The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s web site prominently features a 64-slide presentation, “Raw Milk: Associated Public Health Risks”. It is full of statistics and descriptions of illness from raw milk–many of them questionable. It concludes on slide 59: "Pasteurizaton does not appreciably alter the nutritive value of milk. Claims to the contrary by raw milk advocates are without scientific support."

 

I’ve mentioned the FDA presentation before, but I think of it now because of a major case of illness from milk contamination in Massachusetts—contamination from pasteurized milk. It’s received extensive coverage in today’s Boston Globe, and apparently triggered dozens of calls to state health authorities by concerned consumers.

 

According to the reports, three elderly individuals were sickened by listeriosis, and two of them died. A fourth individual—a pregnant woman in her thirties—had a miscarriage.

 

If you are a raw milk drinker and you have been following some of the cases of alleged listeria contamination of raw milk in New York State, you will be interested to know a few curious facts about this case.

 

First, the initial illness actually occurred last June. The next one was in October, and then two occurred in November.

 

Second, the dairy responsible for the contaminated milk has shut down “voluntarily” until more can be learned about the cause of the contamination.

 

And third, the listeria bacteria, with the same genetic footprint that made all four individuals sick, was actually found in a carton of the milk purchased by a consumer.

 

I point these facts out because we know that if someone who became ill last June had consumed raw milk, the state would have acted much more quickly. Pasteurized milk isn’t a red flag to investigators, even though it sickens hundreds of consumers each year.

 

Also, the dairy would have been forced to shut down, not encouraged to shut down voluntarily. And the cause of the illness would have been laid on the raw milk dairy, even if the listeria couldn’t be found in the milk.

 

I really don’t mean to make this sound like a whining “I-told-you-so” commentary. It isn’t.

 

According to Terri Lawton, manager of a small Massachusetts dairy, Oake Knoll Ayrshires Farm, that sells raw milk directly to consumers from her farm outside Boston in Foxboro, the dairy in the middle of this storm, Whittier Farms, is a small high-quality operation, which delivers milk to consumers’ homes and sells from a couple of its own stores. “Whittier Farms pasteurizes and bottles their milk in a much larger facility" than hers, she writes on her listserve. “But from what I’ve seen of their operation, they do a very good job and I’m surprised and saddened to hear about this.” 

 

No, I think about the suit from Organic Pastures and Claravale Farm charging California’s agriculture officials with "denial of equal protection." All this new case tells us is that we run a risk of illness from many foods. Should we ban pasteurized milk to eliminate the risk? After all, two people died and a pregnant woman lost her child. I don’t think so, any more than we should ban raw spinach or ground beef. Yes, officials should investigate such cases carefully to learn what went wrong, so the dairy can correct the problem. Be objective, and fair.  

 

I have a feeling that this particular milk contamination case won’t be added to the FDA presentation.