Should government be able to prohibit the sale of raw milk?
Posted at 5:00 AM on June 17, 2010
by Eric Ringham
(51 Comments)
Filed under: Health, Politics/Government
State health authorities say it's dangerous to drink raw milk, but some consumers and other advocates insist that it's a healthy alternative. Today's Question: Should government be able to prohibit the sale of raw milk?
Comments (51)
Jfarrell,
I was told the refrigerated truck information by 2 dairies and several of the truckers that haul the milk from said dairies when I asked about the power required to chill the milk. Maybe there are some trucks that are chilled, but the folks I spoke with who drive the trucks say nope. Also, this is about freedom of choice and nothing more. No one forces people to drink raw milk or anything else except making it incredibly difficult to not ingest chemicals deemed safe by the FDA which is a joke.
Oops! I meant to add:
My attitude is that if people are informed about the increased risk of food-borne illness from unpasteurized milk, then let them buy and consume it.
Include a notice like they do in restaurant menus about consuming raw or "undercooked" meat.
Oh, how I wish I'd gotten in on this one the day it was live. When people post outright falsehoods (either intentionally (to deceive), or out of ignorance), it irritates me to no end.
"If you look at the statistics, proportionally more people get sick from pasteurized milk than raw [fresh] milk. "
Really? Can you direct us to these statistics? Please? MILLIONS of people drink pasteurized milk every day. Relatively Very few people drink raw milk. If the rate of sickness from pasteurized milk were that high, it would be outlawed like lead paint.
"Did you know your precious milk travels unpasteurized in unrefrigerated trucks for days on end across the country before it is pasteurized?"
Did you know that every single part if this sentence is wrong except the fact that milk is transported to facilities for processing?
If you are seeking raw milk you are all ready educated and as an adult knowing what you are buying, should have the freedom to do so. As a former milk man I find it hard to promote processed milk over raw milk for health reasons. As far as the Government goes, just look at what a great job they did for the American Dairy Industry. For you younger folks who don't get the sarcasim, we used to have one that supported the idea of family owned farms.
I am a consumer of fresh milk. I actually know the cows my milk comes from. The MN constitution allows the sale of unprocessed farm products direct to the consumer. I like having that right. If you look at the statistics, proportionally more people get sick from pasteurized milk than raw [fresh] milk. Any milk will have e.coli and it should, we must have beneficial e.coli as part of the digestive process. When I hear that milk tested positive for e.coli and it does not say it was a pathogenic strain, to me it says the report is suspect. Until the commercial food system produces a safe, nutritious product, I want access to the real stuff.
Given that the current MN laws at least promotes the notion of the customer being able to personally vet the cleanliness of the farm yard and milk processing facilities, putting responsibility on the consumer to make their decision wisely, is there any need to have a blanket ban of all raw milk sales?
Alternatively, how about also banning sushi, steak tartare, all meat that has not been fully cooked (no red), fruits and vegetables that are sold to be eaten uncooked?
Given the overwhelming majority of food-borne illnesses come from processed foods, can't we just ban all food and live off vitamin tablets?
Raw milk can make people sick. Whole Foods discontinued selling raw milk in 4 states. In May 2010, Utah public health officials investigated nine more illnesses linked to the consumption of raw milk.The first cluster included nine reported cases of Campylobacter infection among residents in Weber, Davis and Cache Counties.The second cluster included six reported cases of Salmonella infection among residents in Utah, Salt Lake and Wasatch Counties.The 15 total affected people includes six cases of illness previously reported and nine new cases. All the milk came from the same two dairies. Also in May 2010 the Washington State Department of Health announced that two Washington residents who recently became ill with E. coli O157:H7 infections reported drinking raw milk purchased from Jackie's Jersey Milk in Whatcom County. A total of 8 E. coli O157:H7 infections have been associated with the consumption of raw milk purchased from the Bellingham dairy this year.
