The Rebellion

“You are what you eat, eats too.” --Michael Pollan, In Defense of Food

Kathryn Russell owns a farm 15 minutes outside of Charlottesville, Virginia, a state in which it is illegal to sell raw milk. She cares for 20 cattle; 11 are currently milking cows. Technically the milk cows don’t belong to her—they are owned by a multitude of shareholders, who purchase a fraction of a cow and pay a monthly boarding fee in order to legally obtain raw milk. Selling raw milk in Virginia is illegal, but consuming the raw milk from a cow that you legally own is not. (In many states, including Maryland, shareholder operations are illegal.) Shareholders must pay the up front cost of the share and a monthly boarding fee, and in return they get a weekly amount of raw milk. Shareholders are also responsible for any unusual vet bills. But shareholders know the name of their cow, and they know Kathryn Russell, and they are welcome to visit the farm any time. Even though the FDA warns people not to drink raw milk, Russell’s shareholders feel more secure knowing exactly where their milk comes from, rather than purchasing a gallon of milk from a grocery store that has been pooled and traded hands many times in the milk production and processing system. In fact, 30 percent of Russell’s shareholders are medical professionals.

Russell and many other producers and consumers of raw milk believe that the face-to-face interaction between farmer and consumer creates greater accountability, and fosters a sense of community often lost in today’s mass-produced world. With the recent outbreaks of e-coli and salmonella traced to tomatoes, Romaine lettuce, and spinach, many people feel less than secure buying produce from unknown origins and with unknown handling practices.

Modern dairy farms do not remotely resemble the images depicted on milk cartons of rolling hills sparsely populated by peaceful cows. Cows are kept in stalls approximately five by six feet, where they are milked daily until they die. The life span of a pastured cow is 12-15 years, but the life span of a cow in a confined dairy operation is an alarming 42 months. In his book Dairy Cattle Science, David Ensminger says that “40 percent of all dairy cows have some form of mastitis,” or infection of the mammary gland. Cattle are usually kept on concrete floors, and their grain-heavy diet softens their hooves and causes lameness in 15-50 percent of the herd. “Downer” cows that can no longer stand are sold to slaughter. Although some states have restrictions against selling downer cows for human consumption, requiring cattle to be able to walk when they are slaughtered, a video from a California dairy shot undercover by the U.S. Humane Society in January showed dairy workers ramming a cow with a forklift, poking her in the eye, and administering electrical shocks in an attempt to get her to stand. The video was doubly disturbing because the facility sells cows to slaughterhouses that distribute meat to needy families and California’s public schools.

Even though the cows are confined and unhealthy, they produce large quantities of milk up until their dying day. In 1950 the average cow produced just under two gallons of milk a day; today the average cow produces six due to a specialized diet of grains, industrial byproducts, and hormones. A pamphlet produced by the University of Kentucky called “Using Byproducts to Feed Dairy Cattle” cites two benefits for feeding cattle byproducts: it may decrease feeding costs, and “helps dispose of these byproducts in an ecologically sound manner.” Byproducts currently fed to dairy cows include the grain left over from distilleries and breweries, fishmeal, feather meal, meat meal, rendered beef fat, and urea.

Despite the nauseating menu, dairy scientists claim that milk produced by cattle in confined feeding operations is nutritionally equivalent to milk produced by cows fed a more natural diet. In fact, the milk is usually fortified with vitamins A and D, theoretically making it nutritionally superior.

Many consumers of organic and raw dairy products find the health claims hard to believe, especially as nutritional science seems to stumble and reverse frequently. “Nutritionally equivalent” can only be measured with the bluntest instrument of nutritional understanding, by breaking down milk into the amount of fat, protein, vitamins, etc. The repeated failure of food industries to come up with infant formula that is demonstrably equivalent to breast milk proves how complicated milk is as a substance. Heat destroys probiotic active cultures that aid in digestion and may harm or inactivate proteins that aid in nutrient absorption or vitamin activation, like the heat-sensitive lactoglobulin. Pasteurization also destroys the “good bacteria” living in milk that produce lactase, the enzyme that breaks down lactose. While most lactose intolerant individuals can drink raw milk thanks to the bacterial support, destroying the bacteria makes people who cannot digest lactose on their own unable to drink milk.

Some people aren’t concerned with the vitamins in milk; they’re concerned with all of the extra goodies that make their way into pasteurized milk. The recombinant bovine growth hormone (rGBH) is one additive that causes consumers to be concerned. Banned in Canada and European countries, rGBH makes cows produce more milk, but it also increases the prevalence of lameness by 50 percent and mastitis by 25 percent, which in turn increases the amount of pus and antibiotics in the milk. rGBH also increases the amount of insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1), which has been linked to breast cancer.

Another concern is Johne’s disease, which causes cows to develop diarrhea, become emaciated, and eventually die. Mycobacterium avium paratuberculosis, or MAP, the pathogen that causes Johne’s, is excreted directly into the milk, and pasteurization does not destroy it. An estimated 40 percent of the modern dairy herd has Johne’s, and government agencies worry that if the disease is not controlled, infection rates will reach 100 percent. Scientists are beginning to worry about the effect the disease may have on humans, since people are being exposed to the live agent at an alarming rate. Johne’s has been linked to Crohn’s disease, a chronic inflammation of the intestinal tract. The USDA does not refute the link, but claims that the presence of MAP is due to post-pasteurization contamination. Although some researchers in the FDA have called for a re-evaluation of pasteurization standards (which the U.K. has done in response to MAP), the agency has been slow to act, drawing criticism that it is trying to protect the dairy industry from consumer panic if the Johne’s epidemic is publicized.

Many informed consumers are skeptical of the FDA’s claim that pasteurized milk is the safe option, and that non-organic, pasteurized milk is nutritionally equivalent to raw milk. However, alternative options provided by small, local farms have been evaporating for the past 50 years. In 1950, 3.7 million American farms had milk cows, with a farm average of six cows. By 2000, only 105,250 farms had milk cows, and the average number of cows increased to 88.

However, with the popularization of the local food movement, small farmers may be making a comeback, and consumers are regularly willing to go to great lengths to obtain what they believe to be safer and healthier milk and other produce. This is where farmers like Kathryn Russell come in, providing a reliable face for locals who are willing to pay upwards of $10 per gallon through a cow share program for local milk. In 2000 there were only five cow share programs operating in Virginia. Currently there are at least 30, many of which have sold every available share. The popularity of raw milk is growing, despite the FDA’s warnings.