Back to the Raw Dairy Choice Campaign
A condensed version of this article appears in the Winter 2005 issue of the Tilth Producers Quarterly Journal of Organic and Sustainable Agriculture published by Tilth Producers of Washington, Washington’s Organic and Sustainable Growers’ Association.
Tempest in a Milk Bucket
By Chrys Ostrander
Dec. 15, 2005
Over the past year, there has been occasional media attention paid to a quiet controversy involving a small number of farms in Washington State. These farms have chosen to utilize a relatively new adaptation of the Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) model of farm revenue diversification– this one involving dairy. It’s the “Shareholder Dairy”, sometimes commonly referred to as a “cow-share” or “goat-share” program.
On Dec. 12, the quiet controversy became very noisy when a cluster E. coli 0157:H7 illnesses were reported in the media to be associated with a Shareholder Dairy in Woodland, WA. This event is really unfortunate. Some of those affected, mostly children, became very sick – some hospitalized in serious condition. As I write this, some of the kids are still in the hospital and everyone is hoping for their full recovery. My thoughts are also with the families who run the farm in Woodland. They are careful, conscientious farmers for whom this crisis is devastating. They also deserve compassion and support. This type of outbreak can strike any farmer.
I wrote the remainder of this article prior to the outbreak, and I continue to advocate for the private Shareholder Dairy. I hope I can contribute to an informed discussion about the future of this innovative farming model.
The Shareholder Dairy model is a creative extension of the “family cow”. Lots of farm families in rural areas keep cows and goats to provide fresh milk for their personal use. These families are fortunate to have the space and the know-how to keep their own dairy animals and enjoy the multiple benefits that come along with owning them. At the same time, many people who want to enjoy those benefits are not in a position to keep dairy animals where they live. They might live in an apartment or on a small lot on a residential city street where keeping farm animals might be illegal. They might lack the expertise or the time in their busy lives to adequately care for dairy animals. Not to be deterred, however, in their quest for the freshest, best tasting, most wholesome milk, these families have discovered an eminently workable solution. They are buying shares in herds of dairy animals and are contracting with nearby family farmers to board and tend them, keep them milked and make their milk available to them. A growing number of “Shareholder Dairies” are flourishing in Washington State. This growth has not come without some controversy and I will try to describe the issue for you here.
In the mid ‘90’s, I traveled to Loveland, Colorado for the annual meeting and conference of the Western Sustainable Agriculture Working Group. The event was hosted at an attractive conference center maintained by an intentional community known as the Emissaries of the Light. The Emissaries also operated an organic farm called Guidestone Farm. The farm was utilizing the CSA model and serviced shareholders mostly from Denver, 35 miles away, all of whom would travel to the farm once a week to pick up their share of the farm’s produce. During breaks in the schedule, I explored the farm and talked to some of the farmers. I was surprised to discover that along with the fruits and vegetables shareholders received there was also raw cow milk. Raw milk is not allowed to be sold in Colorado. It was explained to me that the ban on raw milk sales did not apply to Guidestone because the farmers at Guidestone had successfully argued to the State Board of Health that the CSA shareholders actually owned shares in the dairy herd, therefore they already owned the milk and the transaction was not a sale. Additionally, Colorado’s dairy licensing law only affects dairies that sell milk, so Guidestone was not required to obtain a dairy license to operate its CSA dairy. I found this very interesting as at the time I was keeping a small herd of Nubian dairy goats at my farm in Eastern Washington. I had never heard of the Shareholder Dairy until then, but the concept made sense to me as a way for limited resource, small-scale farmers to augment their revenue stream, offer a service of high value to their community and contribute to closing the fertility input loop utilizing on-farm manure production.
About ten years later, in 2003, while I served on the Washington Sustainable Food and Farming Network’s Developing New Markets Committee, the Network began exploring some of the issues related to sustainable dairy production, including regulatory barriers affecting smaller-scale dairy farmers. The committee set up an email discussion list called DairyDiscussion and invited stakeholders to join the list and converse about dairy issues. There was a good amount of interest in the Shareholder Dairy model on the part of list subscribers.
