A lie is halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on

Here is the latest from Gordon Watson, out in B.C., where Home on the Range cowshare dairy has recently been the subject of much adverse publicity from the local “health” department. See earlier posts for the blow by blow.

“After the furore of the last couple of weeks,  I hesitate to overload people with too much information.  It’s important, though,  for shareholders who have worries about what’s been said about our milk, to spend a few minutes reading this page on the website of the BC Centre for Disease Control website.


It is everything one needs to know,  to appreciate that the campaign of mis-information we suffered from the Health Authorities,  amounts to a blatant lie.

Their own background material explains that e coli bacteria is found everywhere in the food supply.  What matters is the level of the bacteria in a given sample.  The explanation of the notation they use for lab test results vindicates my opinion that the batch of dairy products they sampled, distributed by Home on the Range,  comes well under the safety standards for raw milk in Washington State and California.

Those in positions of authority who slandered our dairy,  aren’t just middle-level apparatchiks stumbling-around in the glare of the media spotlight. George Rice, Dr Perry Kimball, Dr John Carswell and others, mantled themselves in official robes as they knowingly advertised half-truths. They did that for no good reason but to ruin our private dairy, as part of a co-ordinated effort all over America by the dairy cartel, to demonize dairies producing REAL MILK, in order to restrain trade. Which is a criminal act.

Those men weren’t working for the best interests of British Columbians. The propaganda they put out arises from the agenda of globalism, which is:  to eliminate farmers / food processors who serve a local market.  As insignificant as we may seem, every little neighbourhood producer confounds the Marxist model of industrialized agriculture.  Governments throwing in their lot with the New World Order hate us because, every day we get the REAL MILK to those who appreciate it, our dairies demonstrate the milk marketing scheme is a failure, in respect of food quality.

As a side issue ; I asked deputy minister Andrew Hazelwood in the Ministry of  Healthy Living to what branch of government I should address my complaint about the misconduct of employees of Fraser Health / Vancouver Coastal Health. On official stationery he stated that the Health Authorities are actually NOT branches of the government.   Thus, those corporate entities, and their employees who abused the powers at their disposal – stealing our property and destroying it under color of law when they knew better – can no longer hide behind the Crown Proceedings Act.

I am now gathering evidence with which to initiate a lawsuit, naming as Defendants = Vancouver Health, Fraser Health  its various Inspectors right up to and including their lawyer, Guy McDannold  who gave them spectacularly bad legal advice, for malfeasance of public office.

Let’s see what a fully-informed jury has to say about the frantic fearmongering we’ve put up with lately?!”

Gordon S Watson


Filed under News

12 responses to “A lie is halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on

  1. John Carsley

    Gordon S. Watson must have been reading from the wrong page when he tried to interpret the microbiological results for Home on the Range dairy products.

    The only product that even came close to meeting the standards for total bacteria (including those from states where raw milk is legal) was butter. The count ranged between 11,000 and 1,300,000 for the four butter samples. Ten thousand is the maximum for BC pasteurized milk, 20,000 or 30,000 is usually the standard in raw-milk-legal states.

    The raw milk had 2,400,000 colonies. Yes, that’s ten times what would be allowed in Washington. Seven of the samples, including cream, cream cheese, cheese, , and colostrum had greater than 30,000,000. Yes, that’s more than 30 million.

    As for total coliforms, the raw cream and milk had 240 and 150 respectively. The limit in Washington is 10; in BC it’s 1. Yoghurt was off the scale.

    Feacal coliforms? The milk, cream, fresh cheese, and yoghurt had fecal coliform counts above BC food safety standards for cooked food. Again, the yoghurt was off the scale (greater than 2400).

    Independent lab tests done by JR Silliker Laboratories on the milk and cream revealed even higher levels of total coliforms than the provincial labs (650 to 6,000,000).

    Mr .Watson is confused about both the meaning and interpretation of these tests — not surprising since he seems to see everything about raw milk through the rosiest of tinted glasses.

    He even managed to get my name wrong…

  2. Michael

    Dear John Carsley
    Just to get the facts straight to the benefit of ALL. Would it make sense to jointly agree on testing procedures of these products and then get everybody involved on the same table to discuss the matter.
    What appears to happen is, that the credibility of the agency is always in question, if your purpose was simply to scare every one and to uphold the law at any cost. The burden of proof is still on your side if in fact the numbers are correct. I assume that you have a proper trail demonstrating how the products got to the lab in what time frame.
    So what is wrong to actually discuss this matter with those involved, if there is in fact a justified health concern. It all comes down to what the intentions are. IF in fact the lab reports are as you
    described above, should there be an attempt to contact the individuals who drank the milk first before blowing things up in the press. My advise to you is, to deal with a little bit of common sense.
    That is what people in general do not understand why the overreaction instead of sitting down and jointly tackle the problem.
    Yes If the reports are bad, and if it is a real health concern lets deal with the problem first and then look at the overall legal implications.
    I am all for a constructive resolution. Lets cut the BS and address the needs of the people. The tide is turning, it is the Governments credibility at stake
    Thanks for your clarification above.
    Michael Schmidt

  3. John

    Thanks for your comments, Mr. Schmidt. In fact, Vancouver Coastal Health did notify the depots where the milk was seized on the day of the Ministry’s press release.

