 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
bacterial illness.
By 1990, California was the site of the only major raw dairy and they supplied raw
milk only to Californians. In 1981-2, Alta Dena did not produce raw milk for nearly one
year. The number of raw milk consumers fell and Alta Dena produced many other
products instead. Again, the decline of raw-milk consumption meets with an unusually
abrupt increase in Salmonella illness. In CDC’s Figure 2, notice that the Pacific region,
that includes California and constitutes the major population of that region, the rapid
increase in Salmonella illness in 1991-2 took a slow then radically steep climb.
8)
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Raw milk, if produced with a modicum of cleanliness, is safe because of built-in
safeguards (that would be destroyed by pasteurization). (p.16-18, 23.) It is clear that
the testing requirements for Grade A raw milk are more than is required to produce safe
raw milk.
The LACMMC requirement to “hold and test” for two days is unsafe because holding
favors the growth of bacteria, such as Listeria monocytogenes, even at refrigerated
storage temperatures. Enzymes produced by these bacteria survive pasteurization.
(p.12, ¶ 2.)
The barrage of present-day bacterial misinformation thrust upon the public is
predominantly unscientific speculation regarding raw milk and not based on empirical
examination. (p.25-30.)
California State Codes are more than necessary to insure safe Grade A and
Guaranteed raw milk in Los Angeles County. The vast majority of Californians
enjoy the freedom to consume Grade A and Guaranteed raw milks. (DHS
Report, p.3, ¶ 4-5.)
Grade A and Guaranteed raw milks should be permitted to be sold in Los
Angeles County, especially with its high rate of cultural groups who can drink no
 |