Meanwhile, back in Colorado, secure in their understanding reached with the Colorado Board of Health a decade earlier, Guidestone Farm was continuing to offer dairy with its CSA and the CSA was growing in size. This growth prompted the Colorado Consumer Protection Division, in March 2004, to petition the State Board of Health to amend the Colorado Grade A Pasteurized Milk and Fluid Milk Products Regulations. The department proposed 1) to adopt the Federal Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO) and; 2) to make an amendment to include a definition of “sold or sale” clarifying that the definition extends to cow share or cow renting or other animal leasing. This would have effectively eliminated the only means by which citizens of Colorado could legally obtain raw milk. The Division of Consumer Protection asserted that “general sanitation requirements, herd health and laboratory testing of raw milk cannot adequately assure that [raw milk] is safe to consume”. A hearing on the proposed amendments was scheduled.
The hearing was held on May 19, 2004. About 200 people attended, mostly supporters of raw milk and of continuing the exemption of Shareholder Dairies from the raw milk ban. Also present was B. James Dean, attorney for Guidestone Farm. Mr. Dean provided statistics from the federal government that indicated that 200,000 persons were made ill from pasteurized milk from 1982-1997; and that 1,733 persons were made ill from raw milk from 1973-1992. Mr. Dean further maintained that nothing legislatively supported the position that Shareholder Dairies involved the sale of milk. Eleven people testified in favor of the proposals (i.e. to adopt the PMO and include the Shareholder Dairy in the raw milk sales ban) while 31 raw milk advocates testified in opposition. Those testifying to exempt Shareholder Dairies from the raw milk sales ban included David Lynch of Guidestone Farm, producer of raw milk for 30 years; Dr. Laurance Johnston, researcher in bacterial antibiotics and a former FDA regulatory official in the division of food additives and food producing animals; Mark McAffee, owner and operator of Organic Pastures Dairy, a certified organic raw milk dairy in California; and Ben Way, executive director of the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union.
According to the website RealMilk.com, a project of the Weston A. Price Foundation, the state officials “were unprepared for the quality of the testimony they heard. Consumers argued for their right to freedom of choice, health professionals delineated the health benefits of raw milk, and two lawyers—one for Guidestone and one for the Colorado Farmers' Union—pointed out that legislation against cow share programs would be unconstitutional.” The Board then voted 5 to 3 in favor of adopting the proposed changes to the Colorado Dairy Law without including the Shareholder Dairy under the definition of sale. Shareholder Dairies in Colorado continued to be able to produce raw milk for their shareholders.
Later in 2004, based upon the strong public sentiment expressed and sound scientific evidence presented at the Colorado Board of Health hearing, legislation was introduced and passed that created a specific exemption from State regulation for Shareholder Dairies. The short, concise law reads in part “The acquisition of raw milk from Cows or goats by a consumer for use or consumption by the consumer shall not constitute the sale of raw milk and shall not Be prohibited if … the owner of a cow, goat, cow shares, or goat shares Shall receive raw milk directly from the farm or dairy where the Cow, goat, or dairy herd is located and … the milk is obtained pursuant to a cow share or a goat Share. A cow share or a goat share is an undivided interest in a Cow, goat, or herd of cows or goats, created by a written Contractual relationship between a consumer and a farmer…” The new law went into effect in early 2005. The law calls on Shareholder Dairies to register with the State and “describe the standards used by the farm or dairy with respect to herd health, and in the production of milk from the herd” (without mandating a set of standards). Supporters of Shareholder Dairies in Washington State watched these developments in Colorado closely.
While this was all happening, beginning in April, 2005, messages started to be posted on the DairyDiscussion listserve by subscribers who had their ears to the ground. They reported that WSDA and the Attorney General’s office had formed an opinion that Shareholder Dairies fell within the definition of “sale” in the WA Dairy Law and that Shareholder Dairies should expect to start receiving “cease and desist” letters from WSDA. WSDA’s position in the letters would be that the Shareholder Dairy would need to cease operations until it had applied for and been granted a Grade A dairy license. One Shareholder Dairy in Buckley, WA received such a letter shortly thereafter and responded to WSDA indicating that they would begin the Grade A application process.
At the same time, WSDA began circulating a position paper (later posted on the WSDA website) called “The Truth About Raw Milk” (http://www.agr.wa.gov/FoodAnimal/Dairy/docs/RawMilkTruth.pdf). In it, WSDA states its position on the Shareholder Dairy: “A Cow Share agreement is legal in Washington as long as the producer is properly licensed with the Washington State Department of Agriculture. A Cow Share may not be used as a means to avoid meeting state requirements for milk producers and milk processors, including obtaining the required license.”
