Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

North Korea is Threatening a Strike on Guam After Trump’s Warning

North Korean officials say they are considering a missile strike against Guam, a U.S. territory, after President Trump issued a warning against the North that any threat to the U.S. would be met with “fire and fury.” After Trump’s harsh words, experts warned against taking part in rhetorical arguments with Kim Jong Un. North Korea has also claimed that the U.S. is planning a “preventive war” and if that becomes reality, Pyongyang will begin an “all-out war wiping out all the strongholds of enemies, including the U.S. mainland.”

About 163,000 people live on Guam, but it’s also the base of a submarine squadron, an airbase, and a Coast Guard group. U.S. officials have said they would prefer to use diplomatic means to solve any conflicts, but would not hesitate to use force if needed. However, Guam’s governor, Eddie Calvo, dismissed the threat and said the island is prepared for “any eventuality.”

North Korea says seriously considering plan to strike Guam: KCNA https://t.co/XLxpImmfG4 pic.twitter.com/qOiy7PJ0i0

— Reuters Top News (@Reuters) August 9, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 9, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The United States has become the sixth region to ban fresh beef imports from Brazil, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The U.S. joins China, Mexico, Chile, Japan, the European Union, and Hong Kong in banning the beef.

The USDA made the decision on beef imports after inspections showed health concerns, unsanitary conditions, and animal health issues. The bans will remain in place until Brazil “takes corrective action,” the statement said.

Brazil is the fifth largest exporter of fresh beef to the United States and has already shipped over 50 million pounds of beef this year. After the other regions banned Brazilian beef in March, American officials say they have been inspecting the meat more closely. This has resulted in a refusal of 11 percent of the beef, much higher than the normal 1 percent refusal rate, according to CNN Money. As a result, 1.9 million pounds of beef have been sent back to Brazil.

“Although international trade is an important part of what we do at USDA, and Brazil has long been one of our partners, my first priority is to protect American consumers,” Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said.

Brazilian Agriculture Minister Blairo Maggi plans to visit Washington soon in an attempt to overturn the decision, Reuters reported.

Aside from health and safety concerns, other countries expressed concern over potential corruption. A few months ago Brazilian authorities said some meat companies were bribing government officials to turn a blind eye to safety concerns, according to the USA Today.

While Brazil still has other countries with which it can trade, the loss of the American market could be damaging to the Brazilian economy–the United States is the ninth biggest market for Brazilian beef export.  Since the restrictions began in March, Brazil has responded by closing three processing plants and suspending licenses for 21 meat packing plants, according to CNN Money.

It may take some time to resolve the situation, and it may result in economic issues, but the USDA has decided to take a stand after observing issues with the beef. In the mean time, the U.S. will have to rely on other global beef exporters including Japan, Mexico, Argentina, and Australia.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post United States Bans Fresh Beef Imports from Brazil appeared first on Law Street.

For years, schools have had different ways of shaming children to force their parents to pay for their school lunch. This act of holding a kid responsible for their parents’ inaction is referred to as “lunch shaming.” It can range from throwing the food away to branding kids with markers. The practice leaves children hungry, wastes food, and could have longtime psychological effects. But now schools have a deadline to set their policies for how to deal with unpaid lunch bills.

Caitlin Dolan discovered she had an unpaid food bill from the previous school year on her first day of seventh grade last fall. The cashier simply threw her food away in front of her friends. “I was so embarrassed. It’s really weird being denied food in front of everyone. They all talk about you,” she told The New York Times. And that is only one example. According to a study by the Department of Agriculture, nearly half of school districts in the country used some kind of shaming to pressure parents to pay.

Parents who don’t pay lunch bill are lamentable. Schools that shame kids are despicable. Surely we can solve this.https://t.co/pOhtSB6ilD

— Peter Cunningham (@PCunningham57) May 1, 2017

Last June, a school in Alabama stamped a boy with the words, “I need lunch money.” His father, Jon Bivens, said the school normally would email him when their son’s account ran low, not “brand” him. “They herd these kids like cattle,” Bivens said. In Texas in 2013, cafeteria staff took a little boy’s breakfast and dumped it in the trash–because he owed 30 cents.

Last September, a cafeteria worker in Pennsylvania posted a Facebook status saying she resigned after allegedly being forced to take food from a little boy because he had an unpaid bill. Some students with meal debts are forced to give back their hot meal. Instead, they get a piece of white bread with one slice of cheese. “If you didn’t eat the lunch, they were just going to throw it away,” said Oliver Jane, a student from Kansas whose hot meal was taken away because of a meal debt.

