Raw Milk Rebellion

How much business does the government have in the barnyard?

Jacob Grier | May 16, 2008

On May 1, Pennsylvania state troopers arrived at the home of Mennonite farmer Mark Nolt, seizing a reported $20,000 to 25,000 worth of farm equipment and placing Nolt under arrest. His crime? The illegal sale of unpasteurized milk and other dairy products. And Nolt isn't alone. In February, federal investigators subpoenaed two employees of Mark McAfee's Organic Pastures Dairy in California. Though the subpoenas do not indicate the purpose of the investigation, McAfee told me the feds were seeking evidence that his dairy was selling unpasteurized milk for human consumption across state lines.

These are just the latest skirmishes in the growing conflict over the right to sell unpasteurized, or "raw" milk. On one side of the fight is an odd coalition of whole foodists, dairy farmers, and libertarians who want the government to butt out of their milk-drinking decisions. On the other side are public health officials and assorted busybodies determined to tighten regulations.

Fittingly, the debate has come to a head in California, a state equally known for its organic foods and its nanny state meddling. Late last year, the legislature quietly enacted strict new bacteria limits on raw milk, holding the product to the same standard of sterility as its pasteurized counterpart. Proponents contend the rule is necessary to protect consumers from dangerous diseases. Opponents, including McAfee and state Senator Dean Florez, say the standard is unfeasible and will put dairymen out of business. They've secured a temporary restraining order against the law, but losing in court could bring about what Florez calls "the end of raw milk in California."

While the fight to produce and consume unpasteurized milk might seem like a step back in time, raw milk advocates have good reason to lament the state of the modern dairy. Today's agricultural processes sacrifice flavor for safety. In the 2004 edition of his classic book, On Food and Cooking, food science writer Harold McGee explains how milk used to change with the seasons. When it wasn't preserved in cheese, butter, or other products, it was enjoyed fresh on the farm and tasted of the pasture. The growth of cities in the 18th and 19th centuries changed this. Without access to grass, cows were often fed on less nutritious fare, like the spent grains from beer brewing. The resulting milk was less flavorful and frequently unsafe. Expanding railroads and the invention of the refrigerated rail car brought fresher milk to the cities, but these required producers to pool their output, increasing the risk of contamination. Milk-borne illness quickly became a major cause of infant mortality.

Thus pasteurization came as a tremendous boon. By heating milk below the boiling point, producers killed off potentially harmful bacteria and increased their product's shelf life. As pasteurization became the norm, both the federal government and many states prohibited the sale of unpasteurized milk. Though these regulations made milk safer, today's burgeoning growth in natural foods requires a looser regulatory approach.

In short, safer milk resulted in the loss of seasonality and taste. Cooking milk introduces new flavors, some of them unpleasant. And since pasteurization kills bacteria indiscriminately, many raw milk devotees argue that the process robs them of probiotics, bacteria that they say build their immune systems and aid digestion. As McAfee put it to me, "kids are germ magnets." Exposing them to raw milk, he argues, is good for them. Similarly, the testimonials section on the website of the Campaign for Real Milk, a project of the Weston A. Price Foundation that aims to overturn legal barriers to unpasteurized milk, is full of quotes from people writing that the product has cured them of everything from indigestion to autism. While some of these claims are obviously far-fetched, it's clear that many raw milk drinkers believe they benefit from introducing a thriving population of bacteria into their bodies.

And therein lies the problem. If a batch of unpasteurized milk happens to be tainted with E. coli or Listeria, feeding it to a "germ magnet" will lead to potentially serious illness. In his testimony at Florez' senate hearing, University of California-Davis professor Michael Payne testified that although raw milk accounts for just a tiny percentage of milk consumption in the U.S., it is responsible for twice the number of disease outbreaks as pasteurized milk. John Sheehan, director of the FDA's Division of Dairy and Egg Safety, takes things further and compares drinking raw milk to "playing Russian roulette with your health."