As I monitored messages posted by individuals concerned about these developments to the DairyDiscussion listserve, as well as the national RawDairy listserve, I became convinced that a need existed in Washington for some kind of effort to organize people in defense of raw milk and the private Shareholder Dairy model. On July 4, 2005, I announced the formation of the Raw Dairy Choice Campaign and posted information about it on my website thefutureisorganic.net. Over the next few months, dozens of people joined the Raw Dairy Choice Campaign and many of those sent letters to Claudia Coles, Director of the Food Safety Program at WSDA, defending the right of Shareholder Dairies to operate independent of State licensing.
The media began to pay attention to the issue also in July, 2005 when the Portland Tribune out of Oregon reported on two Washington State Shareholder Dairies and one Oregon Shareholder Dairy that serve over 150 families in the Portland area. The article was titled “Got raw milk? - ‘Cow sharers’ find the legal loopholes” By Amanda Pennelly. The story ran the tag line “The owners of Dee Creek Farm in Woodland, Wash. thought they would build their customer base with free-range poultry, but it’s the raw milk drinkers that keep business ticking, thanks in part to the efforts of Lilly, one of three milk cows at the farm.” It described how the cow shares work and the success the farmers have found in utilizing the model. It also touched on the crux of the controversy. By and large, these farms are not licensed as Grade A dairies. The farmers and their shareholders maintain that, since families who keep dairy cows and goats for their personal use are not required to obtain dairy licenses, neither should Shareholder Dairies be so required, since these are simply groups of families keeping dairy herds for their own personal use. The State of Washington disagrees, asserting that transactions within the Shareholder Dairy model fall under the definition of “sale” in the Washington Dairy Law. Milk offered for sale in WA must come from licensed dairies.
Shortly after this article appeared in the Tribune, the Washington State Department of Agriculture sent letters to the two Washington Shareholder Dairies named in it. The letters stated that if the farms were selling milk they would have to cease operations until they had obtained the required licenses from the State. WSDA also sent an inspector, apparently at random, to a third Shareholder Dairy, one that had listed its service on the RealMilk.com website where raw dairy sources are listed by state. This inspector told the farmer WSDA had obtained its name from that list. Additionally, George Calvert, a farmer just West of Spokane who has been a vocal proponent of the Shareholder Dairy model, received a cease and desist letter. This was after he had invited WSDA inspectors onto his farm related to his application for a poultry processing permit under Washington’s new 1000 bird rule. The inspectors spent four hours with Mr. Calvert talking about dairy instead. The farmers were given 15 days to respond to the letters from WSDA.
Some of this flurry of activity was reported in an article that ran in the Capital Press agricultural newspaper on September 16, 2005 titled “WSDA Goes After Shareholder Dairies” by Jamie Henneman. “In what is being deemed a public health concern, the Washington State Department of Agriculture has sent letters to several “shareholder” dairies to close their doors until they become licensed with the state” the article states. Quoting Claudia Coles, it goes on “What we have are groups of Shareholder Dairies that are not having to adhere to any kind of health code and are essentially operating illegally… We are not looking to put these Shareholder Dairies out of business, in fact, we want them to succeed. But we also want them to be legal.” George Calvert was quoted in the article as saying “I am a retired man on six acres with six cows. I am just trying to make a little extra money to supplement my income while providing the quality, raw milk product that the public is asking for… What I have going here is an agreement between two people where my shareholders can come look at my operation and look me in the eye and determine if they believe in what I am doing here. There is no regulation that can replace the trust one person puts in another. The shareholders I work with have ownership in the cowherd and are simply paying me to care for the cows and milk them. I am not selling milk to the general public.”
Discussion of these events continued on the DairyDiscussion listserve and privately between some of the people involved. Soon, a meeting of Shareholder Dairy farmers was organized in late September and a new non-profit organization was born to represent Shareholder Dairy farmers and shareholders. Nine Shareholder Dairy farmers and shareholders and two attorneys attended the meeting. With assistance from the two attorneys from the non-profit, public interest law firm the Center for Justice in Spokane, papers were filed to form the Washington Association of Shareholder Dairy Owners (WASDO). The Center for Justice agreed to represent George Calvert individually and to represent WASDO as an organization, all on a pro bono basis. The organization launched its own website and began to collect memberships from across the state. The mission of WASDO is "1) To advocate for the development of a legal and regulatory environment that supports the freedom to operate shareholder micro-dairies in the State of Washington; 2) To develop model standards, shareholder agreements, and other documents for use by shareholder dairies; and 3) To educate the public, community leaders, regulators and others on the benefits of shareholder dairies". Meanwhile, since WASDO had taken up the issue of Shareholder Dairies, the Raw Dairy Choice Campaign shifted its focus to “defending the rights of Washingtonians to readily obtain raw milk and raw dairy products”.
