As we all know, the establishment media doesn’t much care for raw milk, just as it doesn’t care for the general idea of nutritious foods significantly improving our health.
But we’re getting some inkling of change, and if I’ve helped push things along by challenging government persecution of raw milk producers, great. The recent article in the Los Angeles Times was one indication; for all its fearmongering, it at least allowed for raw milk’s potential benefits. (Here is a link to my review of that article, and the discussion that followed.)
The latest evidence of change comes from Salon.com, which has as its lead article an extremely well researched and written piece about the health benefits of raw milk by freelancer Hannah Wallace. She interviewed me in connection with the article, and it was obvious then that she was doing quite a thorough job.
Among the points in her article that I see as most important:
–She presents many case examples of ordinary people whose health clearly benefited from drinking raw milk. She interviewed individuals with eczema, asthma, allergies, and other conditions who saw their symptoms abate
–She clearly makes the point that all raw milk isn’t created equal. She explains why grass-fed cows milked under very sanitary conditions is much likelier to be safe than milk from the average factory farm. She also communicates the important point that raw milk activists are trying to improve access to raw milk for consumers, but not to have it mass produced and distributed like pasteurized milk.
–She presents scientific evidence suggesting that raw milk really does provide improved immune function.
My only criticism is of a couple of paragraphs early in the article, where she states in part: “I wondered: Is it really safe to drink unpasteurized milk? In a word: no. A scan of the CDC’s Web site turns up several recent bacterial outbreaks traced to raw milk…” and proceeds to detail several such cases. It suggests that the article will detail the reasons raw milk is unsafe.
Yet the rest of the article is at odds with such a negative sounding assessment. Aside from the usual acknowledgment of the FDA’s argument that raw milk is unsafe under any circumstances, the article is devoted mostly to reinforcing the points I discuss above.
It’s also nice to see my articles at BusinessWeek.com, and this blog, acknowledged, and me quoted accurately in dismissing conspiracy theories against raw milk. She did leave some information out, though. (I wouldn’t be a good journalistic source if I didn’t have some complaint, would I?) I offered a theory that something akin to a compact between milk distributors and government agencies developed over the course of the early and middle twentieth century as pasteurization took hold: the businesses agreed to make the investment in facilities to provide for pasteurization, in exchange for which the government agreed to regulate and police the market, including keeping raw milk sellers out.
That is beside the point of Hannah’s overall accomplishment. Congratulations to her on an excellent job of reporting and writing.
Recent Comments