by David Gumpert
Whatha’s looking it? As raw milk’s popularity grows, so does scrutiny. It’s been a
tough twelve months for proponents of raw milk. Last April, as many as 81
Colorado consumers were sickened by campylobacter associated with raw milk.
Last September, about 35 people became ill with campylobacter, apparently from
milk from a Wisconsin dairy. And just in the last few weeks, 17 raw milk
drinkers in the Midwest associated with a dairy in Indiana have become ill with campylobacter.
Added to all that, Whole Foods last month notified producers in four
states—California, Washington, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania—that it would no
longer stock raw milk.
What’s the
problem? As far as the public health and medical establishments are concerned,
whenever people consume raw dairy products, it’s a problem. In their view, raw milk is inherently
dangerous and shouldn’t be produced or consumed.
But the fact
that as many as three million Americans regularly consume raw milk, according
to the Weston A. Price Foundation, calls the health establishment’s radical
view into question. Still and all, raw dairy proponents are coming around to
the view there is a problem—it’s just not the problem the authorities would
have us believe.
In their view,
these are really problems of success, stemming from raw
milk’s fast-growing popularity.
As part of a
long-standing campaign to encourage consumption of locally produced
nutrient-dense foods, the Weston A. Price Foundation has been encouraging
consumers to switch to unpasteurized milk.
But that doesn’t
mean the organization wants conventional dairies to just discontinue
pasteurization and sell their milk raw. As the organization says on its Real
Milk web site, it “recommends Real Milk—that is, milk that is full-fat,
unprocessed, and from pasture-fed cows. We do NOT recommend consumption of raw
milk from conventional confinement dairies or dairies which produce milk
intended for pasteurization…Real Milk, that is, raw whole milk from grass-fed
cows (fed pasture, hay and silage), produced under clean conditions and promptly
refrigerated, contains many anti-microbial and immune-supporting components;
but this protective system in raw milk can be overwhelmed, and the milk
contaminated, in situations conducive to filth and disease. Know your farmer!”
With growing
numbers of consumers willing to pay $7 and more a gallon for raw milk, more
dairies are looking to say good-bye to their local processors, who pay on the
order of $1 to $1.50 a gallon for milk intended for pasteurization. While there
are no exact figures, in states where raw dairies are licensed, like
Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts, the number of raw dairies has been
growing. Even in states where raw milk can only be sold via private arrangements,
known as cowshares or herdshares, like Michigan and Ohio, the number of dairies
getting into raw milk is understood to be rising sharply.
The biggest
problem may be that at least some farmers are slipping up in their production
of safe raw milk. That doesn’t mean raw milk can’t be produced safely on a
consistent basis. Obviously, many dozens of dairies are doing it day in and day
out, year after year. But as Tim Wightman of the Farm-to-Consumer Foundation points out, “There is value in understanding what happened” at the dairies that
have had outbreaks over the last year.
Wightman
suggests that dairies experiencing outbreaks may in some cases have unwisely
responded to increases in consumer demand by introducing animals purchased from
a factory system known for problems. “Looking for the best deal has its hidden
costs…for the farmer and the consumer, and the very web we depend on,” he says.
It’s precisely
because of its success that the raw milk community is now being placed under a
microscope by the media and regulators. There have been lengthy features challenging raw milk’s safety in
both The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal in just the last few weeks.
Part of the
challenge for raw milk proponents is that at least some have not wanted to
admit to the reality that people can become sick from drinking raw milk (just
as they can, and do, from pasteurized milk and other foods). It’s been thought that cows that
graze on pasture or eat hay produce milk that isn’t susceptible to pathogens.
It’s also been assumed that public health authorities are biased in their
investigations of outbreaks. As a result, the Weston A. Price Foundation has
expressed skepticism about whether raw milk has really been the culprit in the
Colorado and Wisconsin outbreaks, among others.
A Wall Street Journal blog
posting following up on the paper’s article accuses proponents of “dismissing
warnings about bacterial contaminants…” Unfortunately, the knee-jerk
defensiveness in the face of probable outbreaks, which wasn’t noticed when raw
milk was a fringe food, just won’t cut it any more now that raw milk is
regularly making the media big leagues.
In a truly open
market, the marketplace would force the bad dairies out of business. But we
don’t have a truly open market—we have one where regulators are in a position
to force good dairies out of business for the transgressions of bad dairies.
Therefore, it’s up to the raw milk community to police itself. It could be there needs to be a raw dairy association, with real authority to penalize dairies that don’t meet high standards. If the raw dairy community won’t take the responsibility to watch over its interests, the government will likely take over this responsibility even more than it already does, and the results won’t be geared toward protecting our rights to access the foods of our choice.
Related Links:
Whatever happened to the government’s war on raw milk? Just a shift in tactics
Can a new USDA advisory committee make the dairy industry less pathetic?