Which Side in the Raw Milk Debate Most Values Human Life? If That Is the Question, We Have a Long Road Ahead
Sunday, October 25, 2009 at 09:24PM 
The concept of “beginner’s mind” in Zen Buddhism advises us that, no matter how advanced we might think our knowledge of any subject, we should always seek to approach it from the perspective of the beginner.
I felt as if I was being pushed to adopt beginner’s mind yesterday while speaking to a group of about 40 attendees at the Bioneers by the Bay conference in New Bedford, MA, when I tried to answer tough questions from several about the government’s most recent campaign against raw milk over the past three years. While the conference explores all kinds of issues around sustainability, it has an environmental orientation, which explains why probably three-fourths of the attendees at my presentation weren’t super-familiar with the legal and regulatory problems around raw milk over the last few years. But they were young--most seemed to be in their twenties and thirties--and extremely curious about raw milk, and why it is so controversial.
Here were some of the questions I received:
- Is raw milk really dangerous?
- If not, why is there so much opposition to it by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and many state agriculture and public health people?
- Why is the FDA devoting such extensive resources to stamping out raw milk, when there are so many other real problems for it to tend to?
- How worried are Big Ag and Big Dairy about inroads being made by raw milk's growing popularity?
I should say that the attendees didn’t automatically agree with me when I explained things from my perspective. For example, one attendee grilled me on my contention that, based on statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, showing an average of 50-100 reported illnesses each year from raw milk over 33 years, it isn’t a public health hazard. He said it wasn’t necessarily a low number if the number of raw milk drinkers is low.
I tried to explain that while it’s true we don’t know the number of raw milk drinkers (this isn’t a number American public health scientists are clamoring to obtain), that based on some partial government research, the number is most likely one million or more, making the number of illnesses low in that context.
I had more difficulty trying to explain why the FDA is so opposed to raw milk, when it clearly isn’t a public health hazard. A number of the participants were convinced the aggressive anti-raw-milk campaign results from a combination of Big Ag and Big Pharma being threatened by the notion that we can use nutrient dense foods like unpasteurized milk to improve our health.
I explained that while these are certainly factors, I saw the bigger problem as a serious division based on belief systems. The dynamics of that belief system are described well by Tim Wightman in his comment following my previous post.
Even here, though, a few of the participants weren’t completely satisfied. What exactly did I mean about differences in belief systems? I tried to explain how differences in the approaches of conventional and alternative medicine, along with differing attitudes toward prescription drugs, skyrocketing rates of chronic disease, and toward the idea of "good" bacteria.
Surely there had to be something more, a few suggested, to justify the sometimes bizarre sting operations, undercover activities, and harassment of the sort that most recently occurred in Georgia. Yes, I had to admit, there was likely another factor involved: Not only do many of the regulators disagree vehemently about the dangers of raw milk, but they thoroughly disparage those who support raw milk. In fact, I told my listeners, it’s fair to say that people like John Sheehan, who runs the FDA’s dairy division, along with supporters like Bill Marler, simply dislike advocates for raw milk. Sheehan has shown his disdain by refusing to allow any discussion with raw milk advocates, by himself or any of his subordinates.
After the Saturday session, I went back and re-read the seemingly conciliatory comment from food poisoning lawyer Bill Marler, in which he suggested support for raw milk sales from the farm. And I noticed this concluding sentence I had skimmed over before: “I do know that there are people so in need of a raw milk fix that they believe a few sick or dead people is just a reality they are willing to live with. I am not."
It’s one thing to intellectually disagree with others, but when you decide your opponents are morally bankrupt, finding common ground becomes much more challenging. To suggest that raw milk drinkers value human life less than your side is, shall we say, not one of the suggestions you’ll find in Dale Carnegie’s classic How to Win Friends and Influence People.
Reader Comments (43)
50-100 reported illnesses per year- out of over more than 30,000 raw milk consumers in CA alone; in what way does this make a "public health hazard"?
“I do know that there are people so in need of a raw milk fix that they believe a few sick or dead people is just a reality they are willing to live with. I am not."
Does he feel the same about vaccinations? They kill/injure "a few" each year, I don't recall seeing anything about him suing about that. Guess he is willing to live with that.
