In the ongoing debate over raw milk safety that simmers on this blog, I’ve been struck by a subtle change in tone and approach of late. This change is epitomized by two items: the barely civil exchange between Mark McAfee and Concerned Person over a so-called protocol for safely introducing newbies to raw milk, and by a comment by dairy farmer Brian Keeter on possibly weeding out people who’ve been on antibiotics or other serious prescription drugs from joining a herdshare.

In the latest skirmish over the protocol, CP provides a series of steps following my April 20 post that a raw milk newbie can take. But interestingly, she/he concludes, in Step 7,referring to the previous six steps, “However, if people did this first, they would feel so great they wouldn’t need raw milk. “

Brian Keeter says following the same post, “I have considered, for example, not selling to folks who have taken antibiotics or other hardcore prescription meds in the past 6 or 12 months. It would be part of the herdshare contract and would help insure a good first experience with raw milk.”

I’ve come to realize that, to the extent we obsess about germs in raw milk, ­or in spinach, peanuts, pistachios, cold cuts, and so forth, ­we push to the back burner another key issue: the extent to which raw milk and other nutrient-dense foods help prevent disease. And to the extent we look to certain foods to help build our immune systems, we see food safety as less of a risk than we once might have.

In other words, the issues of food’s safety and food’s nutritional value are inextricably intertwined, to their mutual exclusion. Concerned Person is so obsessed about food safety she/he can’t truly embrace the intriguing protocol. And XBrian Keeter, though he mainly hints at it, wants to have as herdshare owners individuals focused on the nutritional benefits of raw milk, rather than people who have embraced the conventional health-care system and its emphasis on long-term use of pharmaceutical drugs.

So my new theory of food safety is this: To the extent consumers are focused on bad bugs in milk, veggies, or almonds, they can’t truly focus on the good bugs. That’s the problem many raw milk drinkers have come to see with pasteurization: to the extent it kills bad bugs, it also kills good bugs. To the extent we focus on the good bugs, we question this model that has guided our society for over a century: technology will make us healthier (not only pasteurization, but pharmaceuticals, surgery, etc.)

All that helps explain why so many of the regulators at the National Conference of Interstate Milk Shipments really couldn’t comprehend what Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures was saying when he talked about the importance of using raw dairy to strengthen people’s immune systems as a way to counter not only food-borne illness, but many chronic diseases. For them, like for most people, it’s an either-or proposition.
***
A number of individuals here have bemoaned the absence of good current research on raw milk consumption habits. Now, there’s a survey ongoing, launched by an individual who is both a consumer of raw milk and a writer on the subject. Amanda Rose, who comments frequently on this blog, invites raw milk drinkers to complete her questionnaire by the deadline of next Thursday, April 30.

She will be presenting the survey results at a professional medical meeting taking place in July, a symposium on raw milk July 12 in Seattle, sponsored by the American Veterinary Medical Association. Unfortunately, Amanda Rose will be the only raw milk advocate included in the program, which includes regulator opponents from the FDA and CDC, along with others like food-borne illness lawyer Bill Marler.

Amanda Rose describes the survey further in an article on The Ethicurean.