Well, another day, another media raw milk story. And this one in, of all places, the newspaper that reminds us daily that it publishes “All the news that’s fit to print.” It’s a lengthy article in the New York Times headlined, “Should This Milk Be Legal?”
In a number of respects, it’s useful. It quotes key people in the raw milk arena—Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy Co. and Sally Fallon of the Weston A. Price Foundation. It says that consumers feel raw milk has health benefits, and also describes the extreme lengths people go to so as to obtain their raw milk, such as traveling two hours from New York City to Upstate New York farms.
I suppose I should simply welcome the fact that a major media player is treating the subject of raw milk as a legitimate news story, and leave it at that. But, of course, I can’t.
Where I have difficulty is when it states, at the very start, that one drinker of raw milk is “part of a movement of perhaps hundreds of thousands across the country who will risk illness or even death to drink their milk the way Americans did for centuries…” I know the media like drama, and there’s certainly plenty of drama in the raw milk story, but consumers risking death isn’t part of the drama here.
As for raw milk’s health benefits, well, that pesky issue is kissed off with finality in these two sentences: “ David Barbano, director of the Northeast Dairy Foods Research Center, operated by Cornell and the University of Vermont and supported by the dairy industry, grew up drinking raw milk on a family farm. He does not remember ever getting sick, but says science has never found any evidence that it was more beneficial than pasteurized milk.”
Yes, the resident expert who was raised on raw milk and now draws his salary from the (pasteurized) dairy industry, tells us that raw milk can’t be beneficial because “science has never found any evidence.” Who or what is “science”? How hard has “science” searched?
That negative logic—if we don’t know about the evidence, it must not exist—is basic arrogance at its worst. I can’t help but think about the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s policy over the last several years to allow quicker approval of drugs—which means approval based on reduced evidence of effectiveness. Yet studies indicating that consumption of raw milk helps reduce symptoms of asthma, for example, along with hundreds of testimonials about children and adults alike being helped by raw milk, count for nothing.
I’ll interrupt my rant to note that the online version of the article is accompanied by several sound bites from Nina Planck, the author of “Real Food: What to Eat and Why” that briefly explain the health benefits of raw milk.
Maybe the bottom line here is that as much as I may gnash my teeth about the daggers the media throw, increasing numbers of consumers are just ignoring those daggers as the meaningless drivel they represent.
***
As I read more of the comments about the fine points of raising grass-fed beef, I am coming to suspect that the farmer I’ve received problem meat from just isn’t handling her meat business on a systematic basis. She’s indicated to me in the past that she slaughters one animal at a time, based on when she sells out her supply of beef from each animal. That could be every six months, eight months, or a year. Combine that hit-or-miss approach with my inappropriate cooking methods and it’s not a happy combination.
Concerning the health benefits of fresh, unprocessed milk, there are careful studies showing benefits, including a recent large study (4700 children) in Europe showing statistically significant benefits in suppressing various allergies including reductions in eczema (40%) and hay fever (10%) (Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Vol 117, Issue 6, Pages 1374-1381, June 2006). And then, there’s the basic allergy to pasteurized milk, which ranges from 7-20% of the population and which, for the vast majority of raw milk drinkers, disappears as a problem when they drink raw rather than pasteurized milk. These and other findings are emerging from ongoing surveys in a number of raw milk coops in the midwest, and formal results are being tallied and prepared. These studies are quite aside from the simple "anecdotal" evidence that most drinkers of fresh, unprocessed milk know from experience, namely that resistance to illness and general health are improved along with many other benefits (many such testimonials, again, appear on the Family Farms Coop website at http://www.familyfarmscoop.com) But, that’s not scientific, right? 🙂
abortion.) Unsurprisingly, the moderator–this was a radio show–didn’t interrupt her softball questions long enough to utter so much as a peep of challenge. That doesn’t say much for our media friends, but after all, the physician is, well, a physician.
Most journalism is, I think, routine. Most journalists (our host is a notable exception–thank you David!) just don’t want to trouble themselves with digging for truth. Here, for all you lazy journalists out there, is a formula for a snappy news story about alternative health that requires no time-consuming, tiring, and tedious research or investigation: Find some poor lunatic, counter-culture, off-the-reservation character, and interview him. Rebut his ideas by regurgitating quotes from one of our very many erudite, system-endorsed experts. Don’t check the validity of either side’s statements. DONE!
Sigh. There was a time when I would answer articles like the one in the Times with carefully written letters. I followed the rules, politely and succinctly listing the evidence (like Steve Bemis did above) in terms that ought to have piqued even the laziest editor. Almost every letter was ignored. Call me cynical, but at this point I would have no hope at all that the Times would even consider following up with their expert (David Barbano, director of the Northeast Dairy Foods Research Center) to discover why he had never heard of the many legitimate research studies that found benefit in consuming unprocessed milk.
Now Steve Bemis is a lawyer, and likely has more than a little experience watching good evidence go begging for attention. I hope for his sake that he’s built up a tolerance for that sort of thing. Personally, my tolerance
is low, so to preserve mental tranquility I decided to (at least partially) withdraw. Thus was the beginning of our very satisfying, if not physically restful, family farm.
I suppose that if they ever make it illegal to eat what one grows, then I’ll risk popping an artery and start arguing again. Until then, friendly correspondence on The Complete Patient will do.
I agree that this is just sloppy, rehashed journalism that doesn’t tell us anything but to blindly obey the FDA. I was particularly disappointed with the Post article. It seemed way too formulaic and scare-mongering.
Hello. I am the lady who runs the Chicago co-op in which, to my knowledge, only 1 neigbor is complaining about the traffic.
Never, once did this neighbor come to me personally to discuss their objections. They have only called the police, zoning department, health department and media. I spoke with them finally about 4 weeks ago, when during co-op the couple’s grown son was yelling obscenities and curses to my co-op members.
When I attempted to be cooperative and understanding of their complaints of having difficulty getting into their drive after work or the fear of not being able to allow children to play due to the traffic, I offered to move my time to a later time– even midnight if necessary– when they would be home from work and children would be in bed. They did not acknowledge my proposed solution and went to another contention which I then overcame as well. So I realized that nothing I was going to say or do would satisfy them except to say I will not do this anymore. Obviously I did not give that as an option.
My co-op and its members have always shown due respect to the neighbors. I have very specific parking rules that I know my members are following and these co-op members are not speeding down the road recklessly like some of the neighbors or their guests do.
These complaining neighbors are jealous and are not rational nor good willed.
This is not a commercial business even though it may appear as such. It is a private gathering and if zoning were to "force" me to stop, then they would have to restrict everyone to a certain number of visitors at any given time. And I believe that would be communism.
We live in unincorporated Cook County and the subdivision consists of high end homes on 3/4 acre lots. People have parties here and I have counted up to 50 cars at some of these and these cars were parked on both sides of the street which truly made it difficult to get in and out of the subdivision.
My co-op lasts only 2 hours and the flow is moderate. Not even 15 cars are here at one time. We move the people through quickly, quietly and without notice.
Maybe these people should find something better to do with their time. Like take care of 5 children and a co-op and then maybe they would be too busy (like the rest of us) to notice.
Thank you,
Sheri