The Center for Justice, representing George Calvert, drafted a response to the official letter to George from WSDA. The letter reads in part “After reviewing RCW 15.36 [the Washington Dairy Law] and other applicable laws and regulations, it appears that the intent of the Washington Legislature in enacting this law was to regulate the dairy industry’s sale of milk on behalf of the “consuming public… [The Shareholder Dairy] model is a narrow system and does not sell milk to the general consuming public, but milk is retained for private use by the owners of the herd. Accordingly, the requirements of RCW 15.36 do not apply to Mr. Calvert.” As of the writing of this article, no response from WSDA has been received and the Shareholder Dairy continues to serve its shareholders.
On the 10th of October, the Spring Hill Grange of Spokane passed a resolution that urges the statewide Grange to “coordinate and cooperate with such organizations as the “Raw Dairy Choice Campaign” and the “Weston A. Price Foundation” in order that raw milk will still be available to those who choose to be partners in owning the animal and who hire the caretaker… [and urges the State Grange to] support the effort to encourage the WA Dept. of Agriculture to adopt similar rules as have already been adopted in Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana and others that do not consider the acquiring of milk by those who own the cows [as] sales to the public and as such do not require said owners and their contractors to comply with Grade A licensing requirements.”
On November 26, 2005, the Associated Press ran an article about Washington State’s Shareholder Dairy issue that was picked up by numerous Washington newspapers as well as a few newspapers across the country. The article by Rachel La Corte began by describing a one-cow Shareholder Dairy operated by a sixteen year old young woman named Kelsey Kozak of Vashon Island. It’s possible this AP reporter was intrigued by a feature article appearing in the Mother Earth News Oct/.Nov. 2005 issue that’s all about Kelsey Kozak’s Shareholder Dairy (available on the web at www.motherearthnews.com). The AP article pretty much reiterates the same arguments for and against allowing Shareholder Dairies to self-regulate rather than being licensed and inspected as Grade A dairies. Claudia Coles is quotes as saying “The people who are using a cow share operation in lieu of being licensed with us are doing so to sidestep licensing criteria.” Janet Anderberg of the Washington State Department of Health is quoted as saying “there was an E. coli outbreak last year involving three people in Whatcom County tied to illegal raw milk. In 2003, three people in Yakima County and eight in Skagit County became ill from tainted milk… No one has died as a result of a raw milk outbreak, but we've had some really sick people.”
It is important to note that Ms. Anderberg made no distinction in her statement on whether the outbreaks she mentions were related to raw milk produced with the intention of direct human consumption in the raw state or whether they occurred as a result of people drinking raw milk from dairies where the milk is not intended for direct human consumption but rather is intended for pasteurization prior to consumption. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for dairies producing milk for subsequent pasteurization to sometimes unwisely (and illegally, it should be noted) offer samples of the raw product to visitors (like school children on a tour of their local farm) or for the workers at the farm to take the unfit milk home to their families, or for the farmer or workers to sell the unfit milk to those who might use it to make queso fresco, an uncured raw milk cheese that has been associated with illness outbreaks. Milk intended for pasteurization is allowed to exceed the bacteriological levels for milk for human consumption because it will later be brought within acceptable levels through pasteurization. Statistics on food-borne illnesses rarely make this important distinction. This omission contributes to the false impression that raw milk, and here I am referring to raw milk intended for direct human consumption, poses a disproportionate health risk, compared with other foods. Dairy farmers under contract with dairy shareholders or licensed for Grade A raw milk production are acutely aware that they are producing raw milk for direct human consumption and must take the requisite care and utilize the appropriate practices to ensure a safe product.
To illustrate the relative health risk posed by raw milk, here are some statistics from the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) in a report titled "Outbreak Alert: Closing the Gaps in our Federal Food Safety Net" (Updated and Revised–November, 2005). It is worth noting that CSPI is no friend of raw milk as this is the same organization that successfully sued the FDA a few years ago because the FDA was not implementing a ban on the interstate commerce of raw milk. The report details outbreaks by food type. The data from the report was analyzed and formatted as shown below independently by Cyndy Gray, an organizer with the Campaign for Raw Milk which is a project of the Northeast Organic Farming Association, Massachusetts Chapter.
