In response to my closing paragraph in Busy, like a Fox – a reader left this comment: Who you calling rickety? I promise you - "under the radar" milk makers are scrupulous about their sanitization. They HAVE to be. Of course there is always a margin for human error, but where is your data to back up being so dismissive of small outfits? I want numbers.
In January of this year 5 people became sick with Campylobacter infections after drinking raw milk in New York. In March, same pathogen different state, 17 were made ill after drinking raw milk. Earlier this summer, at least 3 people were sickened by drinking E. coli tainted raw milk in Minnesota, one victim, a child, has racked up a half million dollars in medical bills. To date, in 2010 there have been 9 separate confirmed food poisoning outbreaks linked to raw milk. Since they began tracking data, CDC has confirmed well over 100 outbreaks of food borne illness related to raw milk: 70% of all illnesses involving dairy involve raw milk, while only 1% (possibly up to 3%) of all dairy consumed is raw.
In 2005, 80 people were sickened in the NW from E. coli traced to a small parsley grower in Oregon. In 2008 over a dozen people were infected by tainted spinach from a small farm. Oregon, senior epidemiologist, William Keene - "There are no data to suggest that small farms or food processors are any less risky than big ones."
People should have raw milk if they want raw milk. Part of the problem in keeping an activity illegal is that it invites a level of unscrupulousness and a lack of accountability. What adults do is really their own concern - The belief that industrial food is evil and make the reactionary choice to head in the opposite direction is understandable but worrisome. Especially when you give raw milk to children, especially young children with smaller bodies and underdeveloped immune systems.
In 1996, Odwalla, then a medium sized, regional maker of ‘natural’ juices shipped bacteria laced bottles that resulted in 70 cases of food poisoning and the death of one child; a child who according to reports was given unfiltered, unpasteurized juice because it was considered healthy. The company’s reaction to the outbreak is studied in business schools as the exemplar of Crisis Response…And while voluntary recalls, paying all medical bills and switching to flash pasteurization might have all been appropriate actions, Odwalla was eventually fined 1.5 million dollars for wrong doing (Government, not civil actions) and they possibly knew about harmful bacteria in their products since the 80s.
As someone who thinks ultra pasteurized cream tastes scorched and milk from plastic containers tastes chemical while raw milk cheeses have been some of the tastiest I have ever had, I like the availability of raw milk. As far as health claims go - this isn’t a rational discussion where risks are weighed against benefits, if it was be no one would feed raw milk to a child. This is an emotional argument...A person isn't going to scientifically prove raw milk prevents autism, but at some point, whether the milk comes from a rickety, fly by night dairy or above board, modern and streamlined raw milk distribution center -someone is going to get sick and die from drinking raw milk, just as people occasionally perish from eating my beloved raw cheese. Proceed with caution.

1 comments:
speaking of emotional argument, what a relief to read a non-emotionally tinged post here. information is so tonic, so, well, informative. perhaps that kind of content is better found elsewhere, but i like reading it here because the writer obviously has ample stores of information to share. dismissiveness can be found in a tone, not just an argument based on facts. and tone can be one form of humor, of which the writer also sometimes has in store. personally, i prefer the non-emotional, fact-ful argument every time. especially this time. thank you for the facts.
Post a Comment