Pasteurized milk is processed to death. The heating renders milk into a substance that is more often more detrimental than nutritional to the human body. Besides merely killing pathogens, pasteurization results in DENATURED milk. More correct terms would be 'Natural Milk' and 'Denatured (or 'Depleted) Milk'.
Drinking milk should have nothing to do with lactose intolerance. While natural milk includes the enzyme lactase, depleted milk contains lactose. That is only one of the significant changes.
Rather than keeping the benefits of milk, the regulators has many people just avoid drinking milk at all because of lactose intolerance. Apparently, more important than nutrition is the fact that cost-efficient milk handling means more dollars in the pockets of the big milk-handling corporations. They are the ones who pay lobbyists and 'educational programs' in the interest of keeping natural milk away from consumers.
Consider that pasteurized (depleted/denatured) milk is full of dead pathogens, apparently (so far) harmless to humans, but still there.
Government should stay out of it, consumers should have the choice to 'pick their own poisons'. Money used for the regulation efforts would be better used for education so that more people have the means to intelligently analyze and make their own choices.Too many people depend on the government to do their thinking for them (regulation) while in reality, that 'thinking' is compromized by lobbying greed. Health and well-being of the American public is too often compromised by such misinformation and bias that has surrounded the milk industry for over 100 years. Lazy thinking assumes that the government always acts in the consumers' interest. Take a hard, second look, people!
Eddie,
I guess you are in favor of banning tobacco, alcohol and other things deemed dangerous? Did you know your precious milk travels unpasteurized in unrefrigerated trucks for days on end across the country before it is pasteurized? To me that is a concern, but if I can go to my farmer who I know personally and who milked the cow in the last 2-3 days and is willing to show me his or her setup there is no concern since I know what I am getting.
As for the kids viewpoint, what about HFCS, junk food, etc. that is killing the next generation from a mental and physical standpoint? Why are we not wanting to stop that?
Yes the government should prohibit raw milk sales.There are two issues: one outbreaks such as this raw milk situation is expensive and as taxpayers we pay. Who wins in this case? The lawyers. We have the science and the technology to prevent these situations. People want less government until something goes wrong such as in this situation. Prevention is cheaper than investigating outbreaks and the associated hospitalization expenses. Secondly, who is looking out for the children? Why would any parent put a child at risk to experience a terrible illness such as HUS? Adults may think they can do what they want but they should do no harm to their children. The real responsibility here is with the farmer.
For those of you against raw milk who claim it is a "public health issue", are you also against guns? Many more people die each year from guns than do e. coli. And, oh by the way, if you actually look at the e. coli statistics in Minnesota, how many outbreaks come from raw dairy? Zero according to their own reports. Cut and paste this link to see for yourself.
http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/idepc/diseases/ecoli/statistics.html
Your more likely to get it from your church function.
Oh, and I'm curious, what actually constitutes an "outbreak"?
As for you "the rest of us have to pay for their poor choices" people....are you serious? People who consume raw dairy do it to optimize health. The people you need to worry about are smokers and consumers of high fructose corn syrup and any other processed food (the rest of America). That's who your so called "health" insurance premiums are paying for.
Stu,
No cany-a** libertarian is going to force you to drink raw milk or anything you do not want to, but then if you knew any about libertarianism you would know that.
Al,
I am confused, are you referring to internet experts as the proponents of raw milk or the raw milk opponents?
Absolutely! This is a public health matter. The popularity of raw milk is another fine example of the failure of a sizable segment of the population to make judgments based on well proven science. It is alarming that so many people are duped into believing hoaxes perpetrated by self-proclaimed experts on the internet.
This highlights:
1. The failure of science educators to reach all students. (although when it comes to home schooled children - good luck reaching them with sound science)
2. The larger problem of students graduating from high school without being able to evaluate sources of information and determine credibility.
The state should absolutely set standards and regulate them when it comes to this matter. I love to eat and indulge in cuisines and foodstuffs that most won't go neat, but raw milk is a public health matter.
I don't want someone for cany-a** libertarian 'right's and/or doctrinal holistic idiocy jeopardizing the health of my family and my community.