Alarmist statements like Sheehan's make it hard to believe the government's more reasonable warnings, and the FDA's ban is arguably part of what gives raw milk its allure. Payne does not advocate banning the sale of raw milk, but he does suggest that tighter regulations could help ensure safety. At greatest issue is California's new requirement that raw milk contain no more than 10 coliform bacteria per milliliter, the same standard that pasteurized milk must meet. The state argues that even though these bacteria are not inherently harmful, their presence is suggestive of fecal contamination; McAfee contends that such a low measure will be impossible to satisfy in California. Although Maine and Washington have instituted the 10 coliform limit without killing their raw milk industries, he is right to worry. Nearly a quarter of samples tested in Washington and Maine didn't pass the test, and even California's own Department of Food and Agriculture reports that only 25% of bulk milk samples collected in the state pass the test before being pasteurized.

Florez is considering legislation that would substantially raise the coliform limit for raw milk and increase testing for pathogens, along with other safety improvements. Given that so many raw milk consumers demand live bacteria in their milk, it's a reasonable compromise, and one that McAfee says his dairy could live with.

And yet, while certain regulations make sense for broad retail sales, there's something heroic in the civil disobedience of men like Mark Nolt. After all, if a consenting adult wants to buy milk taken straight from the cow, is it any business of the law to interfere?

When I recently visited dairywoman Kitty Hockman-Nicholas at Hedgebrook Farms in Winchester, Virginia, I saw nothing dangerous or diabolical. Kitty showed me around the farm, introduced her cows by name, and demonstrated her milking process. It would have been illegal for Kitty to sell me raw milk—she provides it for people who buy into "cow shares" and thus technically own the cows from which they get their dairy—but she kindly sent me home with some as a gift.

My trip to the farm provided delightful insight into the origins of one of our most essential foods. I didn't enjoy any miraculous health effects after drinking it, but the taste was smooth and creamy, with none of the processed aftertaste I now can't help noticing in store-bought milk. As I sipped my unpasteurized beverage, I reflected on the absurdity of the situation: If Kitty were to offer the same experience to others for a profit, the government could forcibly put her out of business.

Though Mark Nolt, Mark McAfee, and their loyal customers' devotion to raw milk may seem eccentric to some, the consumption of raw fish in sushi or uncooked meat in beef carpaccio is equally strange to others. And with consumer freedom increasingly under attack from busybodies on the left and right, it's hard not to admire their rebelliousness and their resolution to drink milk in its freshest form. Though there is certainly a place for reasonable food safety laws, any regulation that leads to otherwise law-abiding farmers being shutdown or arrested has gone too far. With a growing movement of consumers demanding raw milk, the time has come for the government to get out of their way.

Jacob Grier is a writer at the Cato Institute.

Comments

Ike|5.16.08 @ 3:17PM|#

After outlining the historical context which produced the advent and wholesale adoption of pasturization to prevent milk-borne diseases, Mr. Grier then says that we ought not be required to forfeit taste for safety. Further, he cites the increasing popularity of the products of the "organic" foods industry as a situation requiring allows unpastuerized milk be produced and sold. Is that the same "organic" foods industry that recently treated its customers to a dose of e.coli? Oh, yes, of course, by all means, let's have more of that. By the way, I write "organic" in quotes because it is a mis-nomer; all produce and vegetables are organic; I know of none which are metallic or otherwise inorganic. Yes, the reference is to the source of the fertilizers, but the naming is intentionally misleading.

To prefer taste or fashion over safety is not particularly intelligent. Certainly, people ought to be allowed to kill themselves, but not by spreading diseases among their neighbors.

Old Bull Lee|5.16.08 @ 3:21PM|#

I felt nauseous reading that article (a personal bias against milk), but more power to them for doing it their own way. It's not like pasteurized, processed milk from the store is all that safe and healthy, either.

If they're really so worried about bacteria, they should ban kids from going to school.

Milk has a big lobbying presence, are they involved in this fight?

|5.16.08 @ 3:22PM|#

Certainly, people ought to be allowed to kill themselves, but not by spreading diseases among their neighbors.

Why aren't their neighbors free to choose too?

Guy Montag|5.16.08 @ 3:22PM|#

If somebody wants to buy milk taken directly from a cow, should the government stand in the way?

This seems utterly rude and inconsiderate.

Anonymous|5.16.08 @ 3:23PM|#

Libertarians get incensed over the nuttiest things. Government enforcement of health regulations is a good thing, because 99.99% of us don't want to risk consuming unsafe food. If that steps on the sensibilities of a handful of fruitcakes out there who, presumably in pursuit of some misguided and pseudoscientific "organic" nonsense, want to put themselves at risk, I for one am perfectly incapable of caring less.