    Since there was no list of Home on the Range cow-sharers available to us, a public notice was the only way to assure everyone who had still had these products became aware of the risk. This is standard procedure for any food recalls where we can’t be sure everyone affected can be reached individually.

    Home on the Range is not within our jurisdiction, so we did not notify them directly. However, if the operator really wanted to know what the detailed results were, she needed only ask us, as the data is subject to our freedom of information rules.

    I consider her response to the media that her cows were a little dirtier around then astounding. Surely a raw milk distributor should be even more obsessed with cleanliness than mainstream dairies.

    At the very least, if I were one of her cow-sharers, I would insist on testing equivalent to those jurisdictions where there are raw milk standards.

    As to the question of “scaring every one…,” we did followed exactly the same procedures as we would during the investigation of any serious gastro-intestinal illness. We found a clear link to raw milk consumption from an identifiable source, tested the product, found it contaminated, and issued a warning.

    The only departure from routine was that the product not used for testing was destroyed before results of testing were available, since we could not permit its distribution, contaminated or not.

    I will be very interested in the decision of the court on the legality of the mechanisms in place to get around Canadian law on raw milk.

    Whether raw milk becomes a legal product in Canada or not, I can pretty well guarantee we will continue to see individual illnesses and outbreaks ccaused by these products.

  4. Pingback: Questionable Testing Methodologies? « The Bovine

  5. thebovine

    See this post for Gordon Watson’s reply to these statements;


  6. Michael

    Thanks John for your clarification.
    I do agree on the following.
    1.Testing of raw milk on a regular schedule should be mandatory under any circumstances regulated or not. This is a very responsible action for consumers and producer alike.
    2. I do agree, if you feel that there is a potential health threat, that there has to be a way to contact people.
    ( Was there an actual health threat? just a question to ponder, did somebody conclusively got sick from this milk?)
    3. I agree: A raw milk producer should be obsessed with sanitary conditions, considering the scrutiny one is under at the present time and considering the responsibility one has for many families in a cow share operation.
    I do question the audit trial of the products you tested. If there is a concern that the public questions the credibility of Health Authorities, why did you not keep samples frozen, just to back up your claims.
    I do agree that people will get sick from raw milk if not handled properly. But I also like to remind you that there are as well 11 000 million reported food borne illnesses in Canada every year caused by non raw milk Government inspected food items.
    This is where I always like to caution Health Officials to be careful to single out raw milk when in the meantime we have 22 people dying from listeria laced cold cuts from Government inspected plants. It makes it difficult for the public to take you seriously.
    I am also looking forward to the decision and like to thank you personally for this open dialogue.
    May be down the road we might work together on a task force to accommodate both sides of this interesting debate in an open and constructive way.
    Cheers Michael

  7. John

    In response to Michale Schmidt’s reply:

    I don’t think I was fully aware of how mistrustful the raw milk community is of “health authorities”.

    Would have asked our environmental health officers to videotape the entire trail from depot to lab!

    The ill child who started this whole thing off had evidence of infection with Campylobacter and E.coli and his or her only risk factor for these infecitons was consuming raw milk. I consider this conclusive enough.

  8. Michael

    John I could have told you. The mistrust is rooted in the often displayed intolerance of health officials. I do think that there are ways to establish a working relationship. I had very good and very bad experiences with health inspectors. In the interest of everybody you need to understand that your actions have to be able to stand up in court. Therefor you better off to follow proper procedures.
    In regards to the situation with the child, the tendency of health units is that as soon they hear that raw milk has been consumed they stop looking for other sources. This has happened over and over again. If you have matching test results which conclusively link the pathogens to the child then you have a case. It is either conclusive or not conclusive.it cannot be “conclusive enough”.
    This debate is too heated, too emotional and too biased that you could convince the public of your own conclusion based on what you described.
    I do however agree that you guys have a difficult stand especially when you have to deal with a certain fanatic element.
    But remember we still can buy cigarettes, we still can buy cold cuts, we still have the choice to eat our hamburgers raw, and we also have a choice to drink windshield washer fluid. If we make the decision based on our own research and experience, would,n you agree that a respect for those who make this decision would be appropriate in our free and democratic society.
    It becomes just a pissing contest of different opinions and believes.
    Lets grow up and look at solutions how to incorporate the needs of people.
    Cheers John and thanks again.