According to Kevin W. Concannon, the USDA’s under secretary for food, nutrition and consumer services in the Obama Administration, this behavior has been going on for decades. It was not until the update of school nutrition standards in 2010 that the department heard about how widespread this problem was. Then last summer, the USDA decided that states should handle meal debts locally. In March, the department issued a deadline for states to have a policy in place on how to deal with it, but did not prohibit the shaming practice.

We have billions to spend on missiles & drones but can’t even feed kids in public schools. Lunch shaming is a terrible practice. https://t.co/P6HiUe9NV9

— Simar (@sahluwal) April 16, 2017

However, the guidelines from the USDA do say that schools need to make sure their policies “do not have a negative impact on the children involved,” and instead should focus on the parents or adults that are responsible for the kids’ finances.

In April, New Mexico became the first state in the country to outlaw lunch shaming. The Hunger-Free Students’ Bill of Rights applies to all schools in the state that receive federal subsidies for school meals. It states that schools should cooperate with parents to pay the debts, or sign them up for federal meal assistance.

Although unpaid meal bills could amount to large sums for individual schools, and parents that have the financial means to pay for their kids’ lunch should do so, most people agree that the children are the victims. No one wants to take food from a child, and not getting enough nutrition affects the brain’s ability to learn. A federal program for free meals for all students could be a solution. Either way, hopefully more states will follow New Mexico’s example.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New USDA Guidelines Seek to End “Lunch Shaming” of Students appeared first on Law Street.

On February 17, Maine’s Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) asked the federal government to approve a statewide ban on the use of food stamps to purchase sugary drinks and candy. In its press release, DHHS representatives argued that banning such purchases would benefit public health and ease the burden on taxpayers. While many welcomed the move, it embodies the way in which conditional government welfare programs patronize and stigmatize low-income people.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as the Food Stamp program, is a state-administered and federally-funded program designed to help low-income families. Maine’s move to ban candy and soda aside, SNAP is already an example of conditional welfare in that benefits can only be used to buy foodstuffs from approved vendors. Rather than providing unconditional benefits for low-income families to spend at their discretion, conditional welfare programs like SNAP undermine the autonomy of low-income people by imposing parameters on how they are allowed to use their benefits. Governments rationalize the conditions imposed on welfare recipients, but these rationalizations are often unjustified. Ultimately, conditional welfare is motivated by a cultural and institutional mistrust of low-income people.

The press release from Maine’s DHHS justified the prospective ban on the grounds that soda and candy lack nutritional value and that eliminating the option to buy soda would reduce obesity amongst SNAP recipients. However, the assumption that simply improving nutritional content of the food one eats will improve one’s weight is not that well supported by evidence. While poor nutrition can affect certain health outcomes, the American Medical Association and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases agree that caloric content, not nutritional content, of food overwhelmingly determines one’s weight.

In 2010, a professor of human nutrition at the University of Kansas made headlines when he lost 27 pounds in two months by cutting his calorie intake and restricting his diet to Twinkies, Doritos, and Oreos. Of course, being thin is not equivalent to being healthy and there are many positive health outcomes associated with improving nutritional intake. Nonetheless, simply banning the purchase of some items will do little to reduce obesity, nor ensure those on food stamps will diversify their nutritional intake.

Misguided Calculations

After drawing a tenuous prediction that the prohibition of sugary foods will cause a reduction in obesity rates, the press release notes “Over $700 million is spent in Maine on obesity related medical expenditures and more than a third of that paid for by taxpayers in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.” This, of course, implies that low-income individuals are disproportionately responsible for Maine’s obesity problem and that they disproportionately contribute to the healthcare costs associated with obesity.

However, according to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), the average low-income Mainer generates an effectively equal amount of “obesity related medical expenditure” as the average Mainer who is not reliant on Medicare or Medicaid. Over 269,000 of 1.33 million Mainers rely on Medicaid and over 306,400 on Medicare. When factoring in the 104,000 dual eligibilities, KFF’s data shows that nearly 35 percent of Maine’s population relies on these health aid programs.

Therefore, just under two-thirds of the Maine population that is not low-income makes up about two-thirds of Maine’s “obesity related medical expenditure.” The assertion made in this press release is likely grounded in the misguided and simplistic belief that poorer Americans are more likely to be obese. In reality, obesity is a relatively constant cause for concern across all income brackets.

