The case of pasteurized milk - or "do governments know better?"

[innonimatu]

I'll start by quoting from a recent article published in Harper's:

The Revolution Will Not Be Pasteurized: Inside the raw-milk underground
[...]
The process of heating milk to kill bacteria has been common for nearly a century, and selling unpasteurized milk for human consumption is currently illegal in Canada and in half the U.S. states. Yet thousands of people in North America still seek raw milk. Some say milk in its natural state keeps them healthy; others just crave its taste. Schmidt operates one of the many black-market networks that supply these raw-milk enthusiasts.

Schmidt showed men in biohazard suits around his barn, both annoyed and amused by the absurdity of the situation. The government had known that he was producing raw milk for at least a dozen years, yet an officer was now informing him that they would be seizing all the “unpasteurized product” and shuttling it to the University of Guelph for testing.

In recent years, raids of this sort have not been unusual. In October 2006, Michigan officials destroyed a truckload of Richard Hebron’s unpasteurized dairy. The previous month, the Ohio Department of Agriculture shut down Carol Schmitmeyer’s farm for selling raw milk. Cincinnati cops also swooped in to stop Gary Oaks in March 2006 as he unloaded raw milk in the parking lot of a local church. When bewildered residents gathered around, an officer told them to step away from “the white liquid substance.” The previous September an undercover agent in Ohio asked Amish dairyman Arlie Stutzman for a jug of unpasteurized milk. Stutzman refused payment, but when the agent offered to leave a donation instead, the farmer said he could give whatever he thought was fair. Busted.

If the police actions against Schmidt and other farmers have been overzealous, they are nevertheless motivated by a real threat. The requirement for pasteurization—heating milk to at least 161 degrees Fahrenheit for fifteen seconds—neutralizes such deadly bacteria as Campylobacter jejuni, Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli, and salmonella. [...] The thing that makes our defense against raw milk so interesting, however, is the mounting evidence that these health measures also could be doing us great harm.
[...]
It turns out that black-market buyers aren’t the only ones who think germ-infested milk is healthy. The yogurt giant Dannon has invested heavily in understanding the benefits of bacteria, and the company now sells dairy products stocked with healthy, or “probiotic,” microbes: DanActive, “an ally for your body’s defenses,” which comes in a small pill-shaped bottle and provides a dose of an organism owned in full by Dannon called L. casei Immunitas; Danimals, a more playfully packaged bacteria-infused drink, designed to appeal to children; and Activia, a yogurt containing a bacterium the company has named Bifidus regularis, which “is scientifically proven to help with slow intestinal transit.” Both Michael Schmidt and Dannon may be working to reintroduce bacteria into the modern diet, but Schmidt labors under a principle of submission. He accepts the presence of unknown microbes and tries to make his customers healthy by keeping the creeks that run through his farm clean, by maintaining the stability of his ecosystem. In contrast, Dannon’s is a philosophy of mastery.

An interesting (and already old) discussion about the benefits and disadvantages of the 20th century "war on germs".

But what drew my attention was a single fact: there was a black market for raw milk. Apparently its sale is forbidden in some countries.
This introduces a few much more interesting question: just how much power should legislators have to decide what's best for us (our heath)? Are people deemed too stupid to choose between pasteurized and raw milk, should both be on sale?
And the second question: just how much of those regulations serves the purpose of protecting consumers, and how much was drafted by groups lobbying to create new business opportunities?

Another interesting point was this part of the farmer's story:

Because Schmidt believed that his style of biodynamic farming actually secured the public health, he decided to fight the charges. Newspapers began quoting him on the salubrious powers of raw milk and the detriments of industrial dairy. At this time, strange things started happening around the farm. Vandals broke into his barn. Schmidt found two of his cows lying dead in the yard, apparently poisoned. Then an unmarked van ran his cousin’s car off the road. Men jumped out of the van’s back and forced him inside, holding him there for two hours. Schmidt hadn’t been prepared for the struggle to take this turn. He sent his cousin back to Germany, agreed to plead guilty in court, and sold all but 100 acres of his farm to pay the government fines and cover his lost income.

Once rules are made, challenging and changing them is not easy...

 

[Rossiya]

Governments know better.

 

[JollyRoger]

I want unpasteurized marijuana.

 

[History_Buff]

In this case, I think it's quite fair to say the government knows better.

 

[MjM]

I think if people want to drink raw milk, then they should be able to drink raw milk as long as it doesn't harm others. Apply this logic to anything else you wish.

 

[Abaddon]

Unpasturized milk is VERY harmful to others as it provides a place for deadly virus' (both to cows and humans) to breed and spread

 

[Bigfoot3814]

Pasturized milk is safer. If a milk company wants to sell unsafe milk, that's their business, but they're going to be held responsible for any dummy who drinks it and gets sick.

If you really wanted to bad enough, you could just find a farm and either ask for or take some yourself straight from the cow, and do whatever the hell you wanted with it.

 

[innonimatu]

I think if people want to drink raw milk, then they should be able to drink raw milk as long as it doesn't harm others. Apply this logic to anything else you wish.

Yes, that was my view of the issue also. This "let's protect them from themselves" happens a lot. It's ok to protect people from things they cannot control, but withdrawing the ability to choose (it it can't be sold...), when the possible harm is only to themselves? Milk was only an example.

 

[nivi]

I think the whole point that "the government know better" is moot anyways because of those little things that the government is more then happy to sell and tax like cigarettes and alcohol.

 

[Globex]

the white liquid substance

Seriously, I don't think that raw milk should be banned. If the government is genuinely concerned about the public health, mandating a warning to be put on all containers of unpasteurized milk would be sufficient. If someone wants to drink raw milk, it should be their choice.

 

[Cutlass]

When the actions of some people place other people in danger, the government has both a right and a responsibility to act.

Deciding which is which is a harder problem.

 

[Gooblah]

Raw milk consumption is bad for you. If you consume raw milk, let legit companies sell it. However, it should be plastered with warnings, and, if you get sick, the companies should be protected (unless no warning labels existed) from litigation.

 

[MadScotsMan]

Raw milk is fine for you, but you have to have been drinking it for a very, very long time, since early childhood. My moms family was raised on it, but then again, they were dairy farmers. They've all been fine and healthy.

 

[choxorn]

Are people deemed too stupid to choose between pasteurized and raw milk, should both be on sale?

They're deemed too stupid to choose not to smoke marijuana (despite the fact that it won't kill you unless you're a complete idiot), they're deemed to stupid to choose not to do various other drugs.

Personally, I think, let them get sick if they want, it isn't causing harm to anyone else.

 

[Bigfoot3814]

Drug laws don't stop anyone who wants to do drugs bad enough, and I don't think they're stopping anyone who wants to drink whatever kind of milk they want to.

 

[Narz]

Governments don't know better. I have yet to see any proof that raw milk is less safe than pasteurized. Spoilt milk is going to gather bacteria & disease, this goes from raw or previously boiled.

Just another inane restriction of people's freedom. Meanwhile the government subsidizes dozens of foods statistically proven again and again to contribute to premature death & degenerative disease. Go figure.

BTW, raw milk is legal is the progressive US states of Connecticut & California. Recent I think some jerkoffs tried to ban it in Cali but they failed as they couldn't prove it was harmful.

I don't mess with cow's milk myself but I'd definitely choose raw goat or sheep's milk over pasteurized (if I could find it anywhere).

Also, noteworthy, recently the government mandated that all almonds (except those sold at farmer's markets) must be pasteurized before sale. They are still labeled raw to unsuspecting consumers and probably 99% of the population doesn't even know about it.

If you try to sprout them though you will notice they just float in the water & eventually start to go bad rather than swelling up & growing tails.

 

[warpus]

Unpasteurized milk tastes a lot better, from my experience. I'm not sure if that's coincidence or not, though.

 

[Ansar]

Unpasteurized milk tastes a lot better, from my experience. I'm not sure if that's coincidence or not, though.

I agree with the Pole.

 

[Bill3000]

I support the banning of all raw and organic foods. All food should be genetically modified.

 

[plarq]

I drink UHT milk.