Amanda Rose addresses the AVMA raw milk symposium.There was talk among a number of participants and organizers of the all-day raw milk symposium yesterday at the American Veterinary Medical Association that it was “a historic occasion” because both opponents and proponents were on the same program for the first time. 

For the initial couple hours, though, it seemed like just the same-old, same-old. A representative of the Centers for Disease Control, Casey Barton Behravesh, a public health officer, presented data indicating that there are more illnesses from unpasteurized than pasteurized milk and concluded that “states should further restrict the distribution of unpasteurized milk.”

A long-time U.S. Food and Drug Administration official now with the Department of Homeland Security, John Sanders, mocked cow share arrangements, saying many of the small raw-milk dairies “don’t understand good dairy practices…All they know is they are making $20 a gallon for milk.”

As the day wore on, though, I sensed something else was happening—a shift in emphasis and attitude. First off, some of the messages by representatives of the public health community seemed different from the tired anti-raw-milk tirades of CDC and FDA. For example:

–Michele Jay-Russell, a manager at the University of California’s Western Institute for Food Safety, and one of the conference organizers, pointed out, “People are caring about how the food they eat is produced…They want to know their milk comes from real cows that eat real feed.” She suggested that the public health community hasn’t done its homework to learn about raw milk producers. “What’s missing is surveys of dairies that produce raw milk. That is a research need that must be addressed so we can have the conversation.” Yes, “conversation” sounds positive.

–Claudia Coles of the Washington State Department of Agriculture, said her agency “has been out promoting raw milk.” Over the last three years it has licensed 25 retail raw milk producers, versus about six three years ago.”We have brought more of the farms out from underground.” Her agency still encourages the dairies to buy pasteurizers, but raw milk is out there and being sold via some retail establishments.

–Bill Keene, an epidemiologist with the Oregon Department of Public Health, was cynical about raw milk. “Raw milk is a dumb thing to drink,” he stated early on. But then he allowed that raw milk drinkers “don’t believe in us and they will continue drinking it, on the farm and off the farm.” And he asked the type of question raw milk advocates often pose, “Why should we be going after this (raw milk) instead of alfalfa sprouts?” Good question.

I like to think that the presence of two raw milk proponents—Amanda Rose and myself—had the effect of helping shift attitudes, at least a bit. Amanda presented the results of her online survey of raw milk drinkers taken earlier this year. It showed that the number one reason raw milk drinkers give for their habit is “beneficial bacteria,” with “flavor” and “digestibility” close behind. There were some snickers from the audience of about 60 veterinarians when she showed results indicating significant agreement among respondents with such statements as “certified raw milk is as safe as pasteurized milk” and “raw milk can alleviate asthma and other ailments.”

I focused my presentation on CDC and other data suggesting that raw milk is responsible for, on average, 50 to 100 reported illnesses each year, and questioned why the federal and state governments were making life so difficult for raw dairies in places like New York and Pennsylvania. I suggested that a big part of the problem has been the emotional overlay from a few well-publicized cases of children becoming sick from raw milk.

A couple of seeming hardcore anti-raw-milk regulators came up to me separately during lunch to suggest some softening in their positions. One actually wanted to know what I would suggest be done to improve the relationship between regulators and raw milk producers. I said that, a good start would be for the regulators to adjust their anti-raw-milk inclinations, and learn more about why consumers value raw milk.

By mid-afternoon, after Amanda’s presentation, there was some frank discussion about the possibility that the public health community hasn’t been listening or understanding raw milk drinkers. I pointed out that many public health people don’t comprehend raw milk consumers’ concerns about the role of pasteurized milk, and processed food in general, in creating our epidemic of such chronic diseases as asthma, allergies, and Crohn’s.

The organizers, Michele Jay-Russell of the Western Institute for Food Safety at the University of California, Davis; and Katherine Feldman, state public health veterinarian for Maryland, seemed to sense the same kind of softening. “We were trying to bring together some differing ideologies,” Michele told me. “I got more out of it than I ever thought I would, and I think a number of people had the same reaction.”

I’ll go along with that. It was a long intense day, and by the time of the speaker dinner that evening, opponents and proponents had actually become kind of friendly. Only time will tell if there is a more lasting impact, but being an optimist, I like to think that more open communication can only be helpful. There is more to tell–I’ll highlight a few of the presentations and themes upcoming.

Options