Unconditional Help

Obesity is no doubt an issue in Maine and throughout the country. While the state’s move to eliminate sugary products from its food stamp program may have been well intentioned, it is but one example of how conditional welfare disproportionately blames low-income people for public problems that are largely unrelated to economic status. Such misguided rationalizations are often used to justify patronizing conditional welfare programs.

While limiting the autonomy of beneficiaries is seen as a way of ensuring government funds are spent properly, doing so not only unjustly stigmatizes welfare recipients, it often undermines the efficacy of each dollar spent on welfare. Conditional welfare assumes that because one is in need of welfare, they are unfit to have discretion over how they spend money.

Research has shown that unconditional cash transfer and welfare programs are far more effective means of improving recipients’ conditions. In 2003, Brazil introduced a program known as Bolsa Familia under which poor families were eligible to receive direct cash transfers. While Bolsa Familia did impose some conditions on families (requiring children of recipient families be vaccinated and attend school), each family was free to spend their cash transfer as they saw fit. The program was considered a huge success, helping to reduce poverty and inequality nationwide.

Maine’s effort to ban the purchase of candy and soft drink with food stamps awaits approval from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which is the federal agency in charge of overseeing SNAP.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No Food Stamps for Sweets: Unjust Welfare Conditionality appeared first on Law Street.

In a move that had many people drawing parallels to George Orwell’s classic novel “1984,” the Trump administration issued communications bans on several government agencies this week.

On Monday morning, the U.S. Department of Agriculture sent out an email to the employees of its research branch–the Agricultural Research Service, which includes about 2,000 scientists–instructing everyone to stop most public communication. This move, which was eventually reversed, echoed similar other orders that were issued to several government agencies.

Buzzfeed obtained a copy of the email to the Agricultural Research Service, which said:

Starting immediately and until further notice, ARS will not release any public-facing documents. This includes, but is not limited to, news releases, photos, fact sheets, news feeds, and social media content.

Members of the scientific community criticized the announcement, citing suppression of science. After only a day of public outcry, another email was sent to the staff at ARS on Tuesday evening. This email came from ARS administrator Chavonda Jacobs-Young and reversed the initial order, saying the previous notice should not have been sent in the first place. Officials later told the media that the order to the ARS had not been coordinated with the rest of the department and that it would contradict current guidelines that encourage scientists to share their finding with the media.

Scientists at the USDA were also told that they could keep publishing scientific papers in academic magazines, but could not do any interviews with the media without getting approval from the communications office first. Communications restrictions were also sent to the EPA, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Transportation, and the National Park Service. The EPA order also included instructions to freeze all grants and to not discuss it with any outsiders, the Huffington Post reported. The EPA issues grants for environmental research, air quality monitoring, education, and more.

USDA gag order rescinded after public outcry.https://t.co/L1x2EXsM9A
SO KEEP OUTCRYING – it works

— Kelly Hills (@rocza) January 25, 2017

Gretchen Goldman, research director for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, voiced anxiety about what this may mean for the agency’s future. “To our knowledge, there is not a precedent for large-scale communication freezes like this,” she said to Buzzfeed.

Last week after the inauguration, the official National Park Service Twitter account retweeted a picture comparing the crowds at the event to those attending Obama’s inauguration in 2009. Immediately after, it was ordered by its Washington office to stop all tweeting until further notice. The account was allowed to resume again, after deleting the original tweets and posting an apology.

We regret the mistaken RTs from our account yesterday and look forward to continuing to share the beauty and history of our parks with you pic.twitter.com/mctNNvlrmv

— NationalParkService (@NatlParkService) January 21, 2017

Then on Tuesday, the Badlands National Park sent out a series of tweets with climate change facts but were quickly deleted.

These are tweets that the new Admin has already deleted. RT if you believe in science and oppose Trump’s gag order on climate facts! pic.twitter.com/yBUgyfACN6

— Senator Jeff Merkley (@SenJeffMerkley) January 25, 2017

And now, an alternative, unofficial National parks account claiming to be run by NPS employees has surfaced. The account, with the username @AltUSNatParkService, quickly gained popularity, with nearly 650,000 thousand followers on Wednesday afternoon. Several very similar accounts popped up as well.

What do we want?
Peer-reviewed Science
When do we want it?
Yesterday, please!

— AltUSNatParkService (@AltNatParkSer) January 25, 2017

White House spokesman Sean Spicer told the Hill that he couldn’t comment on the specific bans, but did say that it was normal procedure for a new administration. “I don’t think it’s anything surprise that when there’s an administration turnover, that we’re going to review the policy,” he said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Administration Orders Several Agencies to Restrict Public Communications appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. has a humongous surplus of cheese. So big that every man, woman, and child in the country would have to grab an extra three pounds and finish that before the end of the year to work through it. The 1.2 billion pounds of cheese sitting in storage are not even the issue. Surplus meat, poultry, milk, and other dairy products are flooding the food market.

The glut of cheese on the shelves has caused prices to drop, which is great for most of us consumers who love a good block of cheddar or ball of mozzarella, but not so great for the dairy farmers. The revenue from dairy sales has dropped 35 percent over the past two years, causing the USDA to announce it will spend $20 million on purchasing surplus cheese to help farmers out.

Good news for the nation’s dairy producers & families in need: @USDA purchasing $20 million of cheese for food banks & pantries across U.S.

— Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) October 12, 2016

So why this huge agriculture surplus? Two years ago the international market was hot and prices high. Due to an excess amount of grains on the market, farmers felt confident in buying more cattle since the feed was really cheap. Production of meat and dairy products skyrocketed but unfortunately coincided with the rising value of the dollar. So international buyers were deterred from buying American products, which caused the products to pile up, and the prices to go down.

Some farmers can’t even get rid of the milk by giving it away but have to dump it in lakes–as much as tens of millions of gallons, according to the Wall Street Journal. Sadly many farms are also going out of business. In California alone, 53 dairy farms closed down during the first half of the year.

The U.S. government has a long history of supporting local farmers when prices collapse, by buying a ton of dairy products and simply putting them somewhere else. This program was abandoned in 2012 but now the USDA buys food and donates it to food banks, which could at least help the farmers a little bit. The USDA also has paid 11.2 million to the Dairy Margin Protection Program, a type of subsidized insurance for dairy farmers.

Environmentalists and others have criticized the USDA’s measures, saying it is wasteful and financially not durable. Governments purchasing excess products just to throw them away might affect the economic market in negative ways, even if it is a small contribution. What is the point of letting that much food go to waste when there obviously is not that high of a demand for it?

But one other reason for the diary glut is that adults are not really made to drink milk. Humans are the only species that can drink milk in adulthood, but many of us still struggle with that, since our bodies are not made to digest the sugar in it. Scientists say it is a weird and unnatural genetic adaptation that allows some of us to tolerate lactose.

There’s also the environmental argument that cows produce methane, which is actually a huge contributor to global warming, so the government should not be encouraging raising more cows and making the situation worse. “It’s outrageous that the government continues to prop up the dairy industry and the wasteful pollution caused by year after year of surplus,” said Stephanie Feldstein from Center for Biological Diversity in a statement.

Clearly dairy farmers have another view on the whole controversy. Overall, milk drinking has declined in the country lately for various reasons, so the future is looking tough for the dairy farms. Unless America takes after the French and starts eating cheese with every meal…and would that really be a bad thing?

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Is America Going To Do With 1.2 Billion Pounds Of Surplus Cheese? appeared first on Law Street.

“Let me assure you this is quite what we had in mind and we look forward to its appearance in print,” the “sugar daddy” said to the sugar scientist. In 1967, a top sugar industry group bankrolled research with the goal of debunking claims potentially disastrous for its industry: a sugary diet leads to an increased risk of heart disease.

Dr. Stanton A. Glantz, a researcher from the University of California, San Francisco is the lead author of a new study that analyzes the conflict of interest generated by the partnership. It was published in the JAMA Internal Medicine journal on Monday. One of Glantz’s post-doc students dug up correspondences between the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) and its research bidders in archives in university libraries, including Harvard and the University of Illinois.

The correspondences–the bulk of which were between John Hickson, top executive at SRF, and D. Mark Hedsted, a sugar researcher–show close collaboration between a huge industry and those doing research on its behalf. Hedsted and a colleague were essentially contracted by Hickson to combat emerging research that claimed sugar increased the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD).

As the research vilifying the key element of his industry (sucrose) began trickling into the public discourse starting in 1962, Hickson grew concerned. In 1964, he proposed his firm “embark on a major program” to counter “negative attitudes toward sugar.” So in 1967, the SRF, now known as the Sugar Association, did just that. Project 226 was launched, paying Hedsted–who later became the head of the U.S. Department of Agriculture–and his colleague $6,500, or nearly $50,000 in 2016 terms, to erase the stigmas attached to sugar.

Their findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in 1967: there was no evidence linking sucrose to higher rates of CHD, but there was evidence that saturated fats lead to an increased risk. As research published in a prestigious journal often does, the Project 226 findings went on to shape federal guidelines for sugar and fat consumption for decades to come. Saturated fat was demonized while sugar was regarded as empty calories and a risk for tooth decay, but not heart disease.

Marion Nestle, a nutrition professor at New York University, published an editorial to go along with Glantz’s study: “science is not supposed to work this way. The documents make this review seem more about public relations than science.”

In response to Glantz’s study, the Sugar Association acknowledged the need for greater transparency in research activities, but also said 60 years ago “transparency standards were not the norm they are today.” They added: “What is often missing from the dialogue is that industry-funded research has been informative in addressing key issues.”

It’s still a contentious issue today. At least one recent study shows that sugar, even if it’s not the sole determinant in heart disease, does lead to a higher risk. Saturated fats can also lead to an increased risk for heart disease.

But the inherent problem with the 1967 study wasn’t the science per se, but the conflict of interest that occurs when a vested interest group funds a study in order to back that interest. “Policymaking committees should consider giving less weight to food industry–funded studies, and include mechanistic and animal studies as well as studies appraising the effect of added sugars on multiple CHD biomarkers and disease development,” Glantz and his colleagues concluded.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Study Shows Sugar Industry Funded Influential Sugar Research in 60s appeared first on Law Street.

As many Americans continue to move toward more conscious eating that places an emphasis on consuming responsible, organic foods, we’ve seen more labels in our supermarkets. The country-of-origin labeling rule (COOL), first authorized in 2002, mandated that our meat labels list the country where the product was produced. However that provision was repealed in the budget bill passed by Congress and signed by President Obama late last week–which means that country-of-origin labels will no longer appear on meat, specifically beef and pork, sold in the United States.

But this move on Congress’s part isn’t about a departure from increased labeling–it’s about the possible international affairs and economic side effects of continuing the labeling. The COOL labeling has been controversial on the world stage from the beginning, because other countries feared it could cause American consumers to discriminate against their meat products for no reason other than that competitors’ products were produced in the United States. Last week, the World Trade Organization (WTO) authorized Canada and Mexico, two of the U.S.’s major trading partners, to tax American products to make up for the cost of the COOL regulations.

The concerns over those costs, as well as the fact that these taxes could be extended to other products, caused Congress to repeal the provision specifically on beef and pork, but labeling will remain on other products. Any meat that comes into the United States from another country will still be inspected by the USDA before it makes it into consumers hands. However, many Americans are unhappy with Congress’s choice to change the labeling requirements overall. Most notably, this comes in contrast to what Americans seemingly want. According to a 2013 study by the Consumer Federation of America:

Eighty-seven percent (87 percent) of adults favored, either strongly or somewhat, requiring food sellers to indicate on the package label the country or countries in which animals were born, raised and processed. Similarly, ninety percent (90 percent) of adults favored, either strongly or somewhat, requiring food sellers to indicate on the package label the country or countries in which animals were born and raised and the fact that the meat was processed in the U.S.

Supporters of COOL have floated particular concerns about Brazilian beef, because the country has had an outbreak of Mad Cow Disease as recently as 2014. According to Willy Blackmore, of TakePart, “there could soon be between 20,000 and 65,000 metric tons of fresh or frozen Brazilian beef—about 1 percent of U.S. beef imports—coming into the country annually.”

So, the vote was kind of a lose-lose for Congress–either way it was going to make some people mad. But for now, we won’t be seeing country-of-origin labels on our beef or pork–we’ll have to see how long that change lasts.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where’s Your Meat From? Congress Repeals Country-of-Origin Labeling appeared first on Law Street.

Move over marijuana, there’s a new form of contraband in town.

Milk.

Not just any milk, but raw milk, which is simply milk that hasn’t been pasteurized or heated to a temperature that kills illness-causing bacteria. It’s illegal to sell raw milk directly to consumers in about half of the United States. It’s also illegal to distribute raw milk packaged for consumption across state lines. Still, raw milk advocates stand up for their right to consume it. For example, protesters from a private buying club, Grassfed on the Hill, milked a cow on the Capitol lawn back in 2011 to protest the Food and Drug Administration’s action against a Pennsylvania farmer accused of selling raw milk across state lines.

Raw milk proponents say pasteurization kills flavor, nutritional benefits, and beneficial bacteria in addition to killing the harmful bacteria that it’s supposed to eradicate. Opponents say there’s simply no proof that raw milk has any benefits that pasteurized milk can’t confer, and that drinking it isn’t worth the health risk as it contains potentially dangerous bacteria. Both sides stand firm, creating controversy around one of America’s most wholesome and common commodities.

If you haven’t heard anything about raw milk yet, chances are you will. Warnings from regulatory and public health agencies are increasing, raw milk crusaders are banding together, and politicians are jumping on board to take a stand. As early as 2012, Ron Paul was using the topic of raw milk to rally a Wisconsin crowd, as seen in the video below.

Here’s what you need to know about the raw milk debate before it escalates to a full scale food fight.

Why do we pasteurize milk in the first place?

To understand the raw milk controversy, you need some background on pasteurization and why we do it in the first place.

Before milk makes its way to a carton, it starts in a cow’s udders, which are basically saggy mammary glands. (Yuck.) Like other bodily fluids, the milk produced in these glands contains bacteria, both good and bad. Unlike many other farm foods, milk isn’t usually cooked before consumption. Since cooking kills pathogens, many people ended up drinking a cocktail of bacterial specimens before pasteurization was invented.  In the early 1800s, illnesses like tuberculosis, scarlet fever, and typhoid fever were often transmitted through milk because of the unclean dairy practices common at the time.

Luckily for the American dairy industry, the French love their wine. They love it so much that Emperor Napoleon III gave a scientist by the name of Louis Pasteur the noble task of stopping wine spoilage. Pasteur soon became famous for nuancing a process that would keep wine from spoiling without changing its flavor. It involved heating the liquid to the right temperature for the right amount of time to destroy spoilage bacteria. He called it pasteurization.

Pasteurization was applied to dairy in the late 1800s, and incidence of disease caused by milk decreased drastically. At first it was only used for dairy farmed in unsafe conditions, but soon it was leveraged to reduce risk of illness for nearly all dairies. From there, pasteurization grew to dominate the dairy industry.

What are the laws regarding raw milk?

Although individual states have always regulated their own dairy processing, the Standard Milk Ordinance, now called the Grade A Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO), was implemented in 1924 to help each state meet certain standardized quality recommendations to ensure public safety.

Raw milk didn’t become a truly legal issue until the 1980s when Public Citizen filed a petition with the Food and Drug Administration that requested a ban on raw milk and raw milk products. The FDA had been trying to require that all products labeled “milk” be pasteurized since the 1970s, but met resistance and delays from the Department of Health and Human Services and certified raw milk producers. After hearing witness accounts and testimonies, the courts concluded that raw milk posed a serious threat to public health and should be banned from interstate sale.

It has been illegal to distribute raw milk from state to state ever since.

Since each state makes its own rules about the sale of raw milk, commerce within state borders gets a bit more complicated. Some states, like Florida and Virginia, prohibit all sales of raw milk. In Kentucky, you can only purchase raw goat milk straight from the farm. In New Hampshire, you can buy raw milk at a retail outlet, but it must adhere to uniform coliform standards. Things like cow-share agreements, where customers pay a fee for a percentage of cow’s milk, make things even more complicated. Alaska is an example of one state that allows “share” operations. Check out this chart for state-by-state raw milk regulations.

What Proponents Say About Raw Milk 

The supporters of raw milk tout benefits like taste and nutrition with religious fervor. Some even claim other benefits like decreased allergies and less acne.

The Taste Argument

People who’ve tasted raw milk and liked it keep going back for more. In this study of dairy producers who drink raw milk, 72 percent cite taste as their primary motive.

Raw milk lovers say it’s richer, sweeter, and more complex. Connoisseurs credit subtle flavors to a cow’s diet of natural greens. Many raw milk producers  “pasture” their cows, allowing them to eat greens as nature intended, as opposed to feeding them popular corn- and grain-based feeds.

Beyond drinking milk, raw milk cheese has a cult following, especially in France. Many of the country’s legendary cheeses are made with raw milk, which savants say imparts enticing characteristics unmatched in pasteurized varieties. In this 1998 New York Times article on the subject, cheese maker Bernard Antony said, ”Pasteurized cheese is not cheese; it’s like plastic.”

