I’m one of these people who believe that seemingly intractable divisions can be resolved by people with good intentions. In other words, when both sides of a political issue truly want a resolution, then they make it happen through compromise. We’ve seen it happen in Northern Ireland and in the U.S. over civil rights. Not to say the problems go away, but major components are resolved enough that significant progress can be made.

The raw milk issue is a political problem, one with heavily ideological components. We’re not in a position to resolve the issue here, but we’ve had some excellent debates and discussions over various aspects of the problem, like warning labels and signage, milk testing protocols, and most recently, about research priorities to gain more knowledge about the benefits or hazards of raw milk.

I thought we had a pretty good discussion going here following my previous post. Mark McAfee had some excellent suggestions about the importance of involving raw milk opponents in any research project. Concerned Person expressed a preference for a focus on safety issues. Don Wittinger talked about exploring effects of raw milk on the elderly. Miguel argued that it all starts with soil quality, and took issue with Lykke over whether private labs are suitable testing sources. Bryan and Hugh Betcha seem to have a penchant for the Pottenger study of cats and raw milk out of the 1940s.

Sure, there were some semi-hostile back-and-forths between Lykke and Hugh Betcha. But I think for Lykke and Concerned Person, in particular, just to participate on this blog requires a willingness to dish it out as well as take it. In other words, sharp elbows are almost a requirement for surviving in the hostile territory those two find here. In that context, I thought Lykke’s lance-an-abscess metaphor was a not inappropriate response to Hugh Betcha’s initial outburst.

But it seemed to be her questioning of Pottenger’s 1940s experiments with diets of cats that completely undidHugh Betcha. He went off on a rant that totally undermined an otherwise excellent discussion, by getting personal and suggesting she doesn’t belong on this blog. Sorry Hugh, much as I enjoy many of your comments, you don’t decide who belongs on this blog (nor do I, by the way, it’s a completely open forum, though we heavily frown on mob tactics).

The spark that set off Hugh Betcha seemed to be the questioning of the Pottenger data. Now, I recently did a survey of research on raw milk in connection with my book, and decided to not even include the Pottenger work. He may have been an excellent scientist, and there may be some wonderful insights there, but it is very difficult to get your arms around the research so as to write intelligently about it, for reasons that Lykke well descrobes. Maybe I was right and maybe I was wrong, but I concluded there was other more persuasive research supporting raw milk, and focused on that.

My point is that the Pottenger is obviouslu very important to Hugh Betcha, his sacred cow, as it were. And once someone insulted his sacred cow, well, he just resorted to fighting dirty.

The anti-raw-milk crowd is just as guilty of holding onto sacred cows. Just take a look at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s presentation “On the Safety of Raw Milk” and you’ll see one (or possibly dozens, once you get into it). That highly suspect 2005 presentation is pretty much the first thing that comes up on the FDA’s site when people search under “raw milk,” so I’d say the agency holds onto it as a sacred cow.

It’s so easy when dealing with highly divisive issues like raw milk, especially when the discussion gets difficult or testy, to simply throw up your hands and hang on desperately to your sacred cows. Not only does it generally accomplish little that’s positive, it actually undermines the efforts of well meaning individuals.