I am a regular consumer of FRESH RAW MILK. The technology has advanced so far that it is entirely possible to produce fresh milk safely - in fact, the farmers who produce it are meticulously careful to maintain hygienic practices that meet or even exceed that of 'regular' milk producers, who can be a little sloppy sometimes because they can rely on the pasteurization process to 'clean up' their mistakes.
Fresh milk is healthier for the body and is better utilized because it has not been denatured through heat pasteurization, nor have the enzymes and vitamins been destroyed. There's more, but I'll stop here - I'm sure it's been said already!!!
We can buy RAW fish and RAW meat. We should be able to buy RAW milk. (The probiotics in unpasteurized milk are tremendous.) The dairy lobby doesn't want you to buy raw milk. Follow the money.
No one tried to ban raw spinach after it was implicated in an e. coli outbreak a few years ago. Rather, the government should regulate raw milk dairies to ensure consumer safety.
Wow! I didn't realize raw milk was so popular. I'm going to go out and get me some right away. That many lemmings can't all be wrong, can they?
The government should be involved. Yes , people have been drinking raw milk for years. My grandmother and all of her 5 sisters who were in their 20's and all had young children died of TB from the family cow. People can say they understand the risks - but don't really when it happens to them. When they are the ones who die of kidney failure or their children get very sick, they didn't really thought it could happen to them. The rest of us are payingfor their choices when they get sick.
As long as the government continues to allow the sale of cigarettes which we all know causes cancer and death and allows the sale of spinach, peanut butter and other products that have caused consumer illness they should stay out of peoples' business. Drinking raw milk should be a choice just like it is a choice to smoke cigarettes and eat foods that have previously caused illnesses.
Come on folk, the government always has your best interests in mind, right? This country is about freedom on choice as long at is does hurt another person. How can someone who knowingly buys raw milk be hurting another person? This is about choice plain and simple. And do not start down the path of parents not caring for their kids if they give them raw milk since do not care about parents smoking in the cars and homes around kids. Where does the big brother in the name of "safety" stop?
Contaminating bacteria shouldn't be in CLEAN milk, period. Pasturizing simply gives the APPEARANCE of cleanliness because it kills good AND bad bacteria. Really the issue should be producing clean milk, whether it is raw or not.
We produce raw goat milk on our farm and I do not produce milk that has bad bacteria in it--campylobacter and E.Coli are NOT ingredients of raw milk, they are contaminants of both raw and pastuerized milk. Everyone, whether big producer or small, should strive to produce CLEAN milk, and consumers should be free to choose whichever one suits their families and their comfort with risk.
So much of our food industry is hidden from us. From the true cost, to the methods and ingredients that go into what we consume, we don’t know a lot about what goes into our mouth. In my mind, the high ground is certainly not with the government health institutions that seek to ban raw milk. The role of government is not to ban the consumption of a raw food but to force (through regulation) the proper identification of that food including the safe handling of that food. Government needs to understand the science and the politics behind raw milk as a product and strike a balanced labeling approach. For years cigarettes took a huge toll on people yet proper regulation is just now occurring. Why not the same for raw milk ( a natural and un-processed product)? Simply said, because the politics are not aligned behind the small milk producer.
I definitely think that raw milk should be completely legal to buy directly from the farmer. I think it would be reasonable, however, to require that the farmer somehow make available information regarding the risks of raw milk.
It's really no different from oysters, steak tartare or "undercooked" eggs, and all of those are allowed as long as there are warnings about the risks.
I also think that there should be an optional inspection and licensing process which would also allow for retail sale rather than just direct sales. Direct sales should continue to be allowed without inspection and licensing however.
No. As long as consumers know the product is unpasteurized and willing to take the risk, the government should stay out of it.
