Publisher’s Platform: California Department of Health failed in its mission

Over the past thirty years, I have been an outspoken advocate for robust public health involvement in disease prevention – especially foodborne illness. It is beyond me to understand why public health would remain silent in the face of at least 165 sick people, twenty in hospital and 40 percent of the sick five years old or younger – especially raw milk, a risky elixir.

The more I think about this, the harder it is to figure out why public health would depend on the scientific fact that a food manufacturer of a known risky food is making hundreds of people sick. This includes overwhelming epidemiological evidence of the same WGS pattern in humans and milk. Putting aside the ‘food freedom’ argument for a moment, people should be able to eat or drink whatever they want and feed their children the same; What about simply informing the public of the facts and letting the public decide for themselves?

CDPH Mission Statement: “To promote the health and well-being of California’s diverse people and communities.”

CDPH failed in its mission when it failed to warn the public that a raw milk producer in the state of California had sickened at least 165 (probably larger) individuals with Salmonella, Campylobacter, or E. coli, both in the state of California and in three other countries. unnamed states. And almost 40% of the sick were five years old or younger. Everyone who was sick from Salmonella people’s stool cultures consisted of a whole genome sequence matched to raw milk samples. These facts would have been an opportunity to warn the public about the risk and provide education “[t]o promote the health and well-being of California’s diverse people and communities.”

Instead, CDPH sent out this sad excuse for a public service announcement yesterday – still saying nothing of value “[t]o promote the health and well-being of California’s diverse people and communities.”

CDPH takes the job of protecting public health seriously and works closely with all partners when an outbreak of foodborne illness is identified. After being alerted by San Diego County Public Health about multiple cases of salmonellosis last October, CDPH conducted a robust public health investigation in collaboration with local officials and the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), which regulates raw milk producers in California. On October 24, 2023, CDPH posted a food recall on its website (see attachment). (That post was later archived following the conclusion of the investigation.) The department also notified the public of the recall several times on social media (see links below). CDPH, in collaboration with CDFA, Raw Farm management asked for a voluntary recall. Raw Farm cooperated and issued a recall on October 25. Because the most illnesses were reported in San Diego CountySan Diego County Public Health led the public notification process (media releases are available on their website, including one at October 20 And October 25). The outbreak and case investigation handled by CDPH ended May 4, 2024. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was aware of the investigation and assisted with some coordination with cases in other states.

Interestingly enough, Harvard Health published this week Why Drinking Raw Milk Can Be Dangerous.

Despite some claims to the contrary, drinking raw milk is not safe. Health experts say germs in raw milk can make you seriously ill.

What is raw milk?

Raw milk comes from animals such as cows and goats. It is not pasteurized to kill germs.

Some people find that raw milk tastes better than pasteurized milk. One of the health claims surrounding raw milk is that it can heal lactose intolerance, treat allergies and support gut health. However, extensive research has shown that none of these myths are true.

Drinking raw milk can be dangerous to your health, explains infectious disease specialist Dr. Michelle Chan of Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital. “I’m concerned that drinking raw milk has become a trend,” she said. “There is a good reason why foods and drinks are now pasteurized.”

What are the health risks of consuming raw milk?

Raw milk can contain dangerous germs that can cause food poisoning. Most people with food poisoning experience a combination of abdominal cramps, vomiting and diarrhea.

Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria and Campylobacter are germs found in raw milk that can cause foodborne illness.

Anyone who drinks raw milk can become ill. But it is especially dangerous to:

• babies, young children and teenagers
• pregnant woman
• older adults
• People with a weakened immune system, including people with cancer, diabetes or HIV/AIDS, and people who have had an organ transplant.

In the US, the sale of raw milk across state lines is illegal, and raw milk is banned in about half of US states. Of the states that allow this, most specify that it must come directly from a farmer.

Good hygiene practices on farms can reduce the risk of contamination; however, they cannot guarantee that their raw milk is safe from dangerous germs.

Bird flu and raw milk

In March 2024, an outbreak of bird flu in dairy cows occurred in multiple states, the first time bird flu viruses have been found in cows.

There is limited information about whether the virus can be transmitted to humans through raw milk from infected cows. A letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine reported high levels of the virus in raw milk from infected cows. The FDA recommends that farmers not produce or sell raw milk from cows showing symptoms of bird flu or from cows that have been exposed to it.

In a study Designed to simulate commercial milk processing, the FDA and USDA found that the most commonly used pasteurization time and temperature requirements effectively inactivated the bird flu virus in pasteurized milk.

What is pasteurization?

Pasteurization is a process that kills germs in foods using heat. Pasteurized milk is heated to a minimum of 145° Fahrenheit and then cooled quickly. The process was invented in 1864 by scientist Louis Pasteur.

Does pasteurized milk have the same nutritional benefits as raw milk?

Multiple studies have found no evidence that raw milk is more nutritious than pasteurized milk. According to the CDC And FDAPasteurized milk provides the same nutritional benefits as raw milk, but without the risks.

Drinking raw milk means you are taking a big risk with your health, says Dr. Chan. “My advice,” she said, “is to heed the research, be aware of the risks associated with drinking raw milk, and avoid drinking it.”

Today, Physician’s Weekly also reported: “Less than half of adults know the dangers of raw milk.”

A new survey shows that few Americans understand the health risks of drinking raw milk, so experts are redoubling their efforts to spread the word.

The initiative is in line with the discovery of the bird flu virus in milk from infected cows this spring. The H5N1 virus is widespread among wild birds worldwide, causing outbreaks in poultry and American dairy cows. As of June 21, there were four human cases of H5N1 flu had been reported in the United States.

“It is important that anyone planning to consume raw milk is aware that it can make you sick and that pasteurization reduces the risk of milk-borne illness,” he says. Patrick Jamiesondirector of the Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute at the University of Pennsylvania.

Milk from cows, sheep, goats and other animals that has not been pasteurized to kill harmful germs is called raw or unpasteurized. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says consuming unpasteurized milk and products made from it can expose people to germs such as E. coli, listeria and salmonella.

While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration says the commercial milk supply — which is pasteurized — is safe from the H5N1 virus, raw milk is a different story.

In June, before the four human cases of bird flu were reported, the Annenberg Institute stated questioned 1,031 U.S. adults online and by phone to gauge their knowledge of the risks associated with unpasteurized milk.

While 47% of respondents knew that raw milk is less safe to drink, 24% incorrectly believed that pasteurizing milk does not effectively kill bacteria and viruses, or were unsure if it did.

Respondents who were 65 or older, had a college education, or were lean Democrats were more likely to understand the benefits of pasteurization and to believe that it does not destroy the nutrients in milk. Urban residents were more likely to view raw milk as less safe than rural residents (49% vs. 32%).

Meanwhile, only 4 in 10 Republicans (37%) believe raw milk is less safe than pasteurized milk.

“The difference in views on raw milk that we see between Democrats and Republicans is difficult to disentangle from the difference between rural and urban residents,” Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, said in a news release from the center. “Those in rural areas are more likely to identify as Republicans and consume raw milk.”

A separate analysis showed that where someone lives does not predict views on pasteurization. Yet many Americans have the wrong ideas about it.

Less than half (43%) knew that pasteurization “does not destroy the nutrients in milk”; 16% think so, and 41% are not sure.

Interestingly, 18- to 29-year-olds were more likely than seniors to believe that pasteurizing milk destroys nutrients (25% vs. 5%), and Republicans were much more likely than Democrats to believe (23% vs. 8%).

The survey was conducted from June 7 to 10 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News,Click here)