Guy Montag|5.16.08 @ 3:24PM|#

Anonymous,

Are you new here? We want fruitcake deregulated too, even though most of us never consume it.

|5.16.08 @ 3:27PM|#

This seems utterly udderly rude and inconsiderate.

Is that what you meant, Guy?

|5.16.08 @ 3:28PM|#

Damned italics tags!

|5.16.08 @ 3:29PM|#

This is a no brainer. Label it and sell it. Caveat emptor.

Guy Montag|5.16.08 @ 3:31PM|#

JsD,

I meant correct spelling/grammar but funny pronounciation.

Using udder makes it too obvious and the correction Nazis shy away too :)

smokey|5.16.08 @ 3:32PM|#

Thanks for the article. Do I dare point out that Ron Paul has authored legislation decriminalizing the sale of raw milk across state lines?

Personally, I love real milk, and will stop at nothing to have it.

|5.16.08 @ 3:34PM|#

Libertarians get incensed over the nuttiest things. Government enforcement of health regulations is a good thing, because 99.99% of us don't want to risk consuming unsafe food.

Oh shut up.

Pulling numbers out of your ass is a good way to indicate you have nothing useful to say.

The CO-OP i buy Raw (Unpasteurized) Milk from is huge and getting bigger every week.

Lots of people clamor for Raw Milk Cheeses that aren't available.


If that steps on the sensibilities of a handful of fruitcakes out there who, presumably in pursuit of some misguided and pseudoscientific "organic" nonsense, want to put themselves at risk, I for one am perfectly incapable of caring less.

The irony of a guy who just stated a pulled out of his/her ass "99.99%" calling out others for using "pseudoscience" is priceless

|5.16.08 @ 3:35PM|#

Certainly, people ought to be allowed to kill themselves, but not by spreading diseases among their neighbors.

What are these communicable milk borne diseases consumers of raw milk are spreading?

The Wine Commonsewer|5.16.08 @ 3:36PM|#

Well, anon, I think it's idiotic to drink unpasteurized milk unless it's your own cow, but what makes you believe that pasteurization will be dropped like a hot rock once the jack boot is removed from the milk industry's neck?

The Wine Commonsewer|5.16.08 @ 3:38PM|#

Ah, no offense, Tom. I meant idiotic in the sense that you walk into the supermarket and you have no idea where the milk came from, which, is not the case with your co-op.

|5.16.08 @ 3:38PM|#

If you don't want to consume Raw Milk, don't consume it.

But don't force those of us who enjoy a superior product (at least to us it is) to have to settle for something we would rather not have.

It's called freedom, and it involves not forcing your will on others.

Guy Montag|5.16.08 @ 3:39PM|#

What are these communicable milk borne diseases consumers of raw milk are spreading?

Maybe he is worried about the possibility of raw-milk fire hose wet T-shirt contests spewing a raw milk aerosal all over the neighborhood?

You know, give those raw milkers an inch and they will take the whole block.

Alley|5.16.08 @ 3:39PM|#

It is not entirely clear that these raw milk producers offer milk that is more dangerous than regular milk. More bacteria does not always mean more dangerous (the real concern is listeria). This is because they tend to be small-scale, grass-fed, specialty dairy farms, which do not use the agricultural practices of the massive corporate dairy industry. The practices and conditions needed for mass production are much more likely to lead to bacteria in the milk than the above smaller scale farms. Also, the taste issue is not flip, silly, or self-indulgent. The best cheeses in the world are usually made with raw milk (and have been traditionally made this way for a very long time), and they almost never cause health problems. Many are legal in the US, although raw milk cheese that has been aged less than 60 days is illegal. American cheese lovers smuggle it in from France.

|5.16.08 @ 3:40PM|#

Ah, no offense, Tom.

None taken, TWC.

|5.16.08 @ 3:41PM|#

More bacteria does not always mean more dangerous (the real concern is listeria).

True...
and from what I have read, you have a 10X higher chance of getting listeria from Cold Cuts than from Raw Milk.

Guy Montag|5.16.08 @ 3:42PM|#

The raw milk people do have a major fact in their corner. Doesn't anybody remember where we got Pastuerization from anyway?

|5.16.08 @ 3:42PM|#

Maybe he is worried about the possibility of raw-milk fire hose wet T-shirt contests spewing a raw milk aerosal all over the neighborhood?

interesting visual

smokey|5.16.08 @ 3:45PM|#

I've been to visit my local raw dairy. 50 healthy cows eating green grass, no hormones, pesticides, antibiotics. The cows themselves are beautiful animals, noble looking, even. Nothing like the short, squat, shit-smeared factory creatures from which the supposedly safe product comes.

