The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America's Emerging Battle Over Food Rights
Also in Health and Wellness
Pharmaceutical Giant Paid $500,000 to Psychiatrist Who Used Chicago's Poor as Guinea Pigs
Christina Jewett and Sam Roe
Do Yearly Mammograms Save Women's Lives?
Naomi Freundlich
Is House Health Care Bill a Threat to Our Constitution?
Barry W. Lynn
An Open Letter to Harry Reid: Here's How to Cut Health Care Costs
Robert B. Reich
For 12-Year-Old Without an Arm, Insurance Has Run Out
Danielle Ivory
Memo to the Tea-Baggers: God and Country Aren't with You
Glynn Wilson
DG: Sure. Pasteurization allows milk to be safely transported regionally, and still remain on store shelves for a week or more without spoilage. Increasingly, milk is being transported ever longer distances -- for example, milk from the West, where there tend to be surpluses, is often transported to the East, where there are shortages. As milk is increasingly transported long distances, standard pasteurization has been supplemented by ultra-high temperature pasteurization, which involves heating milk to 275 degrees for a few seconds. The effect is to kill off even more organisms, and thereby allow the milk to last for up to six to nine months without refrigeration. Because organic milk must often be transported the longest distances, it tends to be subjected to ultra-high temperature pasteurization more often than conventional milk.
MG: Why is the raw milk revolution similar to the organic vs. conventional food debate?
DG: For a long time, organic veggies and fruits were seen as marginal products, produced by just a few local growers. A fringe group of consumers proclaimed their benefits. Eventually, organic food was produced in ever-larger quantities, with large agricultural growers becoming involved. It has become mainstream. Today, raw milk is similarly a marginal product, produced generally by a few local dairies. It's not clear, though, that it will follow the same trajectory as organic food, since even among raw milk advocates, there is a preference for obtaining it locally from small dairies. And among these advocates, there is doubt large feedlot type dairies could produce raw milk that would be consistently safe.
MG: What does the divide between traditional and factory farming have to do with raw milk?
DG: Advocates of raw milk have consistently argued that they wouldn't want milk from factory farms sold unpasteurized, since the crowding of cows makes sanitation sometimes questionable. Indeed, there have been studies of the unpasteurized milk at factory farms (before it is sent for pasteurization), which show significant contamination by pathogens. A 2004 study published in the Journal of Dairy Science found that in milk samples taken from 861 bulk tanks in 21 states around the country, 2.6 percent contained salmonella and 6.5 percent tested positive for listeria monocytogenes. Pasteurization, of course, kills off these pathogens.
Instead, raw milk advocates seek out smaller traditional farms, which encourage pasture feeding of cows and diligent sanitation.
MG: Why is there a crackdown on small farms who produce raw milk (even if they have devoted, happy customers)?
DG: The FDA is adamantly against consumption of raw milk, even if customers are happy. The head of its dairy division has been quoted on numerous occasions as saying that consuming raw milk "is like playing Russian roulette with your health." The FDA's warnings have done little to slow consumption of raw milk, however -- quite the contrary. So as raw milk has grown in popularity, the FDA, beginning in 2005 and 2006, has joined with state agriculture agencies in trying to instead cut the supply of raw milk. It has focused its efforts heavily on such large dairy-producing states as New York, California, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In these states, there have been varying actions against producers of raw milk -- "sting" operations, shutdowns for contamination even when no one has become ill, and legal proceedings and fines.

MG: When it comes to food, how much freedom should people have to choose their own--regardless of the "risk"?
DG: This is a controversial issue. I think individuals should be free to assess the risks associated with foods, and make the final choices. All foods can be contaminated, and some, like deli meats and raw seafood, involve more serious risks than raw milk. Opponents argue that in certain situations, like with milk, which are heavily consumed by children, consumers shouldn't have free choice, since children can't make an informed choice.
For more information on The Raw Milk Revolution, watch this video with David Gumpert, or order his book here.
See more stories tagged with: health, milk, raw milk
Makenna Goodman is Community Outreach Coordinator for Chelsea Green Publishing, the publisher of The Raw Milk Revolution, by David Gumpert, whom she interviewed for this guest post. She is also a guest blogger at Planet Green.
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »
You've chosen to turn comments off for the entire site. Would you like to turn them back on?
Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.