It's called 'progress' wrote on Mar 2, 2008 7:02 AM:I feel for the child, but when you buy raw milk you assume a level of risk that you don't with homogenized. That's why homogenization was invented, to help kill bacteria that's prevalent in raw milk! Not everything that isn't 100% 'natural' is bad and not everything that IS natural is good. After all, e coli is 'natural' too.

RWC wrote on Mar 2, 2008 7:34 AM:There is more harmful to milk than Ecoli. Read China Study by Dr. Campbell.

Murrieta Mom wrote on Mar 2, 2008 7:45 AM:I agree, progress... I am also interested, if 98% of what they eat is organic and natural, how can they be sure it was the milk? We've seen e coli in things like spinach lately also. It could have been something else they consumed, and then what? If it was indeed the milk, wouldn't there have been others affected by the batch also? I feel for them and cannot fathom the medical bills, but I think they're trying to put some of their own guilt to rest by blaming the dairy and the store.

sprouts customer wrote on Mar 2, 2008 8:24 AM:I have consumed the raw milk products (Organic Pastures) sold by Sprouts off and on for over two years and have never had a problem.
I do know children are more susceptible to organisms than adults...but I do agree with Murrieta Mom...e-coli can be everywhere, including produce!
And I do know that Organic Patures has a very strict pathogenic screening/testing process for their batches of milks, cheeses, butter.
The owners of SProuts have always had such a strong ethic of working hard and providing good products to their clientele, it is a shame they are being blamed for this!

Unfortunate wrote on Mar 2, 2008 8:40 AM:I keep seeing these types of stories again and again. Parents who are vegan, only eat organic or raw foods, and other dietary regimens have these kids that get sick. Childrens immune systems cannot handle what an adults can. Remember the vegan family that starved that baby to death by feeding it soymilk? It is sad to see people forcing kids into these lifestyles and kids suffering for it.

Temecula Nana wrote on Mar 2, 2008 8:42 AM:I agree with both "Progress" and "Murrieta Mom".

more info please wrote on Mar 2, 2008 9:19 AM:To "Unfortunate"...I would like to see about the story you mention. "Vegans starving their baby on soymilk"...I don't doubt your reference. I must have missed that story...I work for Henry's Farmers market:)

Reply to More info please wrote on Mar 2, 2008 9:59 AM:Do a google search. These people were sentenced to long prison terms. It is a fact. It was about six months ago to the best of my memory.

To It's Progress wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:47 AM:I think the word you're looking for is pasteurization. However, I agree, giving raw milk to your children is very dangerous.

healthy minds? wrote on Mar 2, 2008 10:50 AM:"Our son was damaged," Tony said. "We live in a society where, if you sell a product that causes that, you are responsible for that damage."

It's unfortunate that we have created a society where we can sue for damages even when we know that we are engaging in risky behavior. I'm shocked to learn that the grocery chain can be held responsible as well simply for carrying the product. I suppose that means that grocery stores can also be sued for drunk driving accidents and cancer death brought about by smoking if they sell alcohol and cigarettes? It would be a wonderful thing if our judicial system were to step up and provide rulings in such a way that returns us to a society that makes the individual responsible for choices that he makes. Perhaps their son will some day sue them for exposing them to raw dairy products in the first place. I certainly hope not, but that does seem to be the society we live in, so "it must be okay."

healthy minds? wrote on Mar 2, 2008 11:48 AM:I'd like to rephrase my last sentence above to read "Perhaps their son will some day sue his parents for exposing him to raw dairy products in the first place. I certainly hope not, but that does seem to be the society we live in, so 'it must be okay.'"

Share the guilt wrote on Mar 2, 2008 12:06 PM:Sadly, this young boy suffered greatly. In any other country, his medical bills would be nothing, but here, they're half a million dollars. So, the family can't pay it, the boy didn't cause it. What to do? Thousands of deaths from 'bad food' likely happen every year, but with no such diagnosis cause it's missed by the docs. Or the person never even went to a hospital. What to do? SUE! it's the American way!