These Nationwide data cover1990-2003 (over 14
years): Identified Outbreaks (2 or more people) of all Types of Food-borne
Illness ; Cases (Total Individuals Affected); and Percent of Total
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[Note: No distinction has
been made between raw milk intended for direct human consumption and raw milk
intended for subsequent pasteurization in the above table. The data do not
reflect the rate of outbreaks in relation to the volume of the foods consumed.]
In the AP article of Nov. 26, Kelsey Kozak’s father Chuck said “If they
[WSDA] send a letter, we'll stop. That would be unfortunate. We know the people
now and they really love the product and we love sharing it.” Unfortunate
indeed, not just for Kelsey, her family and her shareholders, but for hundreds
of dairy shareholders in Washington State who have grave concerns about the
quality of pasteurized milk, even the organic milk, available through the Grade
A system. Unfortunate, too, for potentially hundreds of small family farms in
Washington for whom the Shareholder Dairy model could make the difference in
terms of long-term economic viability. In the Shareholder Dairy model, the
consumer IS the producer. It's totally traceable as to who is
consuming the milk. Shareholders share the responsibility of ensuring production
standards are maintained.
If Shareholder Dairies are ultimately faced with the licensing
requirements of Grade A dairies, almost no existing programs would survive due
to the cost of Grade A compliant facilities. A hopeful chapter in the book of
small-scale sustainable agriculture in Washington State would have its pages
torn out.
We in the Shareholder Dairy movement do not want no regulation. We insist on self-regulation. We want the self-regulated Shareholder Dairy model recognized as legitimate in every state, as it is now in several. When Shareholder Dairies can operate in the open, then peer to peer self-improvement associations like WASDO can arise to assist Shareholder Dairies in improving production methods. Maybe even the assistance of state departments of agriculture and land grant universities would be forthcoming. It would also provide an environment in which the shareholders themselves could become more educated in terms of how to understand and monitor the practices of the farmers under contract to them.
Tilth Producers of Washington has not taken a position on the Shareholder Dairy controversy and the views expressed in this article are mine alone. That being said, I would like to extend an open invitation to all Tilth Producers members and readers of this Quarterly to please publicly support the position of the Washington Association of Shareholder Dairy Owners and join the organization. Memberships are $10 for an associate member; $20 if you are a shareholder in a Shareholder Dairy and $100 (payable in installments) if you are a Shareholder Dairy Farmer. You may join on-line at www.shareholderdairies.org or send your name, contact information, name of the Shareholder Dairy you are part of (if any) and a check made out to WASDO to:
WASDO
33495 Mill Canyon Rd.
Davenport, WA 99122
Chrys Ostrander
(Mr. Ostrander is the Organizer of the Raw Dairy Choice Campaign and a Board member of the Washington Association of Shareholder dairy Owners)
Sidebar #1: Useful Links
Washington Association of Shareholder dairy Owners
Consumers Becoming Producers
www.shareholderdairies.org
The Future is Organic Raw Dairy Choice Campaign
Defending the Rights of Washingtonians to Readily Obtain Raw Milk and Raw Dairy Products
www.thefutureisorganic.net/dairy/RawDairyChoice.htm
The Weston A. Price Foundation
WAPF works to restore nutrient-dense foods to the human diet through education, research and activism
The Dairy Discussion Listserve
This listserve is an open public forum for interested parties of diverse outlooks to discuss issues about dairy production of all scales and production styles. If you would like to be included in the discussion, send a request to be added to the listserve to:
chrys@thefutureisorganic.net
ReakMilk.com
A project of WAPF that advocates the return to humane, non-toxic, pasture-based dairying and small-scale traditional processing.
www.realmilk.com
To read the Mother Earth News article on Kelsey Kozack’s Shareholder Dairy, go to:
www.motherearthnews.com, look for “Mother’s Archives” on the left and click on “complete Issue Index”. Then choose 2005 where it says “Select a Year” and then scroll down to Issue #212.
Sidebar #2: Statement of the Washington Association of Shareholder Dairy Owners
NEWS RELEASE
Dec. 14, 2005
For immediate release
Contact: Chrys Ostrander
Washington Association of Shareholder Dairy Owners
(509) 725-0610
Terri Sloyer, Attorney
The Center for Justice
(509) 835-5211
The recent information about an outbreak of E. coli
O157:H7, a very virulent and dangerous pathogen, possibly associated with raw
milk produced at a Shareholder Dairy in Woodland, WA, is unfortunate, especially
for those who became ill.