Zeb|5.16.08 @ 3:45PM|#

There are a lot of reasons to consume organic/natural/whole foods, including the fact that they are generally of better quality and taste better (particularly local stuff, the national brands of organic produce don't do much for me). Just because it is something that hippie-dippies like doesn't mean it is stupid.

I do not think that anyone is suggesting that raw milk should replace pasteurized on the supermarket shelf. If you are buying raw milk, you are doing so quite deliberately. If you don't accept the risks, pasteurized milk is way easier to find.

The Wine Commonsewer|5.16.08 @ 3:47PM|#

Good point Guy, the milk industry gave us pasteurization and once it became more or less the norm the government codified it into law.

|5.16.08 @ 3:47PM|#

Some of these farms selling shares in the cow as an end-run around the law aren't doing anyone any favors, like Dee Creek Farm, which caused an outbreak of E.coli O157:H7 that hospitalized several kids near the Oregon/Washington border. I saw photos of the farm when the ag department went in after the outbreak was traced to them, and they would have failed any inspections big time (setting milking equipment down on poo-covered hay, etc.). If you ask me, it's farms like that making it harder for the more responsible farms who want to offer raw milk to consumers.

I did a taste test once, and I couldn't tell the difference between raw milk and pasteurized but not homogenized milk. If I could buy several types of milk from the same farm and taste-test, maybe I could tell? I also let them go bad, because most raw-milk proponents claim that it sours in some better way than grocery-store milk. But again, the biggest difference was in homogenized versus non-homogenized.

The Wine Commonsewer|5.16.08 @ 3:47PM|#

interesting visual

Maybe Stagliano would be interested in making a film?

oozing listeria|5.16.08 @ 3:51PM|#

GM,

I'm going with Hitler or Satan as an answer to your question

Guy Montag|5.16.08 @ 3:52PM|#

TWC,

Nein! Nein! Nein!

The french "gave" us that process!!!!

Okay, deep breaths.

Maybe Stagliano would be interested in making a film?

LOL, I forgot all about him and I must have made 20 posts in that thread!

Guy Montag|5.16.08 @ 3:52PM|#

ol wins the quiz with Satan

|5.16.08 @ 3:53PM|#

ALEX!

|5.16.08 @ 3:57PM|#

But again, the biggest difference was in homogenized versus non-homogenized.


Farmer's Creamery has a very good tasting VAT Pasteurized / Non-HOMOGENIZED line of milk products. We drink it when we are out of Raw Milk. The only off putting feature is that it needs to be shaken vigorously else there are some large solid particulate in it.

Easy to find too. It is sold in my local Jewel and Dominick's (The two biggest Supermarket chains in the Chicago Area) as well as Whole Foods.

The Wine Commonsewer|5.16.08 @ 3:59PM|#

Yes, the Frogs, Monsieur Guy, but I meant that the process was instituted by the milk industry as a way to combat health and safety problems. Something like adding Nitrates to processed bologna was done for health reasons not to make the meat look better (as is often asserted by the greenies). Not that I'm touching processed meat (except Italian sausage, grilled brats, or Nathan's) anyway.

The Wine Commonsewer|5.16.08 @ 4:01PM|#

shaken vigorously else there are some large solid particulate in it

My old man says that in the winter (St Paul) when you fetched the bottled milk from the porch there was often a stick of cream poking out of the top of the bottle that had dislodged the paper closure when the liquid milk froze.

|5.16.08 @ 4:07PM|#

Harper's did a far better article ("The Revolution will not be Pasteurized...") on this a couple of months ago. It fleshes out some of the reasons for health benefits only touched upon by Grier.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/04/0081992

Guy Montag|5.16.08 @ 4:07PM|#

Dominick's

I have not been to one of them since the 1970s! It was my favorite grocery store when I was a kid. The one in Matteson, right next to Korvette's(sp?)

douglas gray|5.16.08 @ 4:12PM|#

As we know from past experiences, raw spinach is much more likely to be tainted and cause illness than canned or frozen, but we don't throw people in jail for producing and marketing it.