Bo wrote on Mar 2, 2008 12:44 PM:Milk is pasteurized because cows commonly carry pathogens such as E. coli 0157:H7. Raw milk continues to infect people on a regular basis, yet there are people that insist on drinking raw milk and feeding it to thier kids because they claim it is more nutritious, and the do fight or the ight to drink raw milk....yet when these same people get food poisoning they want someone else to take responsibility for their decision!

GRINDLE wrote on Mar 2, 2008 1:39 PM:When a retailer sells food there is a presumption in law that the food is safe to consume. It is NOT a responsibility of the customer to determine such food's safety. The only question here is whether the raw milk was actually the culprit. I assume that the milk in question is long gone and beyond any testing now. And yes, the poisoning could have been from many possible sources. As to the suit, how do you spell DISMISSAL?

Alex wrote on Mar 2, 2008 1:40 PM:I find the defense of the Martin family's advocate shaky and legally questionable; I am a pre-law student and I cannot see the contention that simply proving the pathogen being 'in the product' will produce a sustainable argument. Firstly, the law already permits commercial sale of raw, unpasteurized milk, as well as various other dairy products; this is taking into account the added risk to the health of the consumer of such a product as opposed to a product that has undergone treatment; hence, the actual act of selling this product by the chain is within the boundary of the law and it is bolstered by the reasonable expectation of common knowledge that the consumers of such products are aware of the negatives and positives, implied or expressed, of the consumption of said product (as has been shown by research and health studies done upon said product, research and studies that indicate an elevated risk to a consumer's health upon ingestion). This reasonable expectation of knowledge is strengthened even further if there is a notice ON THE ACTUAL PRODUCT ITSELF, e.g., "Asides from its positive organic properties, drinking unpasteurized dairy products may cause an increase in the risk of sustaining serious health afflictions which appear significantly less in treated dairy; children and elderly are especially vulnerable."

So what the plaintiff's advocate may pursue is a re-examination of the law that even permits sale of such dairy and see about possible revocation of said law, at which point Sprouts, or any other commercial entity listed as defendant, would not be liable since their actions in question were committed prior to the action being illegal, i.e., while the action was legal.

Furthermore, the parents themselves may be charged with negligence or unreasonable endangerment of a minor by virtue of consistently allowing or forcing said minor to consume products known to be especially hazardous towards youth and elderly. I simply do not see the argument of the plaintiff's advocate as too tenable at this point.

AuLait wrote on Mar 2, 2008 1:50 PM:Actually, I'm surprised at the willingness of so many here to assume raw milk is the culprit in this case when no evidence could be found to substantiate that. The sad truth is that mutant E. coli is in a lot of things we all eat all the time -- any raw vegetable that grows close to the ground (where the irrigation water is) is suspect in my book -- and the investigation never looked into that, because as soon as the words "raw milk" were uttered, it was over. Even when no E. coli could be found in the milk, or on the farm, people insisted it had to be the milk. I'm sorry, but that is superstition and not science. Evidence is necessary.

Bo, I'd like to see your data showing that raw milk "continues to infect people on a regular basis." Tens of thousands of Californians have been drinking raw milk daily for years -- where's the epidemic? Raw milk can carry pathogens, but if it's responsibly produced, it does not. And that's what California's raw milk producers have been so far -- careful, clean, and responsible. Unlike the big industrial dairies, whose product is incredibly dangerous without pasteurization, because of their "quick and dirty" production methods. I wouldn't touch THEIR raw milk with a 10-foot pole. But it's a lot easier to sue OP than Cargill or ADM, with their armies of corporate lawyers.

The real reason we pasteurize is that it facilitates corporate-scale, centralized, industrial dairying. It's not about safety, though it's said to be -- it's about shelf life and making cheap, dirty production practices acceptable. Don't forget that pasteurized milk has made thousands of people sick, many times -- it gets contaminated all the time. I think small-scale, careful food production is the only answer, but I'm not holding my breath.

