.

Therefore, we invoke Section 15 of the Charter for our law to include an exemption for direct producer-consumer sales of uncertified raw milk products. If anyone is free to drink raw uncertified milk should they happen to own a cow or a share of one, then everyone can – discrimination is not allowed.

And, we invoke Section 7 of the Charter for the creation of a certified system of raw milk production to put raw milk products on an equal footing with pasteurized dairy products.  In our opinion, the existing law unjustly favours the latter. But the creation of a certified system would allow consumers, both educated and uneducated, to easily identify the product of their choice. Furthermore, a certified system means that for the uneducated raw milk consumers there would be no concern about raw milk safety for them as there is now.

12. Uncertified direct sales

Mandatory pasteurization laws were introduced in response to health hazards created by the modern dairy industry, i.e. milk pooling in off-farm processing for retail sale and intensified farm operations by farmers who knew their raw milk would be pasteurized. Examples of the latter are visible particles of fecal matter in holding tanks and shipping the raw milk from infected cows, both of which would be of great concern to any farmer who supplied raw milk strictly for drinking. And we agree that pasteurization is about all you can do with unsafe raw milk, unless you implement a system to produce safe raw milk in the first place, shown to be feasible in 1947 in section 10 above and shown in operation today in the certified sales section below.

But, the law went further and applied mandatory pasteurization not only to off-farm production of pooled milk for retail sale, but to all milk distributed. There was no justification then and the Senate evidence shows there is no justification now, to apply mandatory pasteurization to on-farm direct sales of raw milk. The effect has been to create an oligopoly for off-farm dairy processors by wiping out on-farm competition. The presumed justification was the hazard of consuming any raw milk, which as we have shown is false – the true hazard is contained in the limited context of off-farm processing, milk pooling and retail sales. Health Canada even today seems oblivious to this important distinction and maintains an unjust law, touting the hazards of direct raw milk consumption, already shown to be “safe” by its own Senate evidence.

We therefore challenge Health Canada to produce incident statistics showing that direct raw milk consumption exceeds the acceptable safety threshold of 1,500 reported Canadian cases. We also challenge Health Canada to produce incident statistics for other foods and products now freely available and as well to demonstrate that tolerances for safety are uniformly applied across all products and acted upon in a consistent manner.

Section 15 of the Canadian Charter states that every individual has the right to equal benefit of the law without discrimination. Should any person of any age acquire uncertified raw milk, by any means, legal or illegal, even say from a US border state, he is free to consume it anywhere in Canada, anytime, anyplace and in front of any person. However, the present law prohibits some forms of acquisition and not others. If you own a cow or a part of one (otherwise called cow sharing) and collect and consume your own uncertified raw milk, this is perfectly legal. Any other form of acquisition is illegal for the distributor but not the recipient! There is no other consumable product we know of which is legal to possess but illegal to sell under any circumstances. This is also discriminatory and therefore violates the Charter.

One reason we received from an Ontario health official for the structure of the present law was that banning just the sale and distribution of raw milk was a practical decision, because enforcement of a total ban would be too resource intensive considering the number of dairy farms. But as we have shown above, the real problem with raw milk comes from a direct versus retail distinction, rather than from a raw versus pasteurized distinction which the present law is unfortunately and misguidedly based upon. Health Canada’s Senate evidence shows that raw milk for direct distribution can be safe but that raw milk for mass production, which necessarily requires pasteurization to make it safe, which finds its way into retail products without being fully pasteurized, for example through production mishandling, can cause food poisonings in the hundreds of thousands. From a public health perspective, a more effective solution than mandatory pasteurization to the retail exposures of unsafe raw milk would be the mandatory use of certified raw milk in all retail dairy products. If such a certified system were in place, the massive raw milk cheese outbreak cited by the Senate evidence would probably not have happened.

Another reason to ban the sale of raw milk we received from the same Ontario health official is that it is one thing for an individual to drink raw milk and get sick, but quite another if that individual then goes on to infect others as well. This kind of objection by a health official only strengthens the need for the compilation of actual infections by food group so that fair and unprejudiced comparisons can be made. In their absence, we again refer to the 250,000 Canadians presently drinking raw milk, likely made up of many farm families, with many members drinking raw milk. These family members would be going to schools and to off-farm jobs. If there were any evidence of a contagious public health risk, Health Canada would have made it quite public by now given their pre-existing prejudice against raw milk.