Calves feed pasteurized milk die within six months, whereas they will remain healthy with raw milk. It can't be all bad.

I buy McAffees milk and it is worth it to me, please leave us alone.

Guy Montag|5.16.08 @ 4:13PM|#

I buy McAffees milk and it is worth it to me, please leave us alone.

I thought they made anti-virus milk?

|5.16.08 @ 4:16PM|#

Raw milk (properly handled) is better for you than pasteurized milk. As Casey Stengel used say "You can look it up." Nina Planck's Real Food is a good place to start. Humans drank it raw for several thousand years. One definition of real food is that it spoils. But Americans are such WATBs.

|5.16.08 @ 4:18PM|#

Slightly off topic, but has anyone else noticed that the expiration dates of organic milk are longer than that of regular milk? It spoils just the same once opened, but has longer shelf life until then. Anyone know why?

Invisible Finger|5.16.08 @ 4:20PM|#

Revoke my libertarian credentials if you must, but this is an overblown issue.

The state sets a bacteria limit. Quibble over the reasonableness, but a line will still be drawn somewhere and a test will be administered on raw milk to see if it is "safe" or not. The stuff that's safe can be sold as unpasteurized, the rest gets pasteurized and sold as such. Even if the state relaxes the standards a smidgen (fine by me), some of the raw milk will still fail the test and it makes more sense to pasteurize the stuff that fails than to consider it worthless.

|5.16.08 @ 4:21PM|#

Milk has a big lobbying presence, are they involved in this fight?

COnsidering the amount of money they have invested in the pasteurization process, and how much overhead that adds to potential competition trying to get into the market, I wouldn't be surprised if they were... opposing raw milk. Classic baptists and bootleggers.

Invisible Finger|5.16.08 @ 4:22PM|#

spoils just the same once opened, but has longer shelf life until then. Anyone know why?

I suspect the shelf life is exactly the same, it's a matter of how quickly the product is packaged and delivered to the grocer.

|5.16.08 @ 4:25PM|#

The state sets a bacteria limit.

Why? To protect consumers? Then fine, sell milk labeled as Grade A and sell milk labeled as "Does not conform to FDA standards". Why is it that so many people believe that the appropriate response to protecting consumer safety is to ban products with potential unsafe risks instead of simply informing consumers about said risks?

|5.16.08 @ 4:31PM|#

I'll answer my own question. Because adults need to be treated like children...especially to protect the children.

Paul|5.16.08 @ 4:31PM|#

How much business does the government have in the barnyard?

My guess is that the response you're going to get is that it has as much business in the barnyard as it does in the slaughterhouse, the meat packing plant, or the restaraunt kitchen.

kinnath|5.16.08 @ 4:37PM|#

One can generalize that practices that are safe and sound in boutique operations become unsafe and unsound in mass production.

A case can be made for regulating mass production, and maybe even extending some regulations to boutique operations. But a case cannot be made for banning those boutique operations because they don't conform to mass-market regulations.

It doesn't matter whether we're talking about bacon-wrapped hotdogs or raw milk. The state should not be banning those operations.

kinnath|5.16.08 @ 4:38PM|#

Note that regulating something out of business is the same as banning it outright.

Plant Imigration Rights Suppor|5.16.08 @ 4:49PM|#

For those who want to by raw milk this URL is a good source of info:

http://realmilk.com/where.html

Neu Mejican|5.16.08 @ 4:55PM|#

The state sets a bacteria limit.

Why? To protect consumers? Then fine, sell milk labeled as Grade A and sell milk labeled as "Does not conform to FDA standards". Why is it that so many people believe that the appropriate response to protecting consumer safety is to ban products with potential unsafe risks instead of simply informing consumers about said risks?

If you are using the correct metric to determine "safe" from tainted, you should label these as "safe" and "tainted" and include the evidence-based relative risk factor for the "tainted" based on the measured bacterial load...making those who want to sell the "tainted" milk foot the bill for the research and monitoring that is involved in providing this information, of course.

|5.16.08 @ 5:03PM|#

If you are using the correct metric to determine "safe" from tainted, you should label these as "safe" and "tainted" and include the evidence-based relative risk factor for the "tainted" based on the measured bacterial load

It's not tainted. It's unknown. Caveat emptor. No special testing necessary.