raw milk drinker wrote on Mar 2, 2008 3:00 PM:It's obvious by the things I've read that most folks don't have a clue as to what they are talking about when it comes to milk. Pasteurization (heating) was invented to kill germs in milk. If you do research you will find that this was necessary back then for the same reason it is now: Our government allows dairy farmers to feed and inject the cattle with things nature never intended for them to eat or ingest. Homogenization is the process of squeezing (or crushing) out all the milk fat from the milk so that it will have a better appearance for the consumer. Both processes strip the milk of all its nutrients. No, there is no way I would drink raw milk from a cow at most of these dairys our government tells us are okay. But I will gladly drink raw milk from Organic Pastures. Before you pass judgement, you should check out their website. I too, used to think people were crazy for drinking this stuff, but after much research about Mr. McAfee's farm, I admired the way he runs his business and treats his cattle. Drinking milk the way natured intended made sense to me. After the recent happenings at the slaughterhouse, what makes you think our dairy industry is any better? Pasteurized milk has traces of pus, feces and iodine in it, but the government says that its okay because cooking it to 212 degrees will kill the germs from these things. Mark McAfee has the CDFA all over him constantly because everyone is always waiting to blame everything on raw milk, and his milk constantly comes up with levels that are WAY below what the government considers dangerous. The law states that after pasteurization milk can have no more than 15,000 bacteria per milliliter. Organic Pastures milk, with no pasteurization, only a pure grass fed diet, comes up with only a count of 1500 bacteria per milliliter. Last year, three people died from Listeria in pasteurized milk. How did that work? Was it not heated well enough, or could it be the cows are simply too sick? If you want to know more ways that the government and the FDA have us horn-swaggled into believing what they say is the truth and the best way to eat, you MUST read "Death by Supermarket" by Nancy DeVille. You will be blown away at what is allowed to be put in our food because the FDA says it is "generally regarded as safe." Did this boy get E.coli from raw milk? Had the milk been bottled anywhere else, then I might believe so. But E.coli runs rampant in everything we eat. It's also interesting that he got sick during the same time as the infamous spinach outbreak.....

The people at fault: the parents wrote on Mar 2, 2008 3:35 PM:And other luddites who think that going back to the world before pasteurization, antibiotics, and the industrial revolution is some sort of eden.

They're no different than the Amish, or Christian Scientists who won't let their children be operated on.

Before modern science and medicine, the average life expectancy was 36, and less than 1/2 of the children saw their 18th birthday.

STOP BELIEVING THE ECO-FREAK LIES!!!

Concerned Parent wrote on Mar 3, 2008 10:07 AM:I agree with all who say Raw Milk is risky. I am one who does not believe the ECO-FREAKS lies. I think they take their beliefs too far and ignore the facts when facts are presented.

I read another article that stated there were 6 children involved and that they shared the same genetic pattern of e-coli. I also read in at least one of the cases, the child did NOT eat spinach. All six children had some form of OP Milk. It seems highly unlikely that all six children had eaten the exact same things in that same period of time.

Concerned-1 wrote on Mar 3, 2008 3:15 PM:"Giving raw milk to your child, there is a chance you could kill your child," Mary said.

Seems like she finally gets it. Throw the suit out, no merit. And parents wake up. The eco-milk drinker can do and think what they want, as long as they are responsible for their actions.-

Tony wrote on Mar 3, 2008 6:02 PM:People can die of a bee sting. Are we now going to blame the folks that make honey because one of it's bees escaped?

Warning labels might help. If it can happen, it will most likely happen.

MOM OF 3 wrote on Mar 4, 2008 1:22 AM:the store sold the raw milk so lets sue them? are you kidding me? tell me again how its not about the money!! the parents are just as responsible for giving it to the child as the store is for selling it with no way of knowing it was bad or would make him sick. count your blessings that your son survived and a little more cautious about raw products.

Sher wrote on Mar 4, 2008 7:30 AM:Is there any PROOF the milk had e. coli in it?
(from what I read here, NO)

Did the mother KNOW the milk she was buying was not pasteurized?
(it seems YES)

So, the mother KNOWINGLY gave her son unpasteurized milk?
(it seems YES)

Where are the other sick people from this batch of milk?
(are there any?)