Raw milk is a pathogen's pathway into our families. I learned this lesson the hard way. Back in 1975-76 school year, I took my class of 3rd graders to a dairy farm in my district. The culimating activity was eating cookies and drinking ice cold milk out of the bulk tank . Having been raised in the suburbs, I voiced my discomfort in letting the kids drink unpasteurized milk, but was assured by a veteran teacher that I was being over cautious. She had set this field trip up many times before. The dairy farmer assured me that they drank out the bulk tank all the time. There was no danger. I gave in to their so-called wisdom. The day following the farm field trip, two- thirds of the students who attended called in sick with stomach flu systems! My principal called the Minnesota Health Department and an investigation of kids' stool samples and the bulk tank revealed the same bacteria. That farmer had a problem with his herd and didn't know it until my students' illness showed him he did. I learned that day that Louie Pasteur was one smart man who followed the evidence and did not engage in magical thinking as so many of us do. That farmer learned something that day too: never let kids drink from the bulk tank again. It's cheaper than hiring an attorney.
"Should government be able to prohibit the sale of raw milk?"
No. The government should ensure that consumers have the appropriate information necessary to make decisions for ourselves.
I NEED RAW DAIRY. I grew up with it, but after I moved away from home, I drank conventional milk. Within a few years I became lactose intolerant and had other problems with dairy. Raw dairy does not have the enzymes cooked out of it, and I can easily digest it, giving me many more nutritional options in my limited diet. All foods carry some risk. This isn't so much a health issue as it is a political one. The big dairy business doesn't want small operators to take their monopoly away. I enjoy knowing my farmer, and personally trusting him with providing clean, safe milk. In my opinion that is much safer than faceless corporations spewing out millions of gallons of "dead" ultra-pasturized food products with less then optimum nutritional value.
How about allowing the sale, but putting a warning label on it (like on alcohol or tobacco) so that consumers can make informed, safe choices while still respecting people's freedom?
Raw milk is a dangerous product that should not be sold to the public. I am a food safety attorney based in Minneapolis and represent people all over the country who have been harmed grievously by drinking raw milk. I recently filed a lawsuit on behalf of a man who developed Guillain-Barre syndrome after drinking raw milk contaminated with Campylobacter jejuni bacteria. My client became totally paralyzed except for minimal movement of his head and the ability to blink his eyes. He was placed on ventilation equipment and is still unable to breathe on his own.
Raw milk has been linked to outbreaks of camplylobacteriosis, E. coli O157:H7 illness, listeriosis and salmonellosis. Virtually every health department, federal, state and local, recommends against drinking raw milk. It is particularly dangerous for young children, people with compromised immune systems and the elderly.
I'm amazed that so many of these comments from apparent MPR listeners, a group I would normally credit with above-average intelligence, are in favor of not restricting the sale or consumption of raw milk. It's simple science: raw milk is dangerous. If an adult wants to risk serious illness by consuming it, despite the science, then maybe there's not much we can do about it beyond trying to do more education. They'll probably find a way to get it even if it's illegal. But if that adult feeds raw milk to kids (as happened in the recent case), then without question we should do something about that -- it's tantamount to child abuse or worse.
There's a good commentary filled with lots of facts about this topic here:
http://www.faribault.com/news.php?viewStory=100036
Here's an excerpt:
"...these infections are exceeding[ly] rare with pasteurized milk and relatively common with raw milk. In the last 10 years there have been roughly 1,700 reported cases of milk-related illness, 190 hospitalizations, and at least three deaths. In Minnesota, 122 people from 94 families contracted an illness that lasted on average 3 months (that is a long time in the bathroom even by teenage girl standards). Every single victim had consumed raw milk from the same farm. Only 1 percent of the milk consumed in the U.S. is raw milk but it is responsible for over 70 percent of all reported dairy related illnesses. Another way to look at that data is that if 50 percent of the population drank raw milk then it would have caused 99.99 percent of these diseases. Put simply, you are 10,000 times more likely to get sick from raw milk than from pasteurized milk..."
Raw milk has many advantages for people who are lactose intolerant or who just want to be able to consume natural food the way people have for centuries with fresh, probiotic, non-sterile dairy products.
