Raw milk BS
I got around to sending this to the Boston Globe:
The advertisement masquerading as a story about raw milk in the March 23, 2008 Boston Globe magazine (Got raw milk?) should have noted that the author is an advocate for raw milk, which may help explain the statistical cherry picking throughout the story – like comparing confirmed illnesses from raw dairy products to the overall estimated illnesses from food.
A table of raw dairy outbreaks is available at http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu/articles/384/RawMilkOutbreakTable.pdf
Yes, lots of foods make people sick. And people should be free to choose what they ingest.
The 19th century English utilitarian philosopher, John Stuart Mill, noted that choice has limits, stating, "if it [in this case the consumption of raw unpasteurized milk] only directly affects the person undertaking the action, then society has no right to intervene, even if it feels the actor is harming himself."
Excused from Mill’s libertarian principle are those people who are incapable of self-government – children.
Science can be used to enhance what nature provided. Further, society has a responsibility to the many -- philosopher Mill also articulated how the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the one — to use knowledge to minimize harm.
Adults, do whatever you think works to ensure a natural and healthy lifestyle, but please, don't impose your dietary regimes on those incapable of protecting themselves: your kids.
Dr. Douglas Powell is scientific director of the International Food Safety Network at Kansas State University
The advertisement masquerading as a story about raw milk in the March 23, 2008 Boston Globe magazine (Got raw milk?) should have noted that the author is an advocate for raw milk, which may help explain the statistical cherry picking throughout the story – like comparing confirmed illnesses from raw dairy products to the overall estimated illnesses from food.
A table of raw dairy outbreaks is available at http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu/articles/384/RawMilkOutbreakTable.pdf
Yes, lots of foods make people sick. And people should be free to choose what they ingest.
The 19th century English utilitarian philosopher, John Stuart Mill, noted that choice has limits, stating, "if it [in this case the consumption of raw unpasteurized milk] only directly affects the person undertaking the action, then society has no right to intervene, even if it feels the actor is harming himself."
Excused from Mill’s libertarian principle are those people who are incapable of self-government – children.
Science can be used to enhance what nature provided. Further, society has a responsibility to the many -- philosopher Mill also articulated how the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the one — to use knowledge to minimize harm.
Adults, do whatever you think works to ensure a natural and healthy lifestyle, but please, don't impose your dietary regimes on those incapable of protecting themselves: your kids.
Dr. Douglas Powell is scientific director of the International Food Safety Network at Kansas State University
Trackbacks (1)
Links to blogs that reference this article
Trackback URL
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/admin/trackback/66318
http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/admin/trackback/66318
BarfBlog -
June 23, 2008 5:52 AM
Andrew Schneider
 of the Seattle P-I, writes in a decent raw milk piece this morning that consumers almost always link arms with government public health agencies banning the sale of food believed to contain dangerous pathogens. But that spirit appears...
Post A Comment / Question
Use this form to add a comment to this entry.
Send To A Friend
Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.
Doug,
As a farm kid growing up I consumed raw milk straight from the bulk tank. I think I am the better off for it, however, I knew the source of my raw milk. I feel this is key. Each dairy runs a different operation. Our family farm was exceptionally clean. A debate on the cleanliness of small dairy vs. large dairy milk could be a spin off of this comment, but I do not care large or small, a good dairy must have exceptional milking procedure and a spotless milk house if raw milk is going to be consumed.
If people want to drink "safer" raw milk, I suggest they milk cows at that establishment for a week and than decide if they want to drink the milk that comes from that dairy. Otherwise, I do think people will subject themselves and their children to an unsafe product. Believe it or not you can taste the difference in milk from one dairy to another. So raw milk drinkers "Choose wisely."
I find your comments about me and about my article in the Boston Sunday Globe Magazine curious. You identify me as "an advocate for raw milk"--is that the same as being "a known communist sympathizer"? Many journalists today who report fairly on health and politics have blogs where they express their personal views. You identify yourself as "a journalist," yet you are anti-raw-milk for children. As an editor, I wouldn't consider that a reason not to allow you to write about the subject.
You say I engaged in "statistical cherry picking throughout the story," yet you offer only a single example of "comparing confirmed illnesses from raw dairy products to the overall estimated illnesses from food"--even though the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) insists on using the 76 million annual cases of food-borne illness as a fact, not an estimate, for the number of overall illnesses.
I know you couldn't find anything to dispute in terms of facts or research because, like a fighter who resorts to clinching when he's losing, you resort to emotions--the oldest emotional argument around this subject: it's for the sake of the kids.
Doug,
I recognize this comment is a bit late but I felt a question needs to be posed- What parent doesn't "impose (their) dietary regimes" on their children? Every parent makes daily decisions, albeit sometimes passive ones, about what they feed their children. If three children sit down to three different meals 1) a local, sustainably farmed, organic meal with a glass of raw milk 2) a McDonald's hamburger, fries and a coke, and 3) a "traditionally farmed" USDA approved square meal that follows the food pyramid- all three of those children's parents would look at the other two meals and say "You're feeding your child WHAT?!?"
What we know about nutrition seems to change drastically from one day to the next. I confess I am vehemently opposed to your blanket statement "Science can be used to enhance what nature provided" - And my educational background is in chemical engineering! Heaven forbid we lift the skirt of the dairy industry that science has created in the US, and compare side by side the contents of a glass of raw milk and a glass of "normal" milk. I understand that your argument is against raw milk and not in favor of big dairy but, with statements like aforementioned one made, this comparison is fair.
I think parents should do their homework and make educated decisions on what they feed their kids. When it comes to milk it would be a very stinted education indeed if all that is considered is pasteurized or raw. Instead of telling parents what to do let's lay out all possible facts and let them decide for themselves and their children.
Why has no one addressed the outbreaks that number hundreds of thousands from pasteurized milk? Check with the health departments that keep these statistics. They site numbers around 800 total "suspected" from raw milk between 1998=2007 This pales in comparison.
Research...Hint: March 1985.
Thanks for reading...
Charles...