Skip to main content

View Diary: The Illinois Department of Public Health vs. Illinois Raw Milk Farmers (267 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  romance of taste (7+ / 0-)

    It simply tastes better. A lot better. The raw milk we get is produced by people we know and processed appropriately.

    Don't give a shit about marketing or the primitive or the allure or rural life, etc.

    It tastes a lot better. As simple as that.

    You and the others can stay on your high horses and mock those who prefer raw milk. That's OK. I don't mind. I have no desire to return to the status quo ante, I just want better tasting milk and to support small dairy farmers I know.

    There is a certain constituency at sites like DK who relish creating straw persons like this. Name one pro-raw milk person in this diary who makes any kind of argument about a desire to return to 1850.

    That's what I thought.

    •  Bareback sex tastes better too (8+ / 0-)

      But it's much riskier. You do best to restrict it to people you live with, and with raw milk, it's pretty much the same.

      Like it or not, plenty of small dairies make raw milk that sickens consumers. (I can't imagine how many it would be if raw milk weren't a niche food that isn't even legal in many states.)

      Statistics from the CDC and state health departments comparing raw and pasteurized dairy products linked to reported foodborne disease outbreaks (1973-2006) show that raw milk and Mexican-style queso fresco soft cheeses (usually made from raw milk) caused almost 70% of the reported outbreaks even though only 1-3% of the population consumes raw dairy products.
      I probably wasn't fair with 1850, since modern raw milk can be refrigerated, and obviously that was not possible in 1850. The fact remains that our food supply is safer now than 150 years ago. It may be deteriorating now under the influence of Monsanto and Friends, but we shouldn't overlook the progress that preceded it.
      •  there is progress (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DrFood, johnnymonicker, aitchdee

        and I do not think any reasonable small dairy farmer is opposed to any and all regulation of raw milk. If they are, I would not be interested in buying their milk. But I don't think scare mongering or the dairy lobbyists are always the best source of information (that's not your source, I know).

        You sex analogy is not totally on point but also not totally off base. My wife and I visited the farm where we own a "share" of their eight cows' production. We toured their facilities, talked to people who had known them who we trust (we are plugged into the local small farming and urban ag community), talked with the family, met the cows. In short, we didn't just go the corner and pick some random person to shag. That's not a good way to go for anything. I am of the opinion that if you know it is safe (or highly-likely safe), bareback is better! And so is raw milk.

        Unlike some I also don't think it unreasonable for people to want to know how a larger raw milk industry (something I hope happens) is going to ensure a safe product. I think farmers can meet an adequate standard provided it is not one designed to crush them at the behest of industrial dairy.

        I have met some fervent raw milk advocates who I think do their cause no good by saying everything is a conspiracy, pasteurized milk is poison, and any regulation of raw milk is unacceptable. That swings too far the other way.

      •  My friend (4+ / 0-)

        do you really think the CDC is an unbiased and fair compiler of information regarding raw milk?

        The answer is that these people have an agenda, bought and payed for by Big Dairy and enforced at every level by the US Gubmint.

        It amazes me that people can see that about marijuana propaganda, but, when it comes to raw milk, suddenly the US Gubmint is the one legit source for all information.

        I repeat:  raw milk is the second most policed product in the US after marijuana.  Don't you get it?  There's powerful corporate players making sure the truth does not get out about industrial vs raw milk.  There's billions at stake, not to mention over a century of boneheaded government policy.  They will fight tooth and nail, until their fingers bleed, but they will never acknowledge the health benefits of raw milk.

        And usual caveats apply:  you can't get reliable raw milk at a grocery store.  It has to come from a local farmer who knows what she is doing.  Period.  You can't bundle raw milk.  You can't aggregate it.  It's you and a cow and some healthy pasture.  But, when you get that right, there is not a better product for the human body, anywhere.

        Industrial food production in America ruins our health, our environment and consumes more fossil fuel than any segment of our economy.

        by Mi Corazon on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 05:24:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  and what % of Americans would have that access? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          alain2112, eyesoars

          I'm wiling to believe you don't have to pasteurize milk from your cow, or maybe your neighbors'.

          Unless you think the Government is making up stories about kids getting sick and going to the hospital after drinking raw milk from small dairies, that looks to be about the limit. Once it's a commercial enterprise, even a small one, the risk is many times that of pasteurized milk.

          Given the rather small number of Americans who live close enough to a cow, pasteurized milk is going the be the only safe alternative for 95% of the population. Luckily, the idea the pasteurization is poisonous is a conspiracy theory, and the idea that our immune systems just need to be toughened up a little doesn't explain why life expectancy boomed under vaccination, pasteurization, and antibiotics. Indeed, history would seem unkind to these theories.

          •  I never said pasteurization is "poisonous" (0+ / 0-)

            YOU DID

            I said that it lacks the natural fauna that combats harmful bacteria. I also mentioned how the process of pasteurization either stunts or eliminates the anti-carcinogenic, immune-boosting, growth-promoting enzymes, amino acids and immunoglobulins that are present in abundance in raw milk.

            (No, I did not mention this in the journal. I mentioned it in the commentary . . . many, many times.)

          •  Life expectancy? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            johnnymonicker

            For whom?  I would be careful about statistics comparing the distant past to today and tying it to any specific protocol enforced by government.

            Look at deaths during child-birth.  That sure swings numbers.  And all kinds of things, penicillin, tetanus, etc.  Not all of these things are bad and degrade human health.

            What we are talking about here is how pasteurization strips out very crucial enzymes and bacteria from milk and, over time, degrades the human immune system, healthy infants, disease resistance -- and on and on.

            And, you're right, can everyone get raw milk?  No.  That's why the swill dairies outside Chicago led to pasteurization in the first place.  

            But, the point is this:  do we tell people the truth about farming and human health, or do we hide behind the Big Corporate lie that pasteurization is the only way human beings can provide milk?

            If we would allow the truth that milk from a healthy cow on healthy pasture creates a healthy product, far superior to the industrial one, then people begin to understand the degree to which the industrial food system is killing our health.

            That is valuable information apart from any ability to buy raw milk.  We need to tell the truth and let people pursue their own solutions.  And the truth is, raw milk from a conscientious producer is a vastly superior product, cuts out the industrial and corporate connection and leads to better health outcomes.

            That's important to acknowledge and I do not understand why Kossacks would choose Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and other corporate Big Boys over the simple reality of a farmer, their animals, their land and a trusted connection to their customers.  Really?   Why?

            Industrial food production in America ruins our health, our environment and consumes more fossil fuel than any segment of our economy.

            by Mi Corazon on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 05:52:00 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Your statistics may not be as reliable as (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JeffW, johnnymonicker

        you may think.  Many health care providers are so completely indoctrinated with raw milk = deadly poison that if their patient has a food-borne illnes they will assume that the milk is the culprit, even if the whole family drank the milk but only one person is sick AND that one person ate or drank something else that no one else in the family had.  

        Renewable energy brings national global security.     

        by Calamity Jean on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 07:30:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  taste (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mhanch, Andrew Lazarus

      Taste is a function of the fat content, care in handling, and what the animal is eating. When I pasteurize my own milk I can't taste the difference between that and raw. There is going to be a very pronounced difference between a grazing, sunlit Jersey cow's milk and supermarket 2% mixed from a thousand Holsteins fed pelleted feed with medications already added, in a stinking barn they'll never see the outside of. Has nothing to do with rawness.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site