Why Can't Raw Milk Advocates Aknowledge the Risk Their Products Pose?

A piece by David Gumpert at Grist argues on behalf of the raw milk industry in its new challenge to FDA rules banning its sale in interstate commerce. I won't go over all the details of raw milk again (you can look back at previous posts on the subject), but this piece caught my attention for the way it willfully misrepresents the risks of raw milk consumption. Gumpert cites CDC data showing that there were very few absolute cases of illness and death associated with raw milk in 2007, and tries to use this data to prove that raw milk isn't dangerous. After all, he says, more people die from being struck by lightning on golf courses each year than from consuming raw milk. I left the following comment, reprinted here in its entirety:

“More people are killed each year from lightning strikes on golf courses than die from milkborne illnesses.”

Arguments like this do nothing for the credibility of raw milk proponents. The fact is that the absolute number of illnesses and deaths related to a food consumed by a very small minority of people is a somewhat useless number - the fact that few people die from eating something that few people even consume doesn't make it safe. There may be reasonable arguments regarding the legality of FDA regulation of raw milk, but the argument that raw milk is somehow safer than pasteurized milk (as the comparison of mortality rates in the CDC numbers seems to suggest), is not one of them. Consider that from 1990 to 2006 unpasteurized milk was responsible for nearly 70% of foodborne illness outbreaks attributed to milk. More than twice as many outbreaks over 16 years is convincing enough, but only consider that unpasteurized milk consumption is almost statistically insignificant compared with that of conventional milk, and it is hard to even pretend that raw milk isn't demonstrably more dangerous. (Source: CSPI Outbreak Alert! 2008)

As a proponent of freedom of choice, I find myself generally supporting the right of individuals to consume raw milk as long as they are aware of the risks involved. What I don't support is the misrepresentation of these risks, and what I don't understand is why raw milk activists are choosing the battle they are (fighting for freedom to sell their product across state lines) when the most compelling arguments for raw milk's safety are that local, small-scale production allow a short supply chain and an intimate farmer-customer relationship.

Does Partnering with Coca Cola Make Heart Disease Advocates Hyppocrites?

CSPI has publicly criticized the parternship between Coca Cola and the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, arguing that "that letting Coke bask in their agency’s good reputation does American hearts far more harm than good." Basically CSPI doesn't think Coke or other similar companies should be allowed to support (and thereby get good PR from their affiliation with) groups advocating on health issues like heart disease, since Coke products are, to use the CPSI terminology, "obesigenic."

In a perfect world, I would love to ban the sort of apparent hypocrisy that the Coke partnership represents. The sad truth, however, is that there simply is not enough funding from traditional sources for groups doing valuable work on issues like heart disease, child hunger, and so forth. If Coke and ConAgra weren't allowed to support these organizations, the net result would simply be a cut in funding for the organizations.

So as much as the Coke/NHLBI parternship or the McDonald's sponsored Olympics seem worthy of disdain, I don't know that banning such arrangements would be in the public interest. Better to focus on ending the more offensive arrangements, where there is some form of implied or express endorsement of unhealthy products by organizations ostensibly trying to make us healthier. I'm talking, of course, about arrangements like the American Heart Association's Heart Check program, which until very recently would give its seal of approval to clearly unhealthy "lesser evil" foods like reduced fat cheesecake.

More on CSPI's open letter, here.

The Convenience Cost of Portion Sizes

The folks at the Center for Science in the Public Interest has published a story on Coca Cola's new 7.5 oz cans. Credit where credit is due: it's both good business and good from a public health perspective to offer top-of-the-food-pyramid foods like Coke in smaller portion sizes. But CSPI isn't congratulating Coke on a job well done.  On the contrary, the non-profit points out that the unit-price on the new can is a significant mark-up relative to other sizes - about $2.13 per quart compared with $.89 - $1.33. Presumably the mark-up more than covers the additional cost of materials and the advertising costs incident to introducing a new product.

Is this a big deal? Is this something to get upset over? For one thing, Coke has been selling 8 oz cans at similarly inflated prices for years, so this is nothing new. For another, unit prices are printed (albeit in much smaller type) on the price-tag at the grocery store, so it's not like this is some big secret. Nonetheless, I can relate from personal experience (teaching classes on smart shopping for folks on SNAP and similar programs) that there are many people who do not understand or use the unit prices when shopping. I'm not sure what the best way to remedy this is (better basic math education? larger unit-price labels?), but as things are now, there's a lot of people who will probably be buying this product without realizing that they're paying what is in essence a portioning tax levied by Coca Cola.