The Health Argument

In addition to being a holy grail of nuanced flavors, many raw milk advocates flock to raw milk because of its purported health benefits. They believe pasteurization kills beneficial enzymes and good bacteria. They also say raw milk can help quell body pains, reduce allergies, cure lactose intolerance, and more as evidenced from this Realmilk.com testimonials page.

Supporting studies for the claims are patchy. This study does suggest there might be an association with consumption of farm milk and asthma and allergies, but not enough to be conclusive. A Standford University School of Medicine study found that raw milk does not reduce lactose intolerance, in direct conflict with some testimonials and surveys. Why the clash between testimony and science? More research is needed to find out.

The Liberty Argument

Back in 2011, FDA officials raided Rawesome Foods and arrested its owner, James Stewart, and other raw milk suppliers for selling raw milk directly to customers. Apparently, Stewart had failed to show up for previous court appearances to face charges of shady fundraising, among other things. Even so, the arrest struck a cord with raw milk advocates who showed up to Stewart’s hearing wearing “raw milk heals” t-shirts.

They didn’t care if Stewart’s actions were illegal, they cared that he was fighting for their rights to consume raw milk. They believe that it should be individuals, not the government, who dictate what consumers put in their bodies.

What Opponents Say About Raw Milk  

Opponents, most specifically regulatory officials, argue that consuming raw milk and dairy products pose a serious threat to health, a threat that exceeds any potential benefits. And why take an unnecessary risk?

Watch the emotional video below that plays to the fear of what can come from taking unnecessary risks.

They also say that there aren’t any benefits of raw milk that you can’t get from pasteurized milk. These quotes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Raw Milk Questions and Answers page address some common raw milk proponent beliefs:

Many studies have shown that pasteurization does not significantly change the nutritional value of milk — pasteurized milk is rich in proteins, carbohydrates, and other nutrients. Heat slightly affects a few of the vitamins found in milk– thiamine, vitamin B12, and vitamin C– but milk is only a minor source of these vitamins.

While it’s true that the heating process of pasteurization does inactivate some enzymes in milk, the enzymes in raw animal milk are not thought to be important in human health.

There are no health benefits from drinking raw milk that cannot be obtained from drinking pasteurized milk that is free of disease-causing bacteria. The process of pasteurization of milk has never been found to be the cause of chronic diseases, allergies, or developmental or behavioral problems.

Why do they say raw milk is such a threat to health?

Unlike many other farm foods (e.g. milk and eggs), milk isn’t usually cooked before consumption, so there isn’t a step to kill illness-causing bacteria. Milk’s low acid content and high protein levels make it easier for pathogens to grow.

Even if milk comes out of the cow without bacteria, it can become contaminated easily during the farming process. Dairy farms breed pathogens naturally, even when they take necessary precautions. Pathogens can be transferred on multiple occasions on the farm:

• The milk might accidentally come in contact with cow feces
• The cow might have an udder infection (mastitis)
• The cow might have an undetected illness
• Bacteria on the cow’s skin might get into the milk
• Dirt from the barns and processing equipment might get on the milk
• Animal pests living in barns, like rats and insects, might contaminate the milk
• Humans with soiled hands or clothing might contaminate the milk

For these reasons and more, officials cite that pasteurization is the only way to make sure the pathogens in milk won’t pose a threat to human health. They say even farmers who follow hygienic practices and test their raw milk cannot guarantee safety.

Supporting Data

According to the CDC, outbreaks caused by raw milk  have increased from 30 in 2007-2009 to 51 in 2010-2012. The outbreaks are most commonly caused by Campylobacter, Escherichia coli, and Salmonella and include symptoms like diarrhea, vomiting, muscle aches, and fever. Relative to the amount of raw milk that is consumed, the risk of an outbreak from raw milk is 150 times greater than the risk of an outbreak from pasteurized milk.

Shouldn’t science stop this debate?

Advocates from both sides point to studies, surveys, testimonials, and data to prove their points, but still each side clings to their beliefs with evangelical conviction. In a literature review requested by the Maryland House of Delegates’ Health and Government Operations Committee, the authors point to a need for both raw milk advocates and regulatory agencies to be open to discussion and compromise. Surely both sides of this contentious debate can find some common ground in the future.

Will raw milk become a substance relegated to the black market? Will federal lawmakers cave and loosen boundaries on interstate trade? Only time will tell, but 2015 promises to be an interesting year for those on both sides of the aisle in the raw milk debate.

Resources

Primary

CDC: Raw Milk Questions and Answers

Rev Sci Tech Off Int Epiz: Milk Pasteurisation and Safety: A Brief History and Update

CDC: Increased Outbreaks Associated with Nonpasteurized Milk, United States, 2007–2012

NIH: Food Safety Hazards Associated With Consumption of Raw Milk.

NIH: A Survey of Foodborne Pathogens in Bulk Tank Milk and Raw Milk Consumption Among Farm Families in Pennsylvania.

CDC: Raw (Unpasteurized) Milk

U.S. District Court: Public Citizen v Heckler

Additional

New Yorker: Raw Deal

Chris Kresser: Raw Milk Reality: Benefits of Raw Milk

How Stuff Works: How Pasteurization Works

Raw Milk Facts: State by State Raw Milk Legislation

USDA: How Do Cows Make Milk?

The New York Times: How We Poison Our Children

NPR: Unlocking France’s Secrets to Safer Raw Milk Cheese

The New York Times: The French Resist Again: This Time, Over Cheese

Marler Clark: A Legal History of Raw Milk in the United States

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s the Deal With Raw Milk? appeared first on Law Street.

Harvard Medical School has been slapped with fines of $24,036 for violating the Animal Welfare Act.The Animal Welfare Act originated in 1966 and includes provisions to protect the rights and treatment of animals in research facilities. Since 2011, four of their research monkeys have died. These were not expected cases of research running its course, and the monkeys dying of diseases for which cures were attempting to be found. Instead, these cases seemed to be more clear-cut instances of neglect. One monkey died after a lab worker overdosed it with anesthetic. Another two monkeys died from lack of hydration. And a fourth was strangled after a toy attached to its cage wrapped around its neck.

After a lengthy investigation by the USDA, eleven separate violations were found. Not all of these fines were in relation to the treatment of those four monkeys, but included charges that workers who had not been properly trained were allowed to handle the animals. All of the violations occurred at a Harvard Medical School Research Lab in Southborough MA, called the New England Primate Research Center. Harvard Medical School does have another lab, in Boston. Because of personnel problems, financial issues, and other reasons, Harvard Medical School has actually vowed to shut down the Southborough research facility, but keep the smaller Boston lab that also deals with primate research, open.

Each of the eleven violations that were found could have warranted a $10,000 fine, but Harvard Medical School got off relatively easily with a fine of $24,036. They received a lesser fine because many of the violations had been previously disclosed, and because they took effort to mitigate the problems that had been discovered. Harvard Medical School officials stated they believed their fine was lessened because of the “excellent work of those members of our community who took aggressive action to institute rigorous quality improvements that benefit animal safety and welfare”.

The fine is relatively unusual. There are about 1,300 licensed animal research facilities around the country, all of which are held to the Animal Welfare Act. While investigators often find small violations, the facilities are usually just censured because the violations are usually not as egregious as what happened at Harvard Medical School. In the past three years, only eight research facilities have been been fined. Five of those eight violations have been for mistreatment of primates.

Although the fine seems like a lot, animal activists have pointed out that it doesn’t seem to be nearly enough. For a research facility the size of Harvard, $24,036 won’t make too much of a dent. A PETA spokesman pointed out that Harvard Medical School receives $185 million in taxpayer-funded grants alone, and about half of those go to research. Animal rights activists have also pointed out that a few years ago, the University of Louisiana at Lafayette was fined almost $40,000 for three primate deaths arising out of just two incidents.

We need to test on animals, that’s nothing new. In an ideal world, we would not have to, but that’s just not a point to which our science has progressed at this period in time. But it is hard to excuse a case that seems like pretty straightforward neglect. The Animal Welfare Act was put in place to prevent things like animals dying because of a mistake like an errant toy, or lack of water. And while I usually find organizations such as PETA to be a bit heavy-handed, in this case I think they’re right. The fine to Harvard Medical School will just be a slap on the wrist, at best.

I’ve written a few articles on sentencing being too harsh for individuals, but in this case, I think the opposite is true. If the Animal Welfare Act is going to be enacted against large institution facilities, it needs to be guarantee a harsher sentence than what Harvard Medical School received.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Jim Ankan Deka via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Harvard Medical School Violates Animal Welfare Act appeared first on Law Street.