Based on reading this article, If I was a juror, I'd award the family nothing. But if there's other facts that might sway me otherwise, I'd award past and future medical costs only, because the mother is also at fault. But I wouldn't include the selling store in the award, because what the heck do these parents and their greedy attorney expect, all stores to have food safety labs?-

Dave wrote on Mar 4, 2008 8:42 AM:Let’s look at the timing of events here. On January 4, 2008, the Weston A. Price Foundation issued a press release titled “California Government Official Lies about Raw Milk.” A copy of that release is on the company's Web site.
Regarding the alleged “raw milk outbreak” in September 2006, this press release summarizes what really happened. “Although officials of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) accused Organic Pastures Dairy, California's main producer of raw milk, of selling tainted milk, thorough investigation of the milk, the cows and even the manure at Organic Pastures Dairy failed to find virulent E. coli or any other pathogen.” Furthermore, not only was “the September 2006 outbreak of virulent E. coli now definitively tied to spinach grown in California,” but also the State of California was forced to pay a monetary settlement “to compensate Organic Pastures Dairy for loss of business during the unnecessary two-week recall.” This case was settled in 2007. Now, it is almost a year and a half later, and Bill Marler suddenly files a lawsuit against Organic Pastures in February 2008 alleging E. coli O157:H7 food poisoning—and is also attacking Sprouts Natural Market? Marler even boasts, “We don't have to prove the store did anything wrong or was negligent, just that it was in the product.” How does he intend to do that?

LS wrote on Mar 4, 2008 3:58 PM:Dave,
I am sorry but the information on the Weston A. Price Foundation is completely false. I do not know where they get there information from. There was E. Coli found in cows on that Dairy and Furthermore, The Children DID NOT HAVE SPINACH. So I don't know why they are stating that the ecoli was definitively tied to spinach. That is a LIE.

Dave wrote on Mar 4, 2008 11:33 PM:LS,
There’s a blog called “The Complete Patient,” which hosts discussions of all things related to raw milk (amongst other subjects). The parents in this story have made many postings of their version of events over the course of the last 18 months. On April 1, 2007 they posted the first part of their chronology of events in which they state “9/4 Chris consumes raw milk, lettuce and spinach.” Your statement that spinach was not consumed is incorrect.

LS wrote on Mar 5, 2008 3:20 PM:Dave, Go to ... in the legal cases section you will find a story on this case with a link to the Goverment Report on this Case. There was no Link to Spinach.

Dave wrote on Mar 5, 2008 11:45 PM:LS, are you referring to California Department of Health Services memo CA-EPI 06-06? I read it. It does not say, “There was no Link to Spinach.”

The memo states that there was no connection between the E. coli in the patient samples from the outbreak at issue here and the E. coli O157:H7 isolated from the Dole bagged spinach analyzed in September 2006.

Unfortunately, this does not mean that every leaf of spinach and lettuce grown in California was free of pathogenic contamination. See, e.g., Stacey Shepard’s excellent report in the online edition of The Californian for February 22, 2008: “2006 E. coli outbreak linked to local farm.”

LT wrote on Mar 6, 2008 10:54 AM:Dave, only one of the children had spinach, what is your take on the other 5 children? They still all had a matching genetic link. What is your point? You keep harping on the same thing but it makes no sense. There seems to be one particular item that they ALL ate/drank. oK we have established that it is NOT spinach, BUT they all drank OP milk.

In your eyes, because you believe in this raw milk, it cant be the milk.!! YET THIS WAS THE ONLY THING THE CHILDREN HAD IN COMMON. Im trying real hard to figure out what part of your logic makes any sense!!! HELP ME OUT HERE!!

Kerry wrote on Apr 16, 2008 7:56 AM:Hey! Let's have all our vegetables, irradiated and cooked before they are sold. Better yet, lets pull all spinach from the shelves and close down all the restaurants. Why not take honey off the shelves too because someone might ignorantly feed it to their very young baby. We'll all be eating gruel at this rate.

Check this site on food poisoning history:
www.westonaprice.org/children/rawmilk.html

JonRaymond wrote on Apr 22, 2008 12:58 PM:My son drinks organic raw milk and has never been sick. He is in pre-school now and never picks up the never-ending illness children get. Do not take my right to drink raw milk away, thank you.