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.
Showing posts with label Raw Milk. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Raw Milk. Show all posts
Monday, February 22, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
The Raw Milk Question: Organic Pastures vs the FDA
Over at Food Safety News they ran an article this morning about Mark McAfee, the California dairy farmer duking it out with the FDA over his right to market and sell raw (unpasteurized) milk. Raw milk seems like quite the contentious topic lately, and it's increasingly looking like a banner issue for groups advocating people's right to eat what they please, even where there are real food safety concerns.
Personally, I'm torn on the whole raw milk thing. On the one hand, I'm almost always in favor of letting people make their own choices about food, as long as those choices are well-informed (that is the point of this blog). Raw milk is a health risk, but as long as you know that, I feel like it's your call, just like it's your right to order a medium-rare steak, or to go out to a disreputable sushi place for dinner. On the other hand, I can't help feeling like Mr. McAfee is picking the wrong fight. I can be sympathetic to raw milk producers in large part because the safety issues involved in raw milk consumption are usually mitigated by the local and personal scale of raw milk production and sale. People almost always know the farmer, have been to the farm, and can thus make informed judgments about whether the stuff is safe. But this doesn't seem like a battle for raw milk in general; this is a farmer trying to preserve his right to market and sell his unpasteurized milk across state lines via the internet.
According to the article:
McAfee takes umbrage at interstate restrictions on licensed raw milk for several reasons.
"The logic for this is dubious,' he says in his recently filed legal papers, "since the borders between states do not transform healthful foods into poison."
He also points out that distance is not an issue here since milk from cows on the California side of Lake Tahoe cannot be sold on the Nevada side of the lake. Yet milk from cows in Yreka, which is in the far reaches of northern California, can be transported to and sold in San Diego.
While I agree that distance, rather than an arbitrary line at the state border, might be the more relevant consideration, I still don't find myself agreeing with Mr. McAfee. The practical and legal considerations on the FDA's regulation of this product mean that banning its sale across state lines is a sensible middle ground. Without banning raw milk entirely (this is left to the states, as I understand it), the FDA is acknowledging that raw milk presents a real food safety issue. By banning interstate sales, the FDA effectively limits the possibility that vendors will be able to sell a potentially dangerous foodstuff to out-of-state customers who don't have full information about the farm, the product, or the state regulations under which the milk was produced.
Would a national system of regulation for raw milk, like that employed for most other foodstuffs, be a better option? I have a hard time believing the raw milk advocates would be in favor of this sort of system, and I'm not convinced it would be effective anyway. At the end of the day, raw milk is exactly the sort of product that I think we should be buying locally and directly from the farm, if we're purchasing it at all. That seems like the only reliable way to be a fully informed buyer.
Personally, I'm torn on the whole raw milk thing. On the one hand, I'm almost always in favor of letting people make their own choices about food, as long as those choices are well-informed (that is the point of this blog). Raw milk is a health risk, but as long as you know that, I feel like it's your call, just like it's your right to order a medium-rare steak, or to go out to a disreputable sushi place for dinner. On the other hand, I can't help feeling like Mr. McAfee is picking the wrong fight. I can be sympathetic to raw milk producers in large part because the safety issues involved in raw milk consumption are usually mitigated by the local and personal scale of raw milk production and sale. People almost always know the farmer, have been to the farm, and can thus make informed judgments about whether the stuff is safe. But this doesn't seem like a battle for raw milk in general; this is a farmer trying to preserve his right to market and sell his unpasteurized milk across state lines via the internet.
According to the article:
McAfee takes umbrage at interstate restrictions on licensed raw milk for several reasons.
"The logic for this is dubious,' he says in his recently filed legal papers, "since the borders between states do not transform healthful foods into poison."
He also points out that distance is not an issue here since milk from cows on the California side of Lake Tahoe cannot be sold on the Nevada side of the lake. Yet milk from cows in Yreka, which is in the far reaches of northern California, can be transported to and sold in San Diego.
While I agree that distance, rather than an arbitrary line at the state border, might be the more relevant consideration, I still don't find myself agreeing with Mr. McAfee. The practical and legal considerations on the FDA's regulation of this product mean that banning its sale across state lines is a sensible middle ground. Without banning raw milk entirely (this is left to the states, as I understand it), the FDA is acknowledging that raw milk presents a real food safety issue. By banning interstate sales, the FDA effectively limits the possibility that vendors will be able to sell a potentially dangerous foodstuff to out-of-state customers who don't have full information about the farm, the product, or the state regulations under which the milk was produced.
Would a national system of regulation for raw milk, like that employed for most other foodstuffs, be a better option? I have a hard time believing the raw milk advocates would be in favor of this sort of system, and I'm not convinced it would be effective anyway. At the end of the day, raw milk is exactly the sort of product that I think we should be buying locally and directly from the farm, if we're purchasing it at all. That seems like the only reliable way to be a fully informed buyer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