  9. bernie Bailey

    In all these conversations I do not see were this health authorities notified the proper health authorities in the proper county . This should have been the first step and then the second step should have been samples from the farm its self. This would have insured that the samples are of proper origin and proper results as the contamination could be from miss use after leaving the farm, poor refrigeration would be the most obvious and WE all know that bacteria never stops growing so the older the milk the more bacteria whether it is pasteurized or not. In my case and owner of a dairy I would call the health department and have them inspect stores ,nursing homes ect. when the product I sold came back as a complain to many times as I had three labs testing my product and the results were good because my first concern was bad pr when I had spent so much and worked so hard to put out a good product just to let some store owner who would not spend money to keep his fridge in good running order destroy my reputation . It is easer to send product back to the supplier for full refund . The health authorities in this case could not have seen a health risk to the consumer or the authorities could have simply asked the store owner to get a phone number from one customer and worked its way from there they should have asked the sick little girls parent but again no follow up and but nothing was done except for the death message for the farm through the media.

  10. Michael

    Bernie and John
    What is becoming clear in regard to this situation is, that we have no actual guidelines in respect to raw milk production and testing. I know that it is possible to make samples look really bad if you want to.
    In our operation here in Ontario, we do regular testing in respect t pathogens, we also take several samples from every batch and keep these samples frozen in case that there might be a complaint that someone got sick.
    If for example the health department would claim that our milk is contaminated and someone got sick from E-coli or salmonella. I then can give out the marked samples, test them in our accredited lab, they can test it in their lab and we could have even other labs doing the same tests.
    It is a common sense procedure to ensure that nobody can start claiming things on pure suspicion. It also can verify quickly if in fact there was a valid concern. I am the first one wanting to know, so that I can call all our families.
    I am in this now for 32 years, I had no recall as of today and I am confident that the chances are very minimal that there will be one.
    The good thing connected with the consumption of raw milk is the fact, that all our families have a much better gut immunity and over all health.
    Therefor as you improve your overall health through the consumption of raw milk you less likely to get sick.

  11. John

    Response to Michael’s post, Jan. 11 @ 10:29 PM.

    At my age, a pissing contest is definitely the last thing I want to enter. My epidemiology training does give me a different take on ‘conclusive’. We often have to work with probabilities rather than certainties, and have been rightly criticized for waiting for absolute proof of causality before acting.

    Reviewing reports of past outbreaks linked to raw milk does not give me the impression that investigators routinely turn a blind eye to other risk factors.

    As a public health physician with too many years experience of preventable outbreaks of all sorts, here is my personal opinion of the options we, as a society, have about the availability of fresh raw dairy products.

    Whatever the ‘truth’ about the health benefits or lack thereof of raw milk, a small number of people will still want to drink it. For the population, what approach will reduce the risk of illness the most?

    1. Allow consumption and regulate, so the consumer (and here I mean the adult consumer who can decide on the evidence him or herself) is clear on what they are getting and assumes that risk with open eyes.

    2..Continue to ‘suppress’ (which I do not believe is actually happening actively, as it seems one can get raw milk without any great legal peril in most places in Canada).

    Option 1 would seem a no-brainer, except for a couple of things. States where raw milk is legal report more outbreaks of illness related to raw milk than states where raw milk is illegal. Is this just because more people drink raw milk in those states, and would even if it were illegal, or does illegality actually discourage people from consuming so fewer outbreaks happen?

    Second, what about kids, particularly when they are young and most vulnerable to complications from infection with the germs that, when things do go bad, are most likely to be the cause? Kids are subject their parents’ choices, but we, as a society, do not allow kids to go unbuckled in a car, not wear bike helmets (in some places) etc.

    Bottom line: should kids whose parents give them raw milk be considered more like kids whose parents feed them raw shellfish and take them to every petting zoo they can find (very low risk but higher than abstaining) or those whose parents insist they not wear a seatbelt, not wear a bike helmet, and not wash their hands before eating. (higher risk, but still relatively low per event)

    The fundamental problem at this time is the perception of risk and the perception of benefit, which may never be reconciled if positions remain as firm as they are.

    Scientific consensus at present in Canada is that risk of illness is far higher than the purported benefits of raw milk, and unless I see far more reassuring data than is available right now, I won’t be changing my mind about that.

    In the meantime, I would encourage all raw milk producers in Canada to test their product as rigourously as if it were legal and share that info with their shareholders.

    • Michael

      Just a quick response to Johns last comment.
      Good for you to encourage those who are involved in raw milk sharing to have a proper testing procedure. Without that we have nothing to go by.
      In respect to the conclusiveness, there is always the danger of favoring and tainting the conclusions, especially if there is such a anti sentiment to raw milk.
      I do believe that a constructive discussion how to solve the current dilemma would break down the animosities amongst all players involved.
      Parents in general are not stupid. Those who decide to give their children raw milk have done their home work.
      I could show you many cases where in fact raw milk saved their kids lives.
      I question why parents are forced to feed their kids only pasteurized products ,when they know these products cause indigestion ,bloating, ear infection and more(all very well documented). This is also a question of choice, the Government forces the no choice on the children This is why people reject the nanny state and do not trust so called bureaucrats anymore.
      It is however refreshing to hear from you and I think you have very valid arguments, which need to be addressed.
      If you need info about the benefits of raw milk I can refer you to several websites and publications.
      How about a joint study on the health claims each side is bringing forward.
      So far nobody wants to touch that from the Government. WHY?? may be we actually have a point.
      Thanks John

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s