Of course, the seller may choose to elicit certification from a certifying vendor of their choice, but that's their prerogative.

Rhywun|5.16.08 @ 5:04PM|#

I like my milk plain and 2% rather than "creamy" and "tasting of the pasture" *shudder*. But I agree with this:

This is a no brainer. Label it and sell it. Caveat emptor.

LarryA|5.16.08 @ 5:11PM|#

To prefer taste or fashion over safety is not particularly intelligent.

So we should ban high-heeled shoes? What else? I could think up quite a list off the top of my head.

The balance, of course, is how much of each. If pasteurized milk is marginally safer but far less tasty then many people may make the decision for taste.

My wife's physician suggested she limit caffeine for health reasons. She's given up caffeinated tea, already didn't drink coffee, and limits her cola intake. But she refuses to give up chocolate. It's her choice. When he argues, "You might live longer," She asks, "Why?"

|5.16.08 @ 7:19PM|#

It would have been illegal for Kitty to sell me raw milk-she provides it for people who buy into "cow shares" and thus technically own the cows from which they get their dairy-but she kindly sent me home with some as a gift.

53 posts and no: "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" Almost unbelievable.

Paul|5.16.08 @ 7:54PM|#

But she refuses to give up chocolate. It's her choice. When he argues, "You might live longer," She asks, "Why?"

So she can lie around the hospital dying of nothing.

|5.16.08 @ 7:54PM|#

Another thing which remains unmentioned. I do not want to drink raw milk, but I have experimented with home cheesemaking. Homogenized milk produces an inferior curd,and the dairy industry is gradually switching to a higher temperature (UT) method of pasteurization which denatures the casein. Even by government regulations, commercial hard cheeses aged more than 90 days do not need to be made from pasteurized milk (the pathogens die in that period of time). Also, some cheeses which are eaten fresh, such as mozzarella, incorporate a period of cooking after the curd is set in order to expel whey, resulting in pasteurization in all but name. In order to obtain unhomogenized milk which has not been subjected to UT pasteurization, I have purchased raw milk. Raw milk has a shelf life of only several days (pasteurized milk can sit in your fridge for a couple of weeks.) If somebody can find me pasteurized "legal" milk that is suitable for cheesemaking, I would go for it, but until then....

|5.16.08 @ 10:07PM|#

In my state Bovine TB killed a child a while back - raw milk made into a soft cheese was the culprit. Listeria, Bovine TB, Brucellosis, and just recently there is concern about milk-borne rabies. So are we just talking about excessive, possibly benign bacteria? Coliforms have been use as indicators of possible contamination for years - it is not without flaws, but there are protocols for it's use in water testing.
Are we talking just about adults? The thing is the raw milk advocates consider it a healthier food than pasteurized milk, several have said that they wouldn't give their child anything else. This leads me to my absurd and ironic fantasy - get the La Leche League "cow's milk is for baby calves" in a discussion group with the raw milk serving mothers and see what ensues.

|5.17.08 @ 12:05AM|#

It's called freedom, and it involves not forcing your will on others.

Chicago Tom -- I'm glad to see you've seen the light, and will henceforth oppose involuntary taxation, socialized medicine, and compulsory funding of public education by people who send their kids to private schools or homeschool.

Or is it only when you're the recipient of this forcing that your dander gets up?

Matt Moore|5.17.08 @ 12:36AM|#

@sixstring: The national organic brands are all ultra-pasteurized at a higher temperature than normal milk. I think they do this because organic milk is only produced on a limited number of farms, so it takes longer to get it to market.

If they packaged it in the right container (as they do in Europe and Canada, I believe) you could keep it unopened on a shelf, at room temperature, for weeks or maybe even months.

bill|5.17.08 @ 12:43AM|#

My grandmother drank nothing but raw milk for decades to help with her arthritis. She lived to 92 and was almost never sick. We'd go to the farm down the road at milking time, watch the milk come out of the cows into a chiller and the farmer would pull off a jug right in front of us. Humans have been pasteurizing for 200 years and drinking raw for 10,000. Most milk on the planet to this day is drunk raw. With properly cared for grass fed cows and properly clean equipment the chances of getting sick are very low. The "good" bacteria doesn't allow the "bad" to reach levels which make you sick. Remember, pasteurized milk rots, raw milk ferments.

lajaw|5.17.08 @ 7:05AM|#

"I like my milk plain and 2% rather than "creamy" and "tasting of the pasture" *shudder*."

You shudder because you are no longer connected with the production of your food. I bet you grew up thinking milk came from the grocery store.

DS|5.17.08 @ 12:22PM|#

"Humans have been pasteurizing for 200 years and drinking raw for 10,000. Most milk on the planet to this day is drunk raw. "

This the same reason that people in Mexico have no intestinal troubles when they drink their water, but Americans get "Montezuma's Revenge" from simply brushing their teeth or eating lettuce that has been cleaned in Mexican water.

Their bodies have developed immunities from birth that Americans have not. If you spend enough time in Mexico your system will eventually adjust.

Daniel Reeves|5.17.08 @ 4:43PM|#

I can't believe some of you! I know this sounds insane, but think for a second.

There's a big sign in my local Chipotle that talks about how natural their meat and veggies are. Can you honestly say that all hell will break loose if food is completely deregulated?

There's a huge incentive for stores to not sell food that sucks, both due to losing customers and even more because of legal damages.

The video game industry regulates itself. So why wouldn't the food industry? If you're a Jew, you should know exactly what I'm talking about. You guys look for the kosher labels on food products, and there are various different organizations that have their own different "kosher" labels. Private companies could pop up that evaluate food products and then give them their seal of approval. And a truly reliable company wouldn't want to jeopardize their position with under the table deals. Government could learn a lot from that (*ahem* lobbying).

But by all means, if someone wants to consume food that they know is raw or whatever, more power to that lunatic.

Remember, there's a big difference between thinking somebody should do something and thinking somebody should have the right to do something. Libertarians know the difference. (Errr, well most do. Sometimes I read these comments and I really do wonder. You guys are crazy.)

Daniel Reeves|5.17.08 @ 4:48PM|#

Also, if Wal-Mart is selling x food product, that could also be considered Wal-Mart's seal of approval on the product. What I'm saying is that Wal-Mart can refuse to sell goods that don't meet certain standards, and while food regulation in America isn't too bad of an issue, the fear of the regulators is so completely overblown as to completely disregard the intermediaries between the producer and the buyer.

Ira|5.19.08 @ 10:13AM|#

The society should control disease vectors
because society pays for medical care of these
people who want to be free to hurt themselves.

Their freedom ends at my wallet.

|5.19.08 @ 11:11AM|#

To prefer taste or fashion over safety is not particularly intelligent.

Au contraire (pardon my French). To live a life devoid of taste or fashion shows a lack of intelligence.

I just spent nearly an hour this weekend learning a new knot for my ties, and I do not regard this as a waste of time or a sign of low intelligence. The new knot is more symmetrical, holds a dimple better, and is more substantial, and as such it is a significant addition both to my quality of life and to the aesthetic enjoyment of those who have the good fortune to encounter me.

|5.19.08 @ 12:15PM|#

Posters seem to have conveniently forgotten to ask:
When you get sick from raw milk, just who is going to pay your medical bills?

May I suggest that, until MDs and hospitals are allowed to refuse treatment to [pick one: idiots, uninsured, other people], there is justification to control distribution of potentially hazardous materials

Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|5.19.08 @ 1:16PM|#

"May I suggest that, until MDs and hospitals are allowed to refuse treatment to [pick one: idiots, uninsured, other people], there is justification to control distribution of potentially hazardous materials."

So we must lose one freedom because we do not have another? The solution is more freedom not less.

|5.20.08 @ 11:11AM|#

Humans drinking the milk of another animal at all doesn't make sense and is not healthy anyway.

|5.20.08 @ 1:35PM|#

regarding:
"When you get sick from raw milk, just who is going to pay your medical bills?"

who pays the medical bills of people who have heart disease because of the very poor diet they have eaten? this is a huge number and makes the raw milk issue moot. please, get a grip on reality.

|5.21.08 @ 5:14PM|#

This is stupid. Raw milk is wholesome. I have used it for years. Is it now the new Black Plague?

Follow the money and the control, people.

|5.22.08 @ 8:29AM|#

Stop being sissys and take personal responsibility for your own food. I will turn 40 next month, and I am perfectly capable of taking care of myself and my family. As far as raw milk is concerned, as long as there is a healthy cow on the face of this planet, I will continue to drink raw milk. There is nothing the government can do to stop me.