The more data there is suggesting that raw milk is not only safe, but also healthy and popular, the more difficult it is for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control, and the various professional medical associations to argue otherwise. Or let me put it this way: the more shrill and hollow their arguments sound.

We’ve seen at least three small studies of raw milk undertaken in recent years: one out of a Michigan food co-op suggesting that sufferers of lactose intolerance do better with raw milk, the one I summarized in my previous post indicating that raw milk sales benefit Massachusetts dairy farmers and local communities more than is generally understood, and one just conducted via an online survey by California raw milk advocate Amanda Rose on the characteristics of raw milk drinkers (some of the intitial results have been posted on an Internet site, showing, most notably, that about three-fourths of the raw milk drinkers in the survey have undergraduate degrees or better). Other similar studies are no doubt under way or being contemplated.

Now, these studies may vary in their scientific depth and credibility, but what they all have in common is that they reduce, little by little, the sense of fear that public health authorities work so hard to create.

Certainly there have been other more scientifically-based recent studies completed that suggest consuming raw milk shows important benefits, but the establishment scientists who conduct them invariably hew the government line, to the effect: It seems as if raw milk confers important health benefits, but we can’t recommend that people drink it because the FDA and CDC say it’s dangerous. (Note that the major study I linked to was funded by the European Union and other European organizations; as such it provides a sense of what an American government agency would expect if it even got to the point of encouraging or funding such research.)

To me, such government-sponsored studies are biased: raw milk is damned in the end no matter what its benefits. So how do we get more of what I would call the unbiased studies completed? A number of people are wondering that, and following my previous post have suggested organizing a foundation or even a research conference devoted to raw milk and related research. These are all great ideas, and if someone wants to take the challenge on (the biggest challenge being raising money) I’m sure there would be all kinds of great proposals for studies. I’d certainly be pleased to do what I can to help move things along.

But if such devices can’t be readily created, I’d suggest an alternative: that small local organizations, or even individuals, think about conducting their own studies, as occurred in Michigan, Massachusetts, and California. Such studies don’t need to be expensive, since the organizations tend to have existing relationships with consumers. Internet technology helps keeps costs down.

Such studies, because they involve real people with real experience, tell the story the government doesn’t want people to hear.