Rubbed RawJerry Kozak,
President/CEO It’s one of the ironies of the whole debate on raw milk: even as some states, such as Wisconsin, have spent time in 2010 thinking about legalizing it, others are issuing warnings that raw milk being sold contains dangerous pathogens. For example, Pennsylvania’s state Agriculture Department warned last month that raw milk being sold by two farms was found to be contaminated, with Listeria, in one case, and with Campylobacter, in the other.
In response to Wisconsin’s proposed legislation to allow raw milk sales, the National Milk Producers Federation, along with the International Dairy Foods Association, issued a news release May 11th condemning the raw milk bill, and urging Gov. Jim Doyle to veto it. The reason NMPF and IDFA jumped into this state issue is because Wisconsin has more dairy farms than any other state, and because the deregulation of raw milk is clearly trending in a direction that is bad for the dairy industry, and far worse, bad for public health. To his credit, Gov. Doyle heard from the heretofore silent majority in the dairy industry, and vetoed the bill on May 19th. The state will instead study the issue further, although I must say, this isn’t a complicated topic. In few cases has the science behind a public policy decision been so clearly one-sided. Raw milk proponents believe their product is a magic elixir alleviating everything from asthma to acne to arthritis, although there is no research that backs up such a contention. I have no doubt that people who patronize it honestly believe it’s good for them. But while the placebo effect is powerful, we shouldn’t confuse it with clinically-relevant research. Where the facts ARE clear is that raw milk can be a vector for bacteria like those found in Pennsylvania, and in raw milk sold in other states across the nation. Raw milk proponents would have us believe that if a farm is small, or especially conscientious about hygiene, then it won’t have problems with pathogens. That’s a silly and dangerous notion. Unfortunately, the fervor of the proponents looking to loosen state strictures on raw milk sales has overwhelmed the often quieter voices arguing the public health consequences. That was mostly the case in Wisconsin, although state dairy advocates, and health experts, did recently call attention to the potential consequences if the bill there were to have become law. As is often the case in the legislative process, a vocal minority can galvanize a small but politically potent grassroots force to make the changes they want, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that their ideas are suspect. As the NMPF-IDFA news release noted, the other irony of this issue is that, back here in Washington, Congress is about to pass a food safety bill designed to do the exact opposite of what states like Wisconsin are doing: hold food marketers to higher hygiene standards, and seek to eliminate pathogens like Listeria, Campylobacter, E. Coli and Salmonella from the food supply. It makes no sense to profess concern about contaminated peanuts, pistachios and spinach, and then turn the spigots loose to market milk that inevitably will spread pathogens to children through another vector. Although the food safety bill has yet to be enacted, we are still hoping that it will include a provision that would not exempt farms selling raw milk from hygiene standards that other facilities must meet. If promoting public health is the purpose of the legislation, it needs to address the most pressing dairy-related public health issue of our day. So, kudos to those in America’s Dairyland who provided some realism to a debate that too often is shrouded in a kind of fantastic wishful thinking, both from a health and an economic standpoint. Let’s hope other states look at what happened this year in Wisconsin, and follow suit. *Anyone is welcome to post comments. Comments must be approved before appearing on the page. All effort will be made to publish every comment, provided that each comment is respectful and directly addresses the issues discussed in the column. Readers are encouraged to respond to the comments of others. Comments |
Printer-friendly version
Jerry Kozak:
Two of these recent comments seem to ignore that there is plenty of recent evidence that raw milk, in its “natural” state, is not necessarily safe for human consumption. Here is a link to a news story about the recent outbreak of several serious illnesses tied to raw milk consumption in Minnesota. Your comments that cow’s milk, as a food, is always beyond reproach, is not a responsible path for our industry to pursue, which is why this column was written in the first place.
Victor Jensen:
Thank you Jerry for letter on raw milk and the information you provided.It is to bad some people will not believe experts on this.Keep up the good work you are doing.Vic Jensen
Merle Wanck:
So Jerry, raw milk is now an anathema. Gosh, wish you were around decades ago when a half-million dairy farm families routinely drank raw milk from their dairies not to mention their neighbors who also purchased it from them. One would get the impression from your article that milk is not at all "wholesome" but for all the processing required. It begs the question, Jerry, how does something become so nutritious, good, & wholesome if in its raw state it's so darn postively anything but?!! Sounds like fodder for the anti-dairy crowd to me. Truth is Jerry, your piece read just like so many bubble-headed bureaucrats we endure daily from government and the field of players that interact with them. I don't need you (or anyone else for that matter) to tell me what I should or should not drink. In fact, I think most Americans are getting tired of being told what they must and must not do. On another note, what a wonderful accomplishment NMPF has achieved over ther past 3 - 4 decades by allowing milk producers share of the consumer dairy dollar to erode by 50%. With achievements like that, how can anyone question the wisdom and intentions of NMPF and its leaders? What a farce! And your current legislative plan...just more of the same!
dairy farmer:
Jerry - The problem I have as a dairy farmer in this debate is how "my side" is telling the public (my customers) how DANGEROUS my product is unless it is pasteurized. What other industry does this?! The fear you instill talking about "spreading pathogens to children" is talk I hear from politicians wanting to create a straw man by "protecting the children" - Jerry, I have met you and know you are better than that. How many people are we turning off telling them how dangerous our product is unless we process it?! How many customers have moved away from our cow's milk because we demonize the pure form. Shame on our industry. We should be finding new techniques and technology to deliver what the customer wants instead of putting resources in blocking it. Put research towards rapid milk testing, a milk cap that acts like a litmus test, home tests, ect..... The fact is countless farm families have consumed and will continue to consume milk from our bulk tanks without problems, injury or death. To me, the biggest black eye for the industry is not from an isolated occurrence of poorly managed milk but from the industry suits and bureaucrats telling my customers how dangerous my wholesome product is. That "vocal minority" will not sit quietly and at the end of the day - THEY ARE OUR CUSTOMERS! We must find a way to appease them and by doing that we CREATE NEW MARKETS AND REVENUE STREAMS for struggling farms. Our customers are demanding it and the farmers need new markets. Signed, 3rd generation dairy farmer