As terrible as this outbreak is for all involved, it should not be trumpeted as
reason to do away with the private Shareholder Dairy model. According to the
Washington State Dept. of Health, Washington averages 150 to 250 cases of E.
coli outbreaks each year. Sources of contamination include many types of food,
water (both drinking and swimming), person-to-person contact with infected
persons and persons having contact with infected animals. Raw milk can be a
vector for 0157:H7 infection, but it is not justified to direct official scorn
on raw milk disproportionately in relation to all of the other potential vectors
of this pathogen.
News reports about the outbreak refer to the dairy as “selling milk without a license”. This is a common error. Shareholder Dairies do not sell milk. The shareholders own the herd and contract with the farmer to board, tend and milk them. Only dairies that sell milk to the general public require licensing. The Shareholder Dairy is an example of a more sustainable, alternative approach to food production that begins to rectify the alienation between producer and consumer. In the Shareholder Dairy model, shareholders share the responsibility to ensure the milk they are partnering to produce is safe.
In light of the Woodland E. coli outbreak, it is advisable for dairy shareholders everywhere and the farmers they contract with to discuss in detail what sanitary measures are utilized to ensure the milk being produced is not susceptible to contamination. The Washington Association of Shareholder Dairy Owners can advise dairy shareholders and Shareholder Dairy farmers about these sanitary measures.
Important points to emphasize:
1) Dee Creek Farm notified all their shareholders the moment they heard from a
shareholder that there could be a problem, ceased further distribution and told
their shareholders to dump any milk they had in their possession. The farm was
several days ahead of the Dept. of Health’s order to cease distribution from the
farm related to the outbreak. Unlike almost all other food-borne illness
outbreaks, an outbreak from a shareholder dairy allows for virtually total
traceability of whom the milk has gone out to since the farm knows who all the
shareholders are.
2) The farm sampled and tested their milk after learning of
the possible issue and the tests came back indicating that no E. coli bacteria
were found in the milk. They are continuing to test the milk.
3) The farm’s shareholders are continuing to show the farmers support and
understanding despite this episode, even some of those whose family members
became ill.
6) Food-borne illness can and does occur in relation to all foods from all
sources.
The Washington Association of Shareholder Dairy Owners maintains a website with more information (www.shareholderdairies.org).
End of release
###
Additional background- For comparative purposes:
Washington State Health Department, Confirmed Outbreaks of E. coli 0157:H7, Washington State, 1990-1999, Reported by the Center for Science in the Public Interest in their report “Outbreak Alert” 2002 edition.
Fish E. coli O157:H7 3 Cases WA Apr-95
Noodles with shrimp E. coli O157:H7 3 Cases WA Jul-94
Lettuce (romaine) E. coli O157:H8 29 Cases WA Jul-02
Romaine lettuce E. coli O157:H11 6 Cases WA Sep-99
Vegetable salad E. coli O157:H7 10 Cases WA Jul-93
Pea salad E. coli O157:H7 16 Cases WA Jul-93
Apple cider E. coli O157:H7 6 Cases WA Oct-96
Apple juice E. coli O157:H7 70 Cases WA, CA, CO/BC Oct-96
Raw milk E. coli O157:H7 8 Cases WA Jun-00
Lasagna E. coli O157:H7 4 Cases WA Sep-98
Mexican food E. coli O157:H7 8 Cases WA Jul-92
Salad bar E. coli O157:H7 53 Cases WA Aug-93
Ground beef E. coli O157:H7 2 Cases WA Aug-91
Ground beef E. coli O157:H7 30 Cases WA, OR Jan-94
Ground beef E. coli O157:H7 2 Cases WA Nov-94
Hamburger E. coli O157:H7 4 Cases WA Nov-92
Hamburger E. coli O157:H7 3 Cases WA Nov-93
Ground beef E. coli O157:H7 3 Cases WA Aug-95
Hamburger E. coli O157:H7 5 Cases WA Jun-99
Ground beef E. coli O157:H7 2 Cases WA May-98
Ground beef E. coli O157:H7 8 Cases WA Sep-98
Steak E. coli O157:H7 2 Cases WA Sep-94
Taco meat E. coli O157:H7 11 Cases WA Oct-98
Total Outbreaks: 23
Total Cases: 288
Total Cases in Washington State
excluding the two multi-state outbreaks 1990-1999: 188
Total Cases involving raw milk: 8
Note: no distinction has been made between raw milk intended for direct human consumption and raw milk intended for subsequent pasteurization in the above listing.