I get asked any number of times by nutrition-conscious people about the difference between raw milk and organic milk. Of course, the explanation gets fairly involved, since I first need to point out that raw milk may or may not be organic. Also, what people refer to as organic milk—while it may at one time have meant exclusively raw milk—is now in consumer markets understood to be pasteurized, and may well be ultra-pasteurized to allow for the fact that it often travels long distances and doesn’t get onto grocery shelves as quickly as conventional milk.

If it’s ultra-pasteurized, I tell inquirers, it is probably less nutritious than conventional milk that is subject to regular pasteurization. And it is certainly far less nutritious than raw milk, whether organic or not.

I thought about the question about raw vs. organic milk when I saw the point Blair McMorran raised following my May 27 post about Alexandre Family EcoDairy Farms. She relayed information a veterinarian had provided about conditions under which cows are likeliest to shed campylobacter, noting that cattle raised on pasture are less likely to have campylobacter in their manure. She concluded, “I think one of the reasons there is such dissonance between small pasture-based raw dairies and the health department is the issue of semantics. (And focus, and knowledge).”

That prompted Lykke to state that the vet’s information, because it provided guidance about safety considerations, “is the best statement I’ve read on this blog, or elsewhere, from a raw milk producer.” Lykke added, “If the raw dairy movement as a whole took this approach, rather than attacking regulators and food safety advocates, there could be progress.”

It occurred to me that there is a lot of “talking past,” as it were, going on. The fact that Blair and Lykke connected was a notable exception. (Actually, in a later comment to the same post, Lykke seemed to throw up her hands in response to comments questioning the prevalence of Guillain Barre syndrome: “Seriously, I thought the approach Blair shared from her veterinarian was positive – showed hope in finding common ground. The kick back suggests that there isn’t much interest in discussion beyond an endless, circular argument that raw milk is the Bomb, and other foods plus vaccines, GMOs, etc. are the root of all evil.” Followed by further recriminations.)

Many of us here talk about boosting immunity, avoiding chronic disease, and the benefits of bacteria. All such matters are very nearly foreign to many food safety people, who are trained to fear bacteria and anticipate immune suppression, and don’t believe many chronic diseases (aside from diabetes) are related to dietary imbalances.

The point is that food safety advocates aren’t suddenly going to change “causes” and become chronic disease crusaders. Food safety professionals don’t see pasteurizaton as unsafe or a problem—if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

The reverse is true as well. Individuals who see their health improving after consuming raw dairy products want to figure out how to get it to more people, not interfere via cumbersome testing and labeling requirements.

Of course, the problem isn’t just language, but priorities as well. Food safety professionals want to work out endless details about labels for raw milk bottles, but then want to impede distribution.

And then there is perspective. Have to credit Bill Marler, the food poisoning lawyer, for honesty in his observation on The Bovine blog: “Perhaps I am just too close to the victims of food poisoning (including a lot of food other than raw milk) to have a perspective that allows compromise.”

Whatever the cause, the problem of talking past creates huge amounts of anger and resentment. That assumes there is underlying goodwill, which I’m willing to accept there is. In that case, how about something wild, like a conference or two that brings together food safety advocates and food freedom advocates, with the goal of figuring out common ground, beginning with a common language.Can even offer continuing ed credits.