Reasons Why You Should Not Let the FDA Scare You Away From Raw Milk



Why is it that raw milk, once considered a common beverage to the public has become somewhat of an obstacle to obtain? Moreover, we have been taught by the FDA that consuming raw milk is extremely dangerous and even deadly for ones health. The FDA has created an unnecessary paranoia and scare among the people. Please remember, it is the FDA that approved a number of unethical agricultural procedures. The FDA cannot be entirely trusted, and one should not solely depend on what it has to say regarding raw milk. Although, under the circumstances the majority of cows are being raised and fed, we cannot blame the FDA for not wanting the population to consume raw milk from “industrialized” cows. The “Great Industrialization” that has occurred in the agricultural world has created cows that are no longer producing healthy raw milk but grimey unhealthy milk. Everybody should have the opportunity to consume raw milk from pasture-fed cows raised under friendly and sanitary conditions. Milk should come from happy, natural and healthy cows, not from depressed, confined, and “synthetic” cows injected with hormones and most likely suffering udder infections. There are several reasons why raw milk from pasture fed cows should be receiving more positive criticism from the FDA.

Sometimes I wish I could easily walk into the nearest grocery and buy myself some fresh cold unpasteurized milk to accompany my breakfast meal; however this is far from reality. Nineteen states allