in 
Food
Food Tuesday
17Oct
Let's Distinguish Between the Ideology of Raw Milk and the Benefits/Dangers of Raw Milk
Tuesday, October 17, 2006 at 07:32PM I always become uncomfortable when I see issue debates--whether about health care, politics, economics, or whatever--turn into ideological debates. My problem is that ideology requires a rigid view of the world, and as a result tends to lead people, and countries, down dangerous paths. The classic example is the old Soviet Union, which could never admit that its communist ideology was flawed, and so solved every setback with a new five-year plan.
I think what makes me most uncomfortable about ideological debates is the tendency by one side or the other to totally trash its opponents, whether by use of vitriolic language or by ignoring key information that might detract from its viewpoint. From these perspectives, raw milk has evolved into an ideological issue.
An example of convenient oversight comes from an organization called the Center for Global Food Issues (CGFI), and its web site, milkismilk. CGFI has reported extensively about the product recall and quarantine of Organic Pastures Dairy Co. (I linked to one of CGFI's articles, but its various sites and blog contain several) and the suspicions by California agriculture officials that its milk sickened four children. But interestingly, CGFI has neglected to report that Organic Pastures was allowed to re-open after no evidence of E.coli could be found in its products or in its cows. And the old accusatory articles remain posted. CGFI concentrates most of its verbiage on trying to tear down sellers of organic products in general, and organic and raw milk in particular. I don't know a lot about the Alex Avery, who authors the milkismilk blog, except that he is CGFI's director of research and education and, according to my Google search, is the son of CGFI's director.
On the pro-raw-milk side of the debate are a number of organizations. One of the most prominent is the Weston A. Price Foundation, which sponsors a number of initiatives encouraging good nutrition, including promoting raw milk. It certainly doesn't include much of the data cited by the federal Food and Drug Administration to promote fear about raw milk. Yet its overall approach seems softer, less strident, than its opposition. It seems to focus its reporting on various initiatives to get states that prohibit sales of raw milk to allow it and on the nutritional benefits of raw milk.
I've tried to avoid taking sides in the ideological struggle around raw milk. It seems clear that people have gotten sick in the past from drinking raw milk, but then they've gotten sick from eating spinach and ground beef and assorted other agricultural products as well. I've been sympathetic to Organic Pastures because it seems to be a victim of overly aggressive government enforcers. In fact, they've been so aggressive against Organic Pastures, I have to wonder if they are ideologues themselves.
Reader Comments (2)
Hudson Institute's IRS form 990 reveals that they took in $9.34 million in 2003. They are funded by many BIG BUSINESSES like Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, ConAgra, McDonalds, Monsanto, Procter & Gamble, to name a few. You can't expect this group to provide any unbiased, unself - promoted, let alone truthful report on any food that is not a product of agribusiness. Of course they are working with the FDA. Wake up! Don't be milked!
He believes that technology is the answer to all problems, and that more efficient farming via petrochemicals and GM-foods is the answer. Basically, he's the polar opposite of the sustainable agriculture model.