Raw milk risks
Washington Post columnist Sally Squires wrote about raw milk today. She focused on raw milk enthusiasts and their battles with public health officials, and interviewed Gig Harbor, Washington resident Chris Schlicht, who began drinking raw milk over 20 years ago. Squires wrote of the Schlicht family, all raw milk enthusiasts:
Nor are they alone in their passion. Despite evidence that raw or unpasteurized milk carries health risks, growing numbers of consumers are skirting laws prohibiting the sale of unpasteurized milk through creative solutions called "cow sharing." In theory, the practice allows them to buy part of an animal and then, as a co-owner, acquire and drink its raw milk.But some states are cracking down on these arrangements or tightening laws to prevent them. In Maryland, for example, where it has long been illegal to sell raw milk for public consumption, officials adopted emergency regulations in October to stop farmers from selling shares of livestock to consumers.
"We believe that it is a sham to circumvent the law," says Ted Elkin, deputy director of Maryland's Office of Food Protection and Consumer Health Services. A farmer has since sued to overturn the new regulation. The case remains in litigation.
Squires also interviewed Sally Fallon of the Weston A. Price Foundation for her article. Ms. Fallon is an advocate of drinking unpasteurized milk. But as Doug Powell of the International Food Safety Network wrote today:
Sally Fallon and the foundation she represents engage in scientific cherry picking, selectively citing science and ignoring the outbreak side of the equation. E. coli O157:H7 is a natural resident of approximately 10 per cent of all ruminants -- the spinach outbreak of 2006 should have put that notion that natural is by default, better, to rest.
Back in New Hampshire, raw milk advocates are vying for looser regulations on its sale to keep up with growing demand.But as Brae Surgeoner and I have written,
"Raw milk producers want to afford consumers more options and choice is good. But as the 19th-century English utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill noted, absolute 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."
This is ridiculous! The idea that natural is not better than mettled with by man shows a level of presumption and ignoragnce that is laughable! One only needs to eat fresh from a garden that has had your own sweat and labor put into it to understand that with knowlege, attentiveness and cleanliness natural foods are BETTER! Those who write articles about a process of life they know nothing about because they have not lived it, should do more research before taking a stand on an issue. Finding one person who grew up drinking milk that made her sick before pastureizing it only proves that her mother didn't take care to sanitize her tools and the area before milking. There are many wonderfully responsible people who do sanitize the way they should and provide milk the way God intended it.
One last thought, All the scientific evidence the so called experts use to discount the nutritional contents of raw milk does not take into consideration that -Naturally-milk contains a specific combination of these nutrients to insure that it's digestibility is optimal. When it is tampered with in any way, you will get unwanted results, lactose intolerance being an obvious one.
Why is there a debate at all about using a resource in the way it was originally given? Ridiculous.