David....there is moral corruption at the highest levels...no doubt or any denial of it. You saw it happen at the NCIMS conference when the FDA refused to listen to my presentation on raw milk and refused to take delivery of inches thick of science and data on Raw Milk.
I have largely given up on the FDA....my dedication is to the grass roots the consumers and the people. When the tipping point is reached and the FDA is forced to "come to Jesus" and listen to the their scientists at NIH and hear the breaking news on the Human Bionome project...they will kiss our backsides and resign in embarrassment.
Mark
RAW MILK IS DANGER TO PUBLIC by Wally Bernard
The author is professor emeritus with the University of Georgia's College of Journalism and Mass Communication.
If this professor is a teacher of journalism is it any wonder that the MSM REEKS with nothing but propaganda and inane news stories?
The SYSTEM is morally bankrupt. A new record 12% of our fellow Americans [including children] are on food stamps while this SYSTEM discourages and destroys small raw dairy farmers producing a healthy product. What s wrong with this picture?
when engauged in an discussion and a impass is reached...simply remove reason from the discussion to forward your opinion...
So..when we explain to those new to real food or raw milk it makes sense...
explain the laws against and rules against it..simple reason is lost.
States muddy the water to prevent a clear choice.. they don't have to prove anything just plant doubt..remove reason from the argument.
So we are passioniate and show reason in our judgement.. but fight continually those who are practiced at removing it from the discussion....it infuriates us so we use more reason..the State simply moves farther away from the topic at hand...creating those blank looks from those we are trying to inform...
More to the point and easier to explain is to do the same..remove the discussion of food from very good reasons and the benifits applied..to shedding light on the fact that the State is protecting market share in lue of food safety.
Reason then becomes apparent without creating the ability to have opposing input remove it from you.
Tim
For Sylvia, it’s a **double standard**.
For Mark, it’s **moral bankruptcy**.
For Tim, it’s **muddy-ing propaganda tactics**.
These all begin with greed for Money…. FOLLOW THE MONEY !!.
It’s simple. Regarding 19th century germ theory to explain illness, professionals and many others have been duped by schooling and the media. Most of the vocal critics of real milk, as well as those who can influence its availability, have a money interest in clinging to this old-think. Those who disparage believers in Real Milk are a cadre of fairly visible people…and for most of them, some of their paycheck depends on strongly denigrating real milk.
David, I’m surprised that you didn’t bring “Follow The Money” into the Bioneer discussion in a big way. This is not really a complex issue. Money is what drives the opposition to real milk. Most everything else is just tactics.
Do you have plans to be in Chicago early in December?
If Bill Marler wanted to prevent the most deaths - if that were his true desire - he would be practicing a different kind of law. I do not believe his specialty of food safety, nor his snarky comments have anything to do with the reality of saving lives at all. I, by occupation, am involved in saving lives every day I go to work. I just finished my 3rd 2-year recert in Advanced Cardiac Life Support. He also has no farm. Does he even have a garden? How does a person who grows nor produces no food themselves make a career going after people who produce food - live with themselves? I am a person who has hands dirty in both saving lives and making my own food. I fail to see how raising my own milk has anything to do with other peoples' deaths. I DO know what it has to do with Marler's career, however. NOTHING. IN my care to make sure of that, his intentions take on a limelight like no other. And that is NOT saving lives.
What was the word you used that got you started drinking raw milk, David? Not wanting to be a "hippocrite?" Some people would rather be snarky and sharky than to be so morally founded. I can shoot sitting ducks too and find a way to make it look like I'm doing it for a good cause. But I don't.
Your personal attacks are rude and unproductive. It is great that you love your job and take pride in it. But to imply your work is superior to someone else's - that you probably have never even met - is sinking to a low that I thought you were better than.
I just finished reading your marvel...."The Raw Milk Revolution"
I enjoyed every word of it....what an great piece of accounting for what has happened to us all accross America, from farmer to consumer.
My take away from it all...this is money, germ dogma and protectionist politics in its highest form. Raw Milk Dairymen listen to the consumers.....the FDA and big dairy processors listen to themselves and their greedy needs. That is the difference.