Cheap beef products from massive processing plants are much more dangerous and risky. 1 in 150 packages may be carrying e coli according to some in the industry. But we wouldn't know for sure because the USDA doesn't test regularly.
Know the risks of raw milk, see www.realrawmilkfacts.com.
Yes, of course, government should be able to prohibit the sale of raw milk. This is the "promote the general Welfare" part of government's duty.
The sale of a product, should imply that it's safe to use or consume. If you want to raise a cow and provide raw milk to your family, that should be your privilege. However, we should provide government with the resources (money and people) to see that the food sold to us is as safe as possible, even to the point of prohibiting the sale of some products.
I'm all for letting people have the freedom to do whatever durn-fool thing they want to do, as long as I don't have to pay for getting them out of whatever scrape they get themselves into, and as long as they pay for whatever damage they cause. The picture is a little different, however, when it comes to parents choosing what to feed their kids based on the latest pseudoscientific fad. Maybe people who buy raw milk should be made to sign a statement saying they understand the risks and affirming that they believe the germ theory of disease.
Of course not. I'm sick of the government thinking that they know what is best for everybody. If people want to drink raw milk that's their choice. Why can't people and the government just mind their own business.
Clearly the FDA and state health authorities are intruding on the constitutional rights of the people for purposes of protecting the large dairy processors. They only have jurisdiction over milk in commerce, yet they are harassing herdshares and buying clubs. Herdshare milk is milk from one's own cow, and is never sold, therefore neither the FDA nor states have jurisdiction over the legal possession or transportation of this milk. Herdshares are more difficult, but they are a last resort to supply milk where consumers are far away from a state where sales are permitted.
There needs to be a compelling reason for the government to single out a particular food for prohibition. Today, there is just not that strong of a case with raw milk. When objectively compared to other foods like raw poultry, ground beef, raw oysters, deli meats, salad greens, peanut butter, even food ingredients like hydrolyzed vegetable proteins, and anything imported from China, the risks are not that bad compared to the food quality.
We need some perspective on the illness rate from raw milk. Every raw milk illness is plastered all over the press despite the fact that there are an estimate 2.4 million Campylobacter cases in the US annually plus 1.4 million cases of salmonella from all food and nonfood sources (CDC), Only about 2-3 dozen are attributed to raw milk. Raw milk is less risky than deli meats.
Should they be able to prohibit the sale of raw milk? Of course they shoule be able to, just like they are able to prohibit the sale of cocaine. Should they do it? Well, probably not, but putting regulations on it like they have now is good.
I've been drinking raw milk for several years and know several other people who do so. No one has ever gotten sick. Raw milk sales are legal in several states and there has been no epidemic of illnesses in these states.
The real issue here is a dairy industry that is afraid of losing sales, once people realize how superior raw milk is. Raw milk has a rich, sweet flavor not present in the pasteurized stuff.
As with other foods, the conditions in which cows are kept makes the biggest difference in whether someone might get sick. And, no one screamed to ban sales of spinach when it was infected with e-coli.
Right now you're running a program on the health of foods. I wish there was as much concern about the junk - preservatives, chemicals, sugar, and sodium - that 's ubiquitous in 90% of supermarket foods as there is in the hysteria over raw milk.
Do people who drink raw milk really belive in the risks it poses?
I hate to generalize, but the few raw milk enthusiasts that I have known did not believe in germ theory.
One friend explained that if germs did cause disease and are killed in pasteurization, then drinking those dead things is the probable cause of cancer and allergies. (I was thinking, "Every animal I've ever eaten was dead and cooked." ) My friend had very little grasp of basic scientific principles, a bias against science, and she was highly intoxicated by a book she'd read.
I am all for homemade cheese and yogurt. However, I think it is suicidal to purchase raw milk from a dairy man who does not believe in pathogen theory.
