Joseph Heckman of Rutgers University.Joseph Heckman often feels very lonely in his position as a professor specializing in soil fertility at Rutgers University in New Jersey. That’s because he’s a big believer in the virtues of raw milk, and in what he calls “informed choice” by consumers to have access to raw milk.
He feels most isolated when he schedules individuals to appear at a series of lectures on raw milk he first launched in 2008. Among a number of speakers, he’s had Gary Cox of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund and Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy Co. speak in 2008. I just spoke on Friday.
Each time he organizes one of his lectures, he encounters tension from other professors in the food sciences arena at Rutgers. Sometimes they send emails around to other faculty questioning whether the lectures amount to advocacy of raw milk consumption by the university, which could endanger funding by New Jersey, which doesn’t allow the sale or distribution of raw milk; sometimes they question whether opponents should be invited to attend; and sometimes they simply question the safety of raw milk. He says colleagues have attempted to attract opponents from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to lecture, but, of course, they won’t attend once anyone in favor of raw milk has been at a university lectern.
Initially, Heckman says, the lectures were well attended by Rutgers faculty, but attendance has gradually fallen off to the point where only two Rutgers professors besides Heckman attended my talk on Friday. “I’m not sure what this means, whether it’s moved from hotly contested topic to boredom, or maybe to a boycott.”
My sense is that the hostility isn’t unusual. Academics in public health and agriculture tend to be anti-raw-milk, because that is what they have been taught. More often than not, they don’t have to deal with dissenters like Joseph Heckman in their midst, so raw milk never comes up as a debatable issue.
In any event, we had a good group of about 35 students, farmers, and professionals attending the Friday talk, and afterwards there was animated discussion about what raw milk proponents need to do to encourage wider acceptance. A psychiatrist in attendance, Richard Schwartzman, compared the FDA’s approach to raw milk to its approach to the jailing of psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich during the 1950s for his writings and teachings on psychiatry.
A photo from the Selman Waksman Museum at Rutgers.Afterwards, Heckman gave everyone a tour of the tiny Selman Waksman Museum, which was the soil laboratory at Rutgers where scientist Selman Waksman developed the streptomycin antibiotic and was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1952. The gold Nobel Prize is also in display. Ironically, the exhibit includes the photoabove of tuberculosis patients from the early 1900s, who were treated with raw milk.
I want to personally thank Joseph Heckman and his wife, Joyce, for their gracious hospitality in hosting me Friday and Saturday.
Perhaps if he had invited more moderate speakers on raw milk before your talk the attendance would not have fallen like it did, especially among faculty. As it goes, two of the speakers you mention are strongly anti-science, which is going to drive people not on the fringe away. For example, one or both of them have denied basic microbiological principles in the interpretation of the "BSK" study, and discounted epidemiology and DNA fingerprinting results in outbreaks. That type of disrespect for the sciences will attract very little academic support for raw milk
A practicing physician for more than 40 years Dr Gott states, Several weeks ago I presented evidence that vitamin C in large doses, along with amino acids, could prevent heart attack. The response from one of the leading cardiologists in this country: It’s hogwash.
And yet not one cardiologist has urged that a study be done to prove this theory right or wrong.
The CanadianMedicalAssociation Journal,having previously published my opinion on controversial matters, refused to publish this article. It’s reason? There was no scientific evidence to support the use of vitamin C. How much evidence does it need?
Isnt this all beginning to sound familiar anyways after having presented five facts supporting his stand he further elaborates, I believe it’s arrogance beyond belief to say that the work of Pauling and these other scientists is hogwash.
You cannot patent vitamin C so no one can make any money from this research. Moreover, many researchers receive research grants from the manufacturers of cholesterol-lowering drugs. And medical journals rely on pharmaceutical ads.
Lykke
The biological sciences abound in ambiguities.
Ken Conrad
Sound familiar? It should…your logic is similar to the flat-earthers.
I have provided links in the past to scientific research that pointed out the shortcomings of using DNA "fingerprints" in epidemiology.The problem is that sometimes epidemiologists extrapolate from a small number of matching bits of DNA to saying that this strain of a bacteria is a match for that strain.It is like knowing that the suspect has red hair,green eyes,white skin and flat feet ,and then concluding that you have found your suspect when you find anyone who has those matching group of features.DNA information is very useful for differentiating things.Suspects that don’t have matching DNA can be ruled out by the tests.The tests are not sufficient on their own to implicate anyone.Usually the chain of events in an investigation goes: Victim consumed raw milk before becoming ill,a match was found between strains of bacteria from victim and some material from the farm where the milk was produced,verdict: guilty.This is pure Bullshit.The DNA "fingerprinting" is a misuse of a valid testing procedure.Please tell me what are the "basic microbiological principles" that we have denied?
Glad to know you are a card carrying member of the Flat Earth Society, Lykke…it explains a lot.
Why don’t you ever support your opinion with some peer reviewed research?
If what you are saying is correct then the scientific community as you describe it have submitted themselves to institutional prejudice and for this reason have chosen to marginalize scientists and individuals who honestly and courageously use their intelligence to question the status quo.
Over two millennia ago, Aristotle (384322 BC) taught that the earth was the centre of a perfect universe in which the movements of the stars were circular and never ending. The church and scientific community adopted Aristotles view (the accepted world view) and were evidently grasping for ways, albeit illogical to accommodate it.
In an article writen by Mark Van Bebber he states, The historical account of Galileo’s struggle for acceptance is not, however, a black and white issue. In fact, it is one of the most interesting and complex historical events recorded. Galileo’s trial was not the simple conflict between science and religion so commonly pictured. It was a complex power struggle, fought upon the foundations of personal and professional pride, envy, and ambition One of the most important aspects of Galileo’s "threat" to education is that he published his writings in Italian, rather than Latin, which was the official language of scholarship. Galileo was attempting to have his ideas accepted by common people, hoping that they would eventually filter into the educational institutions. Thus, Galileo was regarded as an enemy of the established scientific authorities and experienced the full weight of their influence and persecution.
According to Charles E. Hummel, Galileo was a passionate, powerful character who could dominate any room or discussion. His talent and wit won a variety of illustrious friends in university, court and church circles … At the same time his biting sarcasm against those whose arguments were vulnerable to his scientific discoveries made him some formidable enemies. Galileo thrived on debate… His professional life was spent not only in observing and calculating but also in arguing and convincing. His goal was to promote as well as develop a new scientific world view.
Does this not all sound familiar?
Ken Conrad
Perhaps you feel super minorities should have a voice…as long as they agree with your views.
it is pioneers like joe heckman who are going to prove the conventional agricultural establishment wrong.
-Blair
It is also worth noting that Professor Heckman established an electronic raw milk literature sharing service at Rutgers University for collected journal articles and related documents (both pro and con) about raw milk. Records show that these electronic documents have been accessed hundreds of times by faculty at the university.