My future plans....try my best to elimate any negative raw milk targets for the CDFA or FDA to shoot at. Build the markets to the tipping point by educating the consumers of the reality of illness prevention through whole food and raw milk. Work like crazy to get major studies done to prove what we know is true. This is on the way right now.
Lastly, ignor the distractions of the FDA and others that try like hell to suck the resources and life blood from this grass roots movement.
Great book...and thank you for speaking the truth to power.
Mark
No plans for Chicago in December - what's cookin?
I agree about following the money. Most people who drink raw milk testify to fewer colds, allergies, arthritis - our doctor bills have gone down at least 90% How much money would they lose? $400 x 300,000,000? Gee I'd fight too, except for the moral issues involved.
Because - there are moral issues involved. It's the doublespeak I dislike. What's baffling is the complete avoidance of market demand for raw milk, the environmental benefits of small dairy farms, halting global warming, reducing federal deficit, improving chronic disease, and allowing freedom to take responsibility for one's health. How much money would Americans save?
Lykke,
Sylvia's post was on topic - David Gumpert posed the question which side of the debate most values human life? Her life is about healing and helping people. Marler's vocation destroys people's businesses and lives, and pretends to wipe out bacteria at the same time ( lol) ...
David says this is a long debate, but if we could quantify the health benefits I think it would be a short debate.
What scares me is what would happen if they agreed with us. We'll have to hire regulators to keep you in line, impose taxes and fines to pay for us, send inspectors to label it....
Let's be careful what we wish for, and craft our laws carefully.
-Blair
Marler has stated that people who enjoy raw milk can live with the reality of a few illnesses and deaths. Back at you. So can he. That was my point. It has nothing to do with superiority of my job over others. Twist the argument if you like, but given your past posts, I don't think anyone reading this, except possibly newbies, will buy this diversion from the argument that I don't think he cares an iota more about the lives of others than the next person
He profits from deaths and illness, and holds those who provide food accountable, to a degree that has the potential to compromise the food supply, without much if any concern for the greater consequences of those actions.
Sad how much you and others despise the handful of food safety people willing to discuss the issue, and not approach raw milk by use of bans, raids, etc.
Who loves kids more is a false premise, designed to do nothing more than provoke visceral responses. The ensuing "discussion" spreads more heat than light.
The vast majority of participants in this blog are above this, and I think we simply need to step back and realize what's happening, then get on to better things. David's post was principally a reflection on how outsiders tend to view both sides of the discussion. If those outsiders were to peek into the comments following his post, they might scratch their heads at how the BM comment, made in passing, ignited things. I guess, they would then at least understand the deep-flowing currents of division. That division is the real issue.
I find this amazing. The govt approves and encourages people to take drugs/medications, eat the chemically poisoned foods all of which kill many more than 15 per year.
Of course the small family fishermen won't be able to afford the supposed changes that may be enforced upon them and they'll be out of business.
Do they care? It sure doesn't appear so. A plate of lip service along with a side of propaganda.
I don't agree with that sort of argument and wouldn't frame the argument that way at all. We should have individual choice, plain and simple. If we can all make an informed choice (including about our children), then good for us.
I'm still working on my raw milk Halloween costume. Expect an email from me later this week if you've signed up at the raw milk white papers website. I'm not sure it's the scariest thing happening this week since I've been exploring a road on my property than no human has walked in 70 years. You can follow that on Twitter (amgrose).
Last week the California OV dairymen gathered to discuss their issues. One of the issues was how to deal with some of their members selling Raw Milk on the side. It seems that neighbors have been visiting their friendly OV dairymen and begging for more raw milk. Now OV is coming down with a new policy on selling or giving away raw milk. Not sure what it will be but OV does not like losing its milk to neighbors and wants this to stop.
Very interesting....
Mark
Ex OV Dairymen from 2002.
After a bit of back and forth with Eric, I read this from his last comment on the subject:
"Perhaps you have stronger guts than those present, many of us parents with children, but we saw nothing to be gained by physically disobeying their direct commands and threats. It was all documented, we can move forward with that, and that was enough for us for that day."
I almost responded, with heat, but then decided to sit with Eric's reply for a bit before answering. Then I read this post, and the title, "Which Side in the Raw Milk Debate Most Values Human Life...?"
The answer to the question posed in this post's title, and my answer to Eric's comment, are inextricably intertwined.
