I promised to follow up further on the legislative hearings on raw milk held earlier this week in Harrisburg, PA. While there was a troubling amount of raw-milk-can-kill-you propaganda from the two public health types, which I recounted (and troubling because Pennsylvania is supposed to be a “liberal” state), there actually was sort-of agreement between the agriculture bureaucrats and raw-milk proponents in two key areas:

  1. Raw milk can’t be guaranteed to be completely safe.
  2. Once we accept #1, raw milk is a hot product area, and is a major component in the revival of direct-to-consumer food sales in general.

On the subject of safety, Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture, Dennis Wolff, stated, “Even the best sanitation practices cannot 100% prevent illness from raw milk, so farmers must do all they can to reduce risk and PDA has an obligation to the public to do all it can to montor the raw milk that they purchase. Our intent at the PDA is to provide farmers with best practice information for minimizing contamination…”

No threats here about banning the sale of raw milk. However, he used the case of Mark Nolt, the farmer whose dairy was raided last month after he disobeyed PDA and court orders to not sell a variety of raw dairy products, to express opposition to allowing farmers to sell raw-milk yogurt, butter, and soft cheeses. “The more raw dairy products are handled and processed, the greater the possibility for bacteria to be introduced. Also, the longer processing time and shelf life of these products allows bacteria to multiply significantly.” So raw milk is okay, but the germ theory is alive and well for the secretary. Progress of a sort, I suppose.

It was on the subject of economics that one of the best presentations was made—by Brian Snyder, executive director of the Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture. He argued that the fear factor many people bemoaned on my initial posting about the Pennsylvania hearings may be diminishing in impact.

He pointed out that the 75 Pennsylvania farms with raw milk permits is more than triple the number four years ago,” and added that “the current situation constitutes a genuine success story for Pennsylvania agriculture and that our farmers who do a good job of serving their customers are under enormous pressure to sell more and more product to markets both within and outside the state.”

His conclusion: “The fact is, there is a change occurring in the marketplace for food in this country, and regardless of who is pleased or displeased by this reality, Pennsylvania is among those states leading the way…

“Our own research indicates that about 20% of the population in this part of the country is strongly interested in buying food that comes from local sources and is produced in more natural ways. On the whole, this group has also achieved higher levels of education as compared to the general population. We have not asked consumers specifically about raw milk or raw dairy products, but if even half of this ‘local foods group’ is interested, that could mean as many as a million Pennsylvanians or two to three million people in our immediate neighborhood, including some of the big cities near our borders, might be interested in buying raw dairy products from Pennsylvania farmers…Please understand that the people who want these products are also willing to take some legal risks in order to acquire them.”

***

In my view, the heated debate around Mark McAfee is partly symbolic of the emotional nature of the divide in our society over health and nutrition. To the extent the debate is about the issues, it’s interesting and enlightening. When it turns into trash talk, as it did following my previous posting, it becomes annoying.

As I’ve said before, I have intentionally avoided creating obstacles for people to post here, so it is possible for individuals to post without providing their emails or creating passwords or reading funny script—all the things most blogs impose on commentators today. I’m a strong believer in free speech, as well as a believer in most people’s inclination toward responsibility and civility.

My feelings about Melissa/Mary are conflicted. Both have contributed to some excellent discussion and I continue to believe they are well intentioned.

I think in the last round of comments they were egged on by the anonymous 54321. Still, I think Melissa/Mary are veteran enough commentators that they should be able to resist the red meat (not grass fed).

Melissa and Mary continue on a quest for truth and justice, and somehow want Mark McAfee to provide it. Their real problem is they can’t accept the possibility that the actual cause of what made their children sick, even if raw milk was a factor, may never be fully known. I’ve said it before: Mary should continue her research and investigation of what really happened, and feel free to share it here. If Melissa/Mary still feel some other organization—Organic Pastures, a hospital, a doctor, the Weston A. Price Foundation—was at fault, we have a vast legal system manned by more lawyers per capita than any country in the world for pursuing cases of negligence, libel, medical malpractice, and so forth.

What I’m getting at is that there is a fine line between provocative debate and personal accusations and agendas that deserves respect.