PointingaGun.JPG

I want to thank Jilly B for sharing with us at least some of the difficulties she has faced since her two-year-old daughter became seriously ill from raw milk. 

We don’t know the whole story, but we know enough to appreciate that her daughter and entire family have endured a tremendous amount of suffering.

I’ve struggled with what exactly to say, since she Jilyl sums up the nut of the problem as well as anyone I’ve seen here, myself included: 

“The ‘dirty farmer’ is as bad as ‘something was wrong with your daughter’s immunity.’ Instead (of) standing by people, you have turned on them. This is why the movement has become ‘us versus them.’ It does neither side any good. Instead it leaves parents like myself who are researching raw milk wondering who to believe. When (in) reality there is a truth in between.”

If I might be so bold as to re-state her message, it is this: Grow up, the bunch of you. Those of you who advocate raw milk, stop pretending that people like me, devoted mothers  of kids who got sick from raw milk, don’t exist, or that we somehow screwed up in raising our kids and/or assessing our farmer. And those of you who oppose raw milk, stop trying to use me as a propaganda tool, to trumpet your message that raw milk is evil and that you only care about protecting little kids. You’re all a bunch of hypocrites. 

When I put it like that, I realize it truly is a sad state of affairs at its core. But as long as I’m stepping back, I do want to say that I personally have been impressed by how much more well reasoned, even compassionate, the tenor of the comments has been compared (with notable exceptions) to what they were when another mom, Mary McGonigle Martin, first recounted her son’s illness from raw milk more than five years ago, in March 2007. 

Over the next several years, she provided much additional  information about her and her son’s experiences, and often engaged in terribly heated arguments with many people on this blog, including Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy Co., and others who felt  she went overboard, seeming unable to let go of her experience. Yet, here she  is complimenting McAfee about the Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI), and even expressing approval for raw milk sales (with the proviso that people should know they can pasteurize it when they get home, which is absolutely their privilege.) 

Despite the improved tone, a good number of individuals here seem committed to holding fast to their views. Telling moms the solution is to expose their children to dirt isn’t the most useful answer. Yes, it might  be true, but it doesn’t address the immediate problem facing Jilly. If children get sick from raw milk, reminding families to trust in dirt and bacteria doesn’t do anything to help them. Telling them it’s all a conspiracy against raw milk isn’t the way, either. Worst of all is ostracizing them because they remind others of the dangers of  raw milk. They need compassion, and maybe even assistance in recovering their health and family normalcy. 

None of this, however, addresses the underlying problem, which is that Jilly feels she can’t trust either side in this raw  milk conundrum. 

I’m not sure she wants to hear in depth about that any more than she wants to hear about the role of bacteria in our lives, but I think it’s worth trying to explain, given the discussion that has  unfolded.                                                                                   

Most fundamentally, the issue of raw milk has become so politicized that it’s nearly impossible for someone like Jilly, in search of straightforward information, to obtain it, either from government regulators or from farmers.  The government public health officials in the form of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration say that raw milk not only doesn’t confer any health benefits, but it is deadly dangerous and shouldn’t be served to children in any event. 

But all someone investigating the issue has to do–especially if they have friends or acquaintances consuming raw milk–is look around just a little to realize that what the government is saying isn’t so, that thousands, and likely millions of people, are consuming raw milk each day without ill effects. Moreover, many of them are improving their health–a reality being backed up by serious research out of Europe (contrary to what amym argues).

If what the government public  health people  are saying isn’t true about the dangers of raw milk,  then  a logical conclusion individuals like Jilly come to is that everything they say must be exaggerated at best, or a lie at worst. Good-bye credibility. 

On  the  other side are those raw milk advocates who suggest that serious illnesses  are so rare as to  be inconsequential–indeed, that raw milk’s good bacteria guard against illness by killing the bad bacteria. As a result, they don’t see the need to provide serious explanations and warnings about the potential dangers of raw milk…and why give government opponents more fodder for their crackdowns in any event?  Individuals like Jilly read the hype about raw milk being inherently safe, and they tend to believe it in the information vacuum that exists.

So when someone like Jilly  enters the community with  her tragic  story, it creates all kinds of anxiety. The underlying concern in the community: what if there are enough serious illnesses so as to be consequential? Are my children at risk as well?

If both  sides seem to be off their rockers, not to be trusted, what do you do? I’ve  asked myself that  question a good  deal, and have decided, for myself personally, that I trust the pro-raw-milk side more than the anti-raw-milk side. For a very simple reason: While there are some in the pro community who are in denial about illnesses, there are others who aren’t. In fact, there are a variety of views about illnesses, some of which we see in all the comments following my previous post. 

This community tolerates a variety of views. Maybe not always graciously, as both Mary McGonigle Martin and Mark McAfee know very well. 

I know there are some in the raw milk community who are offended by the view I’ve expressed in any number of public forums–that raw milk is riskier than pasteurized milk in terms of illness from pathogens…even though it’s likely not riskier than some foods that are regularly consumed without controversy. 

But the anti-raw-milk community doesn’t tolerate anything approaching a diversity of views, at least in the public arena. Its approach to free speech isn’t dissimilar to that of Cuba or North Korea. If the squashing of an academic article about the potential health benefits of raw milk at the University of California, Davis, has taught us anything, it is that there is absolutely no room for open discussion or debate about the pros and cons of raw milk within that community. 

And that is the key point: there is much to learn and discuss. When Charlotte Smith calls her local agriculture extension and Oregon State University to learn more about how to produce raw milk safely, and can’t obtain any information, that is wrong. Unfortunately, it is typical, in fact, nearly universal in this country.  It borders on criminal to deny well established guidance and information to farmers who want to do the right thing…all because our public servants have decided it’s is better to let kids get seriously ill so as to help make their political case that raw milk should be banned. 

I won’t even begin to get at the corruption that leads professional scientists and health care providers to take such a cynical approach as to increase the risk for young children becoming sick, since that is a whole separate subject. But  when you fully appreciate the official hostility to raw milk (and to food choice in a broader sense), you begin to understand why farmers seek to avoid regulation, and operate underground. They know that, too often, the regulators aren’t there to improve safety, but rather to put the farmers out of business. 

There  are  actually people in the public health and agriculture regulation communities  who see  the dairy  that made Jilly’s  daughter sick as run by criminals. I  won’t  excuse  the operators. But I will say it is difficult for any dairy’s operators to get  the  education they need if the people in  charge  are  essentially pointing  a  gun  at  their heads. 

I know this isn’t the kind of answer Jilly would like. She and others in her position of trying to learn about raw milk deserve straightforward, helpful, complete, and honest information. Gradually, it’s becoming more available from farmers like Charlotte Smith in Oregon.

Unfortunately, it will be a slower process than it should be because the situation is currently so politicized that the participants–especially the regulators–seem incapable of having any kind of rational discourse. But I’m an optimist. I feel the will of the people will prevail, and I have no doubt the will of most Americans is that they should decide which foods to put into their bodies, and they should make that decision with the best possible information at their disposal.