Posted: April 19th, 2010 - 4:29pm by Doug Powell

I am immediately suspicious of anyone who says they speak fact.

It’s like I’ve told my kids for years – and I’m especially ingraining you, 16-month-old Sorenne -- anyone who has to say, ‘trust me’ is immediately untrustworthy.

So when a web site is named, realrawmilkfacts.com, I’m wondering whose real facts are involved. Is there a publicly available document for deciding whose facts count? We have one, it’s available at http://bites.ksu.edu/about-bites.

And these folks haven’t studied risk perception and communication 101 – facts are important but never enough.

I get all the BS surrounding raw milk – went through all that with genetically engineered foods over a decade ago – and I get all the BS the geniuses in the raw milk movement post about how the last thing they ate made them sick, especially if it was at a fast-food joint (it wasn't).

Any investigation of foodborne illness is fraught with uncertainty and speculation. That’s where epidemiology comes in, to make statistically-based best guesses to prevent others from getting sick.

It’s better than faith-based food safety.

What is most disconcerting about all the chatter around raw milk is the waste of scarce public resources – inspectors got better things to do, especially when there is a ready solution available (hint, it’s pasteurization).

Oh, and we (left, not exactly as shown) speak fact.