Yet another objection we heard was that exempting direct uncertified sales of raw milk undermines the single desk marketing system, i.e. the milk quota system. Our reply would be that the quota system regulates the overall supply of milk but not the form that it is delivered in, i.e. pasteurized, raw, retail, direct, certified or uncertified. On this basis, we are in no way challenging the supply management system, but we acknowledge there would have to be an accounting within that system for the new consumer products we are requesting. This might present some administrative difficulties but should not be used as an excuse to prevent the alignment of the health laws with the Charter. In fact we were advised by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario to seek out a change to the health laws now prohibiting raw drinking milk whereupon they would consider raw milk for niche market distribution in Ontario.

The Section 15 Charter argument simply put is that because owners or part owners of cows can acquire and thereby consume their own unregulated raw milk, then everyone should be able to acquire it without having to own a cow or a share of one. Therefore the present health law, which bans all raw milk sales, violates the Charter and therefore needs to include an exemption for direct distribution.

And should the government entertain the idea of prohibiting all raw milk consumption rather than just its sale and distribution, we would counter by saying that the 1% of raw fluid milk consumption, already taking place by direct distribution, has been shown by Health Canada itself to be safe. The government would therefore have no basis for banning all raw milk consumption.

Also, it was pointed out to us that the federal health laws are a joint federal-provincial undertaking setting a minimum national health standard, which any province is free to enhance in their own health laws. We have recommended the federal health law be changed to incorporate our requested exemption but by extension, we also ask the provinces to abide by the same request. Otherwise they expose themselves to the same Charter challenges.

Interestingly, raw drinking milk is available in both of Canada’s founding nations, England and France. Why not here? We also found that consumer access to raw milk is permitted in the majority of US states and in many other countries worldwide (www.magma.ca/~ca/rawmilk/sale.htm). Many jurisdictions have mandatory pasteurization laws and make uncertified raw milk available to consumers by including an exemption for direct sales in their law. Missouri and Nebraska are two excellent examples (www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/c100-199/1960935.htm and www.agr.state.ne.us/regulate/daf/pastlaw.htm#3903). Missouri’s mandatory pasteurization law states, “Except an individual may purchase and have delivered to him for his own use raw milk or cream from a farm.” Nebraska’s mandatory pasteurization law states, “Milk and milk products produced by farmers exclusively for sale at the farm directly to customers for consumption and not for resale shall be exempt from the Nebraska Pasteurized Milk Law.”

Based on these examples of exemptions to mandatory pasteurization laws, we therefore propose the following wording for an exemption to Canada’s mandatory pasteurization law in the Food and Drugs Act: “Except individuals, for their own use and not for resale, may purchase the raw milk, cream, butter and cheese, not otherwise regulated in part or in whole by this Act or its regulations, of a cow, goat or sheep from its owner. The owner or a person under his direction and control may deliver the product.” We believe that delivery is important because without it, many city dwellers would be deprived of access due to the difficulties of travelling to a farm, thereby constituting a form of structural discrimination. This could include the elderly, the infirm, the handicapped and those without transportation or a driver’s license.

Even though this exemption would restore consumer rights to direct sales of uncertified raw milk, the law would still unjustly favour pasteurized dairy products. There would be neither retail raw milk products available, nor an easy way for uneducated consumers to identify which producers had safe raw milk products which they could buy direct. This situation therefore creates a Section 7 Charter argument to establish a certified system of raw milk sales, discussed further below. And such a system ought to provide additional assurance for the direct uncertified exemption because most new raw milk consumers would have the availability and assurance of certified raw milk and would likely choose it over uncertified sources. And together with consumer education programs directed at uneducated consumers to drink only certified raw milk, the health of all raw milk consumers, both educated and uneducated, would be protected, and without any Charter violations.

The proposed direct uncertified exemption would also legalize the illegal practices associated with the 250,000 Canadians presently consuming raw milk. That is, Canadian dairy farmers who supply raw milk to their families, friends or customers, should they have any, are breaking the law, notwithstanding it is a law in violation of the Charter. We find it curious that dairy farmers are not being actively prosecuted for giving raw milk to their families which, based on the present law, is illegal. Common sense would dictate otherwise because they are educated raw milk consumers, and if dairy farmers’ families can drink uncertified raw milk without prosecution, then everyone else should be so allowed, as per Section 15 of the Charter.

The situation of the 250,000 Canadians presently consuming raw milk demonstrates quite clearly that educated consumers can safely consume raw milk. As noted earlier, none of the government reports of raw milk infections we have seen involves dairy farmers or their families. One reason we have heard is that of “passive immunity”, that is the body builds a tolerance for the bacteria of raw milk supplied by one source. The reasons would make for an interesting scientific study, which is conveniently absent. But whatever the reasons for the safety, there is a large group of Canadian consumers safely consuming uncertified raw milk. And as per Section 15 of the Charter, everyone should be able to.

There are published examples of regulatory authorities exercising extreme force against raw milk distributors because the law is directed at distributors and not consumers. The proposed direct uncertified exemption would thereby end this unjust persecution of raw milk distributors. Even if a certified system of raw milk sales were to be introduced, the proposed exemption for uncertified direct sales would still be required for Charter compliance. The consumption of uncertified raw milk would still continue, perhaps in a reduced amount, but it would still exist, thereby necessitating Charter Section 15 action.

In summary, the restoration of uncertified direct raw milk sales corrects the discrimination contemplated by Section 15 of the Charter, and entrenches consumer rights for a nutritionally superior product. We might add that provincial regulatory bodies, such as the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, could then act as excellent information resources to help educate and advise both farmers and all consumers, both educated and uneducated, interested in direct uncertified raw milk.

13. Certified sales

Even with a direct sales exemption for raw milk in place, the right of most ordinary Canadians to access the healthier raw milk product would still be compromised because only pasteurized milk products would be available at retail. And should a raw milk consumer seek out a direct supplier, he assumes the risk of making a proper selection because the raw milk of many producers may be unsafe because of the modern methods they have adopted, knowing their raw milk can only be made safe with pasteurization.

The government has always had the option for introducing certified raw milk sales either direct, as in the UK, or for retail as in California and Massachusetts. In fact England has never banned the sale of raw milk – it has always been available alongside pasteurized products – which is what we want and have a right to in Canada.

Section 7 of the Charter ensures that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof. Our interpretation of Section 7 is that we are being deprived of raw milk products which should as freely available as pasteurized ones. The only way any kind of parity could be established for the ordinary consumer is with a parallel system for certified raw milk products.

A system of certified direct raw milk sales is used in the UK. It is best described in the words of Ms.Banke Adigun of the Microbiological Safety Division of the UK’s Food Standards Agency.

“The Food Standards Agency's policy is that consumers should be informed of the risks associated with drinking raw milk, but remain free to choose to drink raw milk if they wish. The milk has to meet certain microbiological standards (for total bacterial count and coliforms) and under the Food Labelling Regulations has to bear a health warning to advise the consumer that it has not been heat treated and may contain organisms harmful to health.”

“All producers of raw cows' drinking milk have to be registered (licensed), regularly inspected and have samples of the milk taken and tested for pathogens in accordance with the Dairy Products (Hygiene) Regulations (DPHRs)1995 by the Dairy Hygiene Inspectorate. Any farm that fails the inspections and sampling will have its milk production suspended. Outbreaks of food poisoning due to drinking raw milk can be easily traced back to the farm responsible which will then be monitored more frequently. Resumption of milk production may only take place once the Dairy Hygiene Inspectorate is satisfied that the particular farm meets certain criteria as set out in the DPHRs.”

“The Dairy Products (Hygiene) Regulations (DPHRs)1995 state that raw milk can only be sold direct to the ultimate consumer by registered milk production holdings (at the farm gate or in a farmhouse catering operation) or by distributors/milk roundsmen. We have, however, issued guidance allowing farmers to sell small amounts of raw milk through local shops or farmers markets. Sales through other outlets have been banned since 1985. Regulation 12(3) b of the DPHRs allows for the distributor/milk roundsman to sell from his vehicle as part of his milk round; distributions of raw milk to retail outlets is prohibited.”

The UK experience proves that a certified system of direct raw milk distribution provides a safe method for widespread consumer consumption. It simply requires the will to do it. Their system works so well that raw drinking milk has always been available and never had to be banned. See www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19951086_en_6.htm and www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19951086_en_14.htm#sdiv4 for their regulations.

In the USA, each state determines its own position and regulations for the sale of raw milk for drinking. We understand there are 31 states where it is available to consumers and of these, 9 states where it is available on store shelves, e.g. Massachusetts and California. Massachusetts has its own set of government regulations and California uses the procedures of the AAMMC (American Association of Medical Milk Commissions), an independent body since the 1890’s for the certification of raw drinking milk. For their regulations, see www.state.ma.us/dfa/legal/regs/dairy_2700~1_milk_raw_standards.pdf, sections 27.06 and 27.08 and www.magma.ca/~ca/rawmilk/aammc.htm.

Massachusetts’ law establishes standards for “Grade A Raw Milk for Pasteurization” and a higher set of standards for “Grade A Raw Milk for Retail Sale”. It differentiates between these two types of raw milk for consumer safety. The Massachusetts Director of Dairy Services reports there have been no outbreaks caused by raw drinking milk from producers who were properly licensed.

Stueve’s Dairy, which uses the AAMMC procedures, wrote to us, “The Stueve family has been selling raw milk and later raw certified milk in California, since June 1, 1945. During that time, over 56 years, our customers have consumed billions of glasses of raw milk and raw certified milk without an outbreak of illness caused by either raw milk or raw certified milk.”  See www.magma.ca/~ca/rawmilk/letter.htm for their 21 page letter to us explaining their experience and with additional arguments for raw milk.

Perfect health records such as these for the retail sale raw drinking milk is an example of what is possible with the application of appropriate superior hygienic production methods. It demonstrates that the safety tolerances for consuming raw milk made specifically for human consumption can match or exceed those of pasteurized milk

However, a concern which has been expressed is that consumers might confuse raw milk with pasteurized milk on store shelves and thereby unknowingly buy it. This is a false argument because raw drinking milk is significantly more expensive than pasteurized milk. Stueve’s Dairy says it is about 50% more costly and in their experience, consumers notice such a price difference immediately, even before any warning labels. So there is virtually no chance that consumers would unknowingly purchase raw milk on store shelves. 

In summary, to grant Canadians their rights under Section 7 of the Charter requires the implementation of a parallel system to pasteurization for certified raw milk sales, at a minimum for direct sales and preferably for retail sale. Successful examples of each have been provided for your review.

14. The pasteurization decision

Ontario was the first jurisdiction in North America to introduce mandatory pasteurization legislation in 1938. It took until 1991 for federal legislation to be enacted. The decision to use pasteurization exclusively, rather than a raw certified system or a combination of the two, can now be reviewed and evaluated for its impact on the public in terms of pathogenic safety, product pricing and nutrition, both for retail sales and direct sales.

Mandatory pasteurization has resulted in lower consumer prices for dairy products but with lower nutritional value and in our opinion lower consumer safety, for both direct and retail consumption. The latter stems from the fact that under pasteurization, farmers have moved to more economical high intensity operations, relying on pasteurization to compensate for the increased pathogenic risk introduced by their operations, which now make raw milk which is a public health hazard in its raw state. This raw milk has found its way into retail products without being properly pasteurized e.g. the Canadian raw milk cheese outbreak discussed above, which has caused large scale outbreaks, which could have been averted under a certified system because raw certified milk is safe without the need for pasteurization.

Conversely, a raw certified milk system results in a higher priced consumer product with higher nutritional value and higher consumer safety for direct and retail consumption. Raw milk at source would be safe for human consumption directly from the farm and it would provide consumers with an extra margin of safety in retail dairy products - the raw material is safe to begin with, rather than being a health hazard needing the extra manufacturing step of pasteurization to make it so.

Peculiarly, the pasteurization decision has been defended on the basis of safety, which is contrary to our findings. Rather, it should properly be defended on the basis of economics, i.e. a cheaper dairy product, which consumers have a right to, but consumers should also be informed of the associated increased health risks and reduced nutritional value. Studies should also be conducted and consumers duly informed of the longer term health impacts of consuming pasteurized dairy products having reduced nutritional value.

Should the government decide to maintain its prohibition on the sale of raw drinking milk in the interests of public safety, we would argue that a certified system of raw drinking milk is in fact a safer overall system, and that pasteurization should be banned.

Therefore, we respectfully request that consumers be given free choice to decide for themselves which class of dairy product they want – raw or pasteurized, and that the sale of raw dairy products be legalized.

15. Raw meat illegal to sell & discrimination against raw milk consumers

We discovered a very peculiar aspect of the Food and Drugs Act in that it is generally accepted that raw meat, poultry, fish and eggs all contain pathogens and are thereby unfit for raw human consumption. Their sale as a raw and therefore hazardous product, however, therefore contravenes the Food and Drugs Act Sections 4(a) and 4(b) noted above. Liquor sales would be prohibited under Section 4(a), as evidenced by the near death described in section 10 above. Therefore, the sale of raw meat, poultry, fish and eggs and liquor is just as illegal in Canada as raw milk. The Act contains no exemption for these foods, which are hazardous in the state of their sale, and of which meat, fish, poultry and eggs require heat treatment by consumers to achieve pathogenic safety. At best this constitutes discrimination against raw milk consumers and at worst, it demands the immediate prohibition of all sales of raw meat, poultry, fish and eggs and liquor in Canada.

Should the government decide, however, to introduce an exemption in law to legalize the sale of raw meat, poultry, fish and eggs and liquor, the wording of any changes should be examined for discrimination against raw milk consumers. For example, if consumers are assumed to be educated and capable of making raw meat pathogenically safe, why should raw milk consumers be treated differently by forcing them to drink only raw milk that has been heat treated by a dairy? Dairies have made very serious production errors as discussed above. To protect themselves from this known risk, raw milk consumers should be given the choice to heat treat their own milk, just like raw meat users, otherwise, this would violate the equality provisions of the Charter, Section 15. Mandatory pasteurization should rather be a voluntary choice for consumers, paralleling raw meats and their irradiation, as per recent Health Canada legislative proposals.

Health Canada reports, “Raw Foods of Animal Origin (RFAO's) includes meat, poultry, eggs, raw milk cheese, fish and seafood. Annually up to 30,000 cases of foodborne illness are reported in Canada, the majority of which due to the microbial contamination of RFAO's.” (www.hc-sc.gc.ca/food-aliment/mh-dm/mhe-dme/rfao-aoca/e_rfao.html). This constitutes an infection rate of approximately 0.1%. By taking the 22 cases of raw milk infection reported in section 8 above against the 250,000 consumers, the infection rate for raw milk is approximately 0.01% (broad allowances being made for the population of British Columbia and the number of years over which the infections occurred). The infection rate for raw milk is therefore about one-tenth the rate for RFAO’s. Based on this, the ban on the sale of raw milk is discriminatory in comparison to RFAO’s.

As mentioned in the opening paragraph, one of the submitters has adopted a raw foods diet. He is also a vegetarian, a non-drinker and a non-smoker, owns no firearms and even abstains from coffee, tea and sugar. But the one “vice” he wishes to engage in, is drinking raw milk. For a liberal democracy like Canada to ban the sale of raw milk to this person is clearly discriminatory.

16. Section conclusions on the safety of raw milk for drinking

Under Section 7 of the Charter, consumer rights for equal access to a nutritionally superior product identified as being safe would require the implementation of a certified raw milk distribution system, either direct or retail or both. We recommend the adoption of any one or a combination of such regulations presently in place and presented herein from England, Massachusetts and the AAMMC.

We have shown that raw milk is safe for human consumption under direct consumer distribution as indicated by Health Canada’s own Senate evidence. And under Section 15 of the Charter, consumer rights for direct distribution of raw milk would require that a legislative exemption be added to our mandatory pasteurization law in the Food and Drugs Act. Our suggested wording is, “Except individuals, for their own use and not for resale, may purchase the raw milk, cream, butter and cheese, not otherwise regulated in part or in whole by this Act or its regulations, of a cow, goat or sheep from its owner. The owner or a person under his direction and control may deliver the product.”  With a certified system in place to protect the health of all raw milk consumers, this provision would still be required to respect the rights of educated raw milk consumers, notwithstanding the need for a public education program directed at uneducated consumers to drink only certified raw milk.

The implementation of both these proposals, together with the appropriate consumer education programs would respect and protect the rights and health of all raw milk consumers, educated and uneducated alike, and without any Charter violations which we would go to court over.

We also recommend that the Food and Drugs Act be amended to legalize the sale of raw meat, fish, poultry and eggs and liquor, which is presently illegal under Sections 4(a) and 4(b). Any such amendments should be carefully examined to ensure conformity with the equality provisions of the Charter, Section 15, in respect of raw milk consumers.

C.  OVERALL CONCLUSIONS

This submission was prepared in response to a Health Canada request asking why we believed raw milk was healthier than pasteurized milk and how do you make raw milk safe for consumers.

We have shown that raw milk is a differentiated product from pasteurized milk and that it has superior nutritional properties, not only to pasteurized milk but to commercially processed milk. We have shown that uncertified raw milk is safely being consumed by about 250,000 Canadians through direct producer-consumer distribution. We have also shown that certified raw milk can be made safe for consumers by following the procedures of jurisdictions which offer it for retail sale on store shelves or directly from producer to consumer.

In terms of our rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we have shown that because the government has failed to adopt a certified raw milk distribution system, it therefore deprives Canadians of their Section 7 Charter rights to life, liberty and security of the person. We have also shown that Section 15 of the Charter provides equality rights and because cow owners can acquire and thereby freely consume uncertified raw milk, so should everyone else besides cow owners. To do otherwise constitutes discrimination.

Therefore, we request that Health Canada change the present law to permit consumer access to raw milk in two ways: first, the implementation of a system for certified raw milk sales, either direct or retail or both; and second by an exemption to the mandatory pasteurization law which will allow any Canadian to purchase uncertified raw milk products directly from any farmer. Together with a consumer education program directed at uneducated consumers to drink only certified raw milk, this would respect and protect the rights and health of all raw milk consumers, both educated and uneducated, and without any Charter violations which we would go to court over.

Therefore, our suggested exemption for the Food and Drugs Act is, “Except individuals, for their own use and not for resale, may purchase the raw milk, cream, butter and cheese, not otherwise regulated in part or in whole by this Act or its regulations. of a cow, goat or sheep from its owner. The owner or a person under his direction and control may deliver the product.”

We also recommend that the Food and Drugs Act be amended to legalize the sale of raw meat, fish, poultry and eggs and liquor, which is presently illegal under Sections 4(a) and 4(b). Any such amendments should be carefully examined to ensure conformity with the equality provisions of the Charter, Section 15, in respect of raw milk consumers.

Provided it is appropriate and upon invitation, we would be pleased to participate in any discussions or consultations leading to a change in the law. With our many contacts, we can offer an excellent single point of contact for consumer and small producer issues, thereby ensuring a balanced representation of interests in any proposed legislative change.

REFERENCES

Baron, J. A. et al., Calcium Supplements for the Prevention of Colorectal Adenomas, NEJM 340: 101-7 (1999).

Barth, C. A. and Schliemme, E. (eds), Milk Proteins, Steinkopff Verlag Darmstadt, Springer Verlag, New York, 1989.

Beazell, J.M., A Re-examination of the Role of the Stomach in the Digestion of Carbohydrate and Protein, Am. J. Physiol. 132: 42-50 (1941). 

Colman, N., Hettiararchychy, N. and Herbert, V., Detection of a Milk Factor that Facilitates Folate Uptake by Intestinal Cells, Science 211: 1427-8 (1981).

Hall, C.W. and Trout, G. M., Milk Pasteurization, The Avi Publishing Co. Inc., Westport, Connecticut, 1968.

Donnelly, C. W., Factors Associated with Hygienic Control and Quality of Cheeses Prepared from Raw Milk, Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation 369: 16-27 (2001).

Egan, C. and Rennee M., New Scientist, p.118, June 16, 1988.

Fedele, V., Grazing for Different Quality of Milk, Caseus International, Vol. 2: p.36 (2001).

Fisher, R.A. and Bartlett, S., Pasteurized and Raw Milk, Nature 127: 591-2 (1931).

Gardner, M., Gastrointestinal Absorption of Intact Proteins, Annual Review of Nutrition, 1988.

Gibney, M.J., Gallagher, P.J., Sharratt, G.P., Benning, H.S., Taylor, T.G. and Pitts, J.M.,  Antibodies to Heated Milk Protein in Coronary Heart Disease, Atherosclerosis 37: 151-5 (1980).

Goff, D., University of Guelph, Dairy Science and Technology, www.foodsci.uoguelph.ca/dairyedu/micro.html, site continuously maintained and therefore, assumed current. 

Graham, D.Y., Enzyme Replacement Therapy of Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency in Man, NEJM 296: 1314-7 (1977).

Gregory, J.F. III, Denaturation of the Folacin-Binding Proteins in Pasteurized Milk Products, J. Nutr. 112: 1329-38 (1982).

Gueguen, L., Nutrition and Food Safety Laboratory, National Institute for Agronomy  Research (INRA) France.

Hall, C.W. and Trout, G.M., Milk Pasteurization, Avi Publishing Company Inc., Westport, Connecticut, 1968.

Hatton, D.C., McCarron, D.A., Yue, Q. et al., Prenatal Calcium Supplementation Lowers Blood Pressure in Toddlers, 17^th Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Nephrology, Amsterdam, June 7-11, 1998.

Heeschen, W.H., The Significance of Pathogenic Microorganisms in Raw Milk, International Dairy Federation, Brussels, 1994, p.8.

Herrington, B.L., Milk and Milk Processing, McGraw Hill Book Co. Inc., New York, 1948.

Holt, P.R. et al., Modulation of Abnormal Colonic Epithelial Cell Proliferation and Differentiation by Low Fat Dairy Foods. A Randomized Controlled Trial, JAMA 280: 1074-9 (1998).

Hurley, W.L., Milk Proteins and Protein Synthesis, Dept. Of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Kramer, M.M., Latzke, E. and Shaw, M.M., A Comparison of Raw, Pasteurized, Evaporated and Dried Milks as Sources of Calcium and Phosphorus for the Human Subject, J. Biol. Chem 79: 283-95 (1928).

Ladd, M., Evarts, H.W. and Franks, L.W., Arch. Pediat. 43: p.380 (1926).

La Jaouen, Raw Milk, Dead Milk, Which Alternative?, Caseus International 1: p.66 (2001).

Lampert, L.L., Milk and Dairy Products, Chemical Publishing Co. Inc, Brooklyn, New York, 1947.

Lennard-Jones, J.E., Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders, NEJM 308: p.431 (1983).

Levieux, D., Heat Denaturation of Whey Proteins: Comparative Studies with Physical and Immunological Methods, Ann. Rech. Vet. 511: 89-97 (1980).

Lipkin, M., Protective Effects of Dairy Foods and Their Components Against Colon Cancers: Studies in Pre-Clinical Models and Human Subjects, Proceedings of the 25^th International Dairy Congress, Aarhus, Denmark, September 21-24, 1998.

MacNaughton, G., Manager Farm Policies and Programs, Dairy Farmers of Ontario, private communication, 2001.

Magee, H. E. and Harvey, D., Biochem. J. XX: p.885 (1926) in Willard, A.C. and Blunt, K., A Comparison of Evaporated and Pasteurized Milk as a Source of Ca, P and N, J. Biol. Chem., 75: 251-62 (1927).

McCarron, D.A., Dietary Calcium and Lower Blood Pressure: We Can All Benefit, JAMA 275: 1128-9 (1996).

McHenry, E.W., Canadian Journal of Public Health 32 (4): 143-230 (1941).

Miller, G.D., Calcium and Dairy Foods in Reducing Hypertension Risk, Proceedings of the 25^th International Dairy Congress, Aarhus, Denmark, September 21-24, 1998.

Porter, G., Milk and Dairy Foods, Oxford University Press, 1975. 

Prentice, G.A., The Significance of Pathogenic Microorganisms in Raw Milk, International Dairy Federation, Brussels, 1994.

Prochaska, L.J. and Piekutowski, W.V., On the Synergistic Effects of Enzymes in Food with Enzymes in the Human Body. A Literature Survey and Analytical Report, Med. Hypotheses 42: 355-62 (1994).

Reed, G., Enzymes in Food Processing, Academic Press, New York, 1975.

Renner, E., Milk and Dairy Products in Human Nutrition, W-GMBH, Volkswirtschaftlicher Verlag, Munchen, 1983.

Rolls, B.A. and Porter, J.W.G., Some Effects of Processing and Storage on the Nutritive Value of Milk and Milk Products, Proc. Butr. Soc. 32: 9-15 (1973).

Ruiz, Jr., L.P., Indigenous Anti-Microbial Agents of Milk – Recent Developments. International Dairy Federation, 1993.

Schultz, H.W. (ed.), Food Enzymes, The Avi Publishing Co, Westport, Connecticut, 1960.

Scott, E. and Erf, L.A., Ohio Tests Prove Natural Milk is Best, The Jersey Bulletin and Dairy World, Indianapolis, Indiana, p.210, 1931.

Shahani, K.M., Harper, W.J., Jensen, R.G., Parry, Jr., R.M. and Zittle, C.A., Enzymes in Bovine Milk: A Review, J. Dairy Science 56 (5): 531-43 (1973).

Walstra, P. and Jenness, R., Dairy Chemistry and Physics, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1984.

Appendix

Organic Pastures Dairy Company Lab Test Results

home