Raw milk controversy in Pennsylvania

The Patriot News has posted an editorial regarding the sale of raw milk. They advocate that “As long as raw milk drinkers understand the higher risks, they should be allowed to drink it.”
http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2011/05/fda_offers_raw_deal_on_raw_mil.html
Comments that followed http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/05/your_comments_raw_milk.html were mostly in favor of the removal of government interference and the allowance of the sale of raw milk.

KSRI provides analysis of the issue for your consideration. Please check your own sources to verify all information given ANYWHERE.

There are several issues going on here. First, people are upset with government interference telling them what they can and cannot do. Second, there is a public safety issue regarding the product. Third, there is a “health” issue, that the product is better for you than what we can currently use or the current product (pasteurized milk) we have access to is actually bad and the more natural (less processed) product is better.

1. Government interference. Sure, this is an issue of personal preference for which there is no correct answer. Some people like the government regulation so they don’t have to think about certain things that may be bad for them. Others think of it as infringing on individual rights. It is correct to say that government regulates things they shouldn’t and doesn’t regulate things they should. In cases regarding public health and safety, the government is a stand-in to protect people who may not have all the best or correct information to make a decision on their own. Could you imagine if you had to decide which big ticket item to buy based on ONLY the manufacturer’s information without certain consumer regulations? What about borrowing money or visiting a health care provider? How about working in a coal mine or at a chemical factory without regulations? One wrong move and it could be devastating. But how about protection for children? Pharmaceutical testing, food regulations, product safety testing… we couldn’t very well do these things on our own. We need the power of the overarching body to make and enforce these protections. You may be smart enough to judge for yourself to use a certain product but NOT EVERYONE IS. Is allowing them to be hurt by their ignorance OK? Or is it an obligation of the governing body to provide safeguards? Perhaps, like I said, there is no right answer.

2. The public safety issue. There are COMPELLING reasons why pasteurization was instituted. People got sick and could die. Technology allows us to live far longer, healthier, safer lives. Most people don’t live on the farm and have fresh access to their food. Food products have to travel and stay safe and fresh for consumption. Technologies like pasteurization, sterilization, refrigeration, packaging, laboratory and field testing, etc. have allowed us to eat well and prosper, allowing us a rich and varied diet. In the case of raw milk, the bacterial contamination may not be in the milk but can come from the post-cow handling. It is little different than meat contamination. There is a very real hazard. In a situation where meat, milk and other food products were unregulated for contamination, how would the public react to hundreds of people, typically young children, dying from salmonella or E. coli contamination? In the past, those types of outbreaks resulted in increased oversight.

3. Claim that unpasteurized milk is “better for you” than treated milk or that milk in general is bad. This claim is a whole lot of nonsense with no quality science to back it up. (Note: You can find some poor studies that support ANY claim, as it is with this one. But, don’t be fooled by low-quality or advocacy research results.) Milk and milk-based products are excellent, nutritious foods. Granted, raw milk might be better for some products such as cheese. And, some people can not tolerate milk or overindulge in ALL food products to cause obesity or poor health. There is a rampant fallacy that “natural” products and food is better for you. Modern food products contain more nutrition and stay edible longer than ever before. We have been cooking food for 2 million years to make it easier to eat, extract nutrients and kill bacteria. If not for cooking and agriculture, we could not have achieved or have been able to sustain the societies and lifestyle we have today. And, just an obvious reminder, not all natural things are good for you. The very natural bacteria and diseases from other animals can kill you and some plants and fungi contain poisons. The very natural substances of radon in the rock, arsenic in the soil and viruses we pass from person to person are also harmful. If not for science and technological advances, we’d be back to the “good old days” where kids frequently died before their 10th birthdays and if you got an infected wound, you could die from it. Natural methods and products do not have magical properties.

I’m quite discouraged that people will fall for naturalistic fallacies used as marketing tools and that they so quickly forget how modern advances made our lives WAY safer. I don’t have to worry much that my drinking water will make me sick or that I will be exposed to a hazardous chemical at work thanks to regulations in place to help prevent such things. No system is perfect but we have progressed very far. I will, however, be concerned about the consequences of allowing an unsafe, untested food product that will be given to children and possibly to others without their knowledge of the risks from it. Not everyone is so diligent to pay attention to the risks all the time. Like wearing a seat belt, NOT drinking unpasteurized milk is an obvious choice.