After much research, I chose to try raw milk for myself and my family, we have been drinking it about every other week for the past nine months. We love the taste and texture. I was never officially diagnosed 'lactose intolerant' but felt I had issues with dairy and thus limited my intake. I have not felt any of those symptoms since I swiched to raw milk. I don't think it should be prohibited to sell raw milk. But I do think it should be made easier for farmers who do want to sell safe, raw milk to do it legally with affordable permits and have access to affordable daily milk testing procedures.
As long as where ever it is they are selling it is clearly labled in some way raw milk then people should be able to make their own choices.
The consumer should have the right to choose to buy raw milk. If people are aware of what raw milk is and how to get it, then they certainly are aware of the dangers.
If law makers feel the need to do something about this, perhaps make sure any hospitalization needed from ingesting raw milk is not paid for by public funds.....
My family grew up buying and drinking raw milk from a local farm. We went straight to the farm and extracted the milk ourselves from the holding tank. In times where the tank had been mixing while we were getting our portion we would take the cream that would be mixed in and make fresh homemade butter. There were many health advantages that came from this practice. We were able to ensure that we were getting the best possible dairy products free from the additives AND we were supporting one of our local farmers. We never became ill. Raw milk should not be prohibited by the government.
Libertarianism is attractive on the surface. Why shouldn't I be allowed to do what I want as long as I'm aware of the risks and take responsibility for them? Let's get rid of the "nanny state"! On the other hand, I think it's really nice that I can buy groceries without having to do lots of independent research on whether the food I buy might make me sick. I'd rather save my worry-energy for more important things. I may not want the government interfering in my life to protect me from myself, but I like having it to protect me from other people's abuse of their liberty to take advantage of me.
I think people should have right to choose if they drink unpasturized milk and milk products. It seems very risky to me and I would not offer unpasturized products to my family or anyone visiting my home. The pathogens that can be in unpasturized milk products are really dangerous and can carry life threatening consequences. I think there are enough risks in life without offering more to the people you love.
Before WWII, and certainly for all time before April 20, 1864, people all around the world drank their milk raw and fresh. Still to this day in countries throughout Europe raw milk and raw milk products are sold throughout mainstream grocery stores alongside pasteurized products. Certainly, governments regulate the operations that produce raw milk products, but the fact that they are legal ensures that they are part of the cold chain and not sold out of pickup trucks on the roadside, thus any risks are greatly reduced. Moreover, good cheese simply cannot be produced with pasteurized milk. The molds necessary to create wonderful living cheese require that the milk is alive. Cheese made from pasteurized milk will taste like plastic and not age well. Most Minnesotans who have not had the chance to explore Europe are probably unaware of the diverse world of cheese and dairy products. The first time I was in Germany and France I couldn't believe the diversity of dairy product I had never heard of. I am still discovery new products to this day. Also, the restrictive requirements on cheese and dairy products ensure that small farmers cannot have the option of small-scale cheese and dairy production, such as creating goat cheese, which can be a huge economic asset for farmers. Government banning of raw dairy products has a hugely detrimental effect on farmers and doesn't protect consumers.
If you don't know the risks of drinking raw milk, then you have no business drinking it or serving it to your family. Bottom line. End of story.
Unfortunately, we've gotten to the point in our society that we need an agent with the size & scope of government to begin teaching us about food, it's origins, & what it is and does to us. We've become grossly out of touch with our food supply, any one who watched the episode of Jaime Oliver's Food Revolution where a class full of 1st graders couldn't identify a tomato know what I'm talking about.
I work in a grocery store, and am routinely stunned at some of the ignorance & questions I get about food from otherwise normal looking, bright sounding adults.
We need education, not "new" food or food prohibition.
Humans have been drinking raw milk for centuries. In this day and age, anyone who chooses to drink it ought to have the common sense to be aware of the risks involved. I don't think that the sale of raw milk should be made illegal. I do, however, think anyone selling it should have their customers sign a waiver to protect themselves. If someone is going willing to risk their life to be 'healthy' they shouldn't be allowed to go after the person who sold them a knowingly risky product.
| June 2010 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock