It wasn’t all that long ago that most of us ate white bread, pesticide-treated fruits and vegetables, and anti-biotics-laden eggs, chicken and beef. We did it because that was all that was available and we didn’t know any better that to seek out alternatives. Gradually, of course, people learned that whole grains, organic produce, and drug-free meat were better bets, and small farms began making them available.
But as LDF so eloquently puts it in a comment on Saturday’s post, the raw milk debate forces consideration of questions about our entire food supply that most people in positions of authority (and actually most of the public) would rather not think about. "Pasteurization allows dangerous co-mingling of the milk from thousands of cows who do not have to be at their peak of health," LDF states. "They don’t even have to be fed well. Take away the opportunity to erase bad farming practices with pastuerization and you’ve exposed the ugly side of our food supply."
This ugly side pops up unpleasantly from time to time in the form of events like the spinach contamination problems of September and October that sickened 200 people and killed three, and similar contaminations of lettuce, ground beef, and other products that don’t receive so much publicity. It also pops up in problems like Mad Cow disease. And in issues around the nutritional value of foods selected and shipped more for appearance.
No industry wants to face up to having to improve its quality standards. The U.S. auto industry resisted for many years, and Japanese auto companies successfully filled the growing demand for better cars.
Competition from small farms is fomenting change in the food business. But because agriculture is so tightly regulated, the powers that be can strongly resist pressure for fundamental change. Right now, raw milk is a flash point in an ongoing battle.
Recent Comments