Eric, I too have children...not small children but I do have kids...two boys ages 14 and 19 who, through the goodness and love of God, are strong and healthy. I wish that for all parents. However, I also wish something else for all parents and their kids.
I wish for them to grow up in a country that still follows the beliefs of our founding fathers...a belief in personal responsibility, or taking responsibility for one's own decisions and actions, rather than growing up relying on the nanny state to protect them, to make their decisions...yes, even nutritional decisions...for them. I want them to grow up in a country where we have freedom...even freedom to fail...because that freedom to fail door is also the freedom to succeed door...even to succeed in making good nutritional decisions. I want them to understand the thoughts behind Thomas Jefferson's words, "A man willing to sacrifice a bit of liberty for security will have neither." (paraphased).
I'll take the freedom to drink whatever milk I choose, or eat whatever foods I wish, over the security of the nanny state's protection any day of the week.
That also answers the question posed by the title of this post. When asking who has the most moral authority in this discussion, simply look at who gains what.
The only thing raw milk advocates get out of winning this war is the right to make their own nutritional choices. That's it. No big money payoff. No celebrity headlines. No 15 minutes of fame. We just get to choose what we eat. That's all.
Look at the other side. Look at big agri. Do you really think the CEO of Dean Foods gives a damn if your kid get's sick off bad milk he produces...or that a raw dairyman produces? No. If it's his milk, his insurance company will just write a check to the parents, perhaps pick up a few medical bills, and count it as the cost of doing business. If it's a raw dairyman's milk Dean Foods just chuckles...another small dairyman likely out of business, another news story to scare the sheep...er...people back to the nanny state approved stuff, and more fodder for the FDA and.... lawyers (sorry Gary, Pete, and Steve) like Bill Marler.
While I've brought up lawyers, do you think [lawyers] like Marler give a damn about your kids health? Do you think he cares if your kid gets sick from some food item?
Nope. He's in it for the money and ONLY for the money. Want a little evidence of that? Run over to his blog and ask him why, if he is so concerned about food safety in public health he spends so much time on things that make few people sick, and ignores other types of food that make vastly more people sick than raw milk.
According to the CDC you are most likely to suffer a food related illness by eating...deli meat. Not raw milk, not tomatoes/peppers/lettuce (all government approved by the way) like last year...deli meat. Ask Marler why he hasn't sued a deli meat company lately.
"Their" side wants control and power...and the money that comes with it. Our side just wants the freedom to make our own nutritional choices for us and our families.
I know which side has the moral authority backing them up.
The solution is simple. Not easy, but simple. Demand...not ask, demand...our rights, among them the right to make our own nutritional choices,and be willing to do whatever it takes to secure them.
Those who have read my words on this before will roll their eyes, because I'm beating a dead horse here, but the simple fact is we'll NEVER beat them with logical arguments regarding health...they have too much to lose. For every study we have, they'll have one to contradict ours. For every statistic we show, they'll have an excuse. Every time we show someone with bettered health throuigh personal nutrition choices they'll trot out someone who got a tummyache because they ate something not nanny state approved.
The only way we will ever beat them is by standing up for, demanding, fighting for, being willing to suffer a bit protecting, our rights.
Are there no Nathan Hales left?
Bob Hayles
www.juicymaters,com
[Note from David Gumpert: I edited out some personally offensive language in this comment used to to describe another individual. No matter how strong the disagreements might be over certain issues, I request that commenters refrain from name-calling, and stick to the issues.]
Boy, did I ever mangle my dates. I had in mind the Wise Traditions conference. My wife would like to meet you - if you were going to be there.
Lykke,
Mine costs a little over $20 per gallon - - but I get lots more cream. This is the cheapest health insurance I could find. No claims (i.e. doctor visits) for over nine years.
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/143572/got_raw_milk_think_twice_before_you_drink_it
Got Raw Milk? Think Twice Before You Drink It. by Jill Richardson
"Individuals such as Mark McAfee owner of the largest raw dairy in America have the ability to single-handedly alter the debate for the worse" { shame on you Mark] LOL
Again I ask the question are there any real journalist left in America or are they all employed by Orwells imaginary [?] propaganda 'Truth Agency'???