This week in media -- raw milk

Posted: August 8th, 2007 - 10:06am by Brae Surgeoner




Following the lead of the Washington Post, the New York Times is the latest to write about the market demands and push to legalize raw milk sales.

In today's Times, Joe Drapes highlights the Organic Pastures Dairy Company in the San Joaquin Valley near Fresno, which in 2000 became California’s first raw milk dairy with certified organic pasture land. The story says co-founder, Mark McAfee, expects it to gross $6 million — up from $4.9 last year. And while his raw milk is sold in 300 stores in California, where it is legal, McAfee has an $80,000 a month mail order business, shipping creams and cheese as well as milk to all 50 states under the pretense that it's pet food.

Despite staggering sales and demand as reported by Drape, outbreaks associated with the consumption of raw milk continue to be recorded. But of course that doesn't bother advocates.

“I think the bigger risk is having a salad from Wendy’s,” said a raw milk supporter from a farmers’ market in New Hampshire this past weekend.

And again, from yesterday's Post, Sally Fallon, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, was quoted as saying, "We're not talking about raw milk from a typical conventional dairy," she says. "That milk could pose a danger. But milk from cows fed on pastures actually have their own antimicrobial components that keep it safe."

Our response at iFSN: 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.
Your rating: None
Bookmark and Share
Categories: Raw Food
Tags: Organic Pastures

Comments

Marcus j. Borg says:

Couple of comments:1 What about the centuries old tradition of raw milk products throughout Europe? Isn't it possible that a number of the safety issues come down to different dairy, farming and production practices rather than to something inherently "dangerous" about the product?2 Imposing regimes on children, dietary or otherwise, is what we do as a society. Education (and I think being from Kansas you will know what I am talking about), pollution from cars and factories, advertising and marketing in schools, housing and a host of other ???choices??? such as these are made for children without it necessarily being in the child's best interest. And what about government subsidized corn syrup to artificially sweeten products that are sweet already and then served in school cafeterias (and are linked to chronic conditions such as diabetes)?3 The information re: the food people choose to eat and to serve their children should be readily available and honestly provided. The choice however, is for the parent to make, not the government. Parents should be just as easily allowed to give their child a glass of fresh, RAW milk with fresh whole grain bread as to buy them a super sized happy meal.There are so many levels to arguments about food production, safety, nutrition and access that it is hard to get into them into short forums such as this. Being an epidemiologist in the other Manhattan, I appreciate the concerns for health and safety. However I do disagree with the flippant tone to some of these postings. When we start to disentangle the web of corporate and farmer financial incentives, government subsidies and agricultural practices, health, safety and nutrition issues, poverty and access to food choices and education and advertisement practices it becomes painfully clear that no single answer will adequately address the underlying problems.When you pick apart bits of people???s arguments while not providing the context of the larger picture, it does a disservice to the issues at hand and helps misinform the public.

Posted on August 8th, 2007 - 12:06pm

Brae Surgeoner says:

Hi Marc, I appreciate the comments you made. The issue of whether or not raw milk sales should be legalized is complex and certainly inconsistencies in regulations do nothing to make understanding the issue any easier.Although most of the stories that are published in FSNet with regard to raw milk report of recalls and outbreaks in North America, that's not to say that Europe operates without risk. Furthermore, consumption abroad is not as high as we're lead to believe. For example, the number of registered raw milk producers in England and Wales has fallen from 570 in 1997 to 149 in 2005; the Dairy Hygiene Inspectorate estimates raw milk consumption is approximately only 0.01% of total cows milk consumption. There are no known sales in Northern Ireland, and sales in Scotland have been banned since '83. The Scottish ban on sales of raw cows' milk and cream was introduced following a number of milk-related illnesses and as many as 12 potentially associated deaths.I agree that consumers should have the right to informed choice. But whom do we trust to inform? Is that person imparting information based upon the best possible scientific evidence? Who assesses whether the receiver adequately understands the nature and consequences of the risk?There is always going to be a question of judgment about the appropriate approach to regulating risk. And discourse such as this (using Barfblog as a medium) is necessary to progress our understanding of the issues from both a scientific and a social point of view.

Posted on August 8th, 2007 - 3:41pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.