AVMA Conference – Raw Milk Consumption – Legal Implications of Raw Milk and Case Studies

Nancy, really? I just sued Nestle and JBS Swift in the last week on behalf of E. coli victims.

Nancy thinks I am in the pocket of “Big Everything” and Jeff thinks it is about “lining my pockets.” I find it hard to argue with them when they approach the issue from such far away and wrong positions.
Like it our not, I represent people who can not afford to hire a lawyer to represent them. I get paid only if I win. I primarily represent kids who have been severely injured by consuming food contaminated by pathogens that should have never been in the food in the first place.
Most of the cases I do – I sued Nestle and JBS Swift last week on behalf of children who suffered kidney failure – are against large, multi-national corporations. Yes, I have sued raw milk farmers who sold tainted product.
For me it is about making companies – large and small – be responsible for what they produce. I am proud of what I do and I am honored to represent people.
Jeff and Nancy – I hope that you never have a child sickened by the food they consume.
On fathers day I met with the family of a 7 year old girl who died because the hamburger she ate with her grandfather at a VFW picnic was tainted with E. coli O157:H7. Yesterday I spoke with a young father whose 3 year old daughter suffered kidney failure and a stroke because Nestle Cookie Dough had E. coli O157:H7 in it. Each family has been torn apart. Each family has thousands of dollars in bills and the surviving child has a life time of complications.
These people need help. The companies who sold the poisoned products must be held accountable. I have the ability to do it.
You should cherish the rights of citizens to stand up for themselves – not scorn it.

Harwood – Are you serious? The farmers I know would never have anything like that happen. Farmers who sell raw milk don’t treat their animals like that. They are very very clean and serious about staying clean and never letting anything like that happen. You must be thinking of the big dairy farms where the cows don’t get to eat grass every day and all the other nastiness that goes on at those farms. Now those farms are the ones that need to have the milk pasteurized! Raw milk farmers are made to keep a higher standard on their farms which I think they are proud of. They want people to be able trust their milk and they do. Not just because they know the farmer, but that helps. They trust it because they have health inspectors come out all the time to test.
Bill Marler – I’m glad that you have helped families that need someone to help them fight these big companies because of food safety. All that I ask you is to make sure that you don’t take away people’s rights to drink raw milk if they so choose. Yes, raw milk dairy farmers need to be kept at a higher level safety wise than pasteurized farms. Actually, it would be great if all dairy farms were kept at that higher level of safety. But, let us be able to choose to drink it. If we know the risks associated with it and we trust our dairy farmer and he has met the safety tests, I think it is our choice.

I’d be willing to bet cash money that most, perhaps all, of the people who have been sickened by consumption of raw milk had the same beliefs as Jeff, Nancy, Anthony, and Marnita before they became ill. A farmer, whether large or small, does not have to intend to let bacteria into the cow’s milk for the bacteria to be there and to thrive. Observable surface cleanliness is nice and desirable, but it is not a guarantee that raw milk is free of microbes that could make you seriously ill.
Unless there is some way to test every single batch of raw milk for multiple different microbes, and all producers of raw milk are availing themselves of such testing and throwing out unsafe product, I don’t know how any “safety tests” could assure consumers that raw milk is safe.

So, you are doing this for the helpless?
Why don’t you start a lawsuit against the makers of baby formula that is 50% sugar?
Just how nourishing is that going to be?
It’s a formula for infants who can’t tolerate milk, it’s got a variety of sugars, glucose, dextrose, maltose, a touch of milk casein, some soy oil and thickeners.
It’s enriched of course, but it’s still basically sugar water at $27 a can.
Actually I hear that there are no restrictions or requirements on infant formula, it just can’t be made of raw milk.
What’s in that baby’s bottle?
Oh, and this is a major manufacturer of infant formula. I checked and even the regular formula has a high level of sugars in it. And there is no proof that the addition of these new DHA and AHA or whatever is actually safe for babies.
Just because it is found in breast milk doesn’t mean they know how or when to add such to a formula safely. It’s a claim not proof.
That’s not to mention that they know that they powdered formula has a high level of contamination from bacteria that forms as part of the manufacturing process. They can’t prevent it, formula has a moisture content that makes it great for fungus and bacteria to grow before it’s put in cans.
Our babies are being used as guinea pigs and pay for it. If it harms the baby, who’s responsible?
The manufacturer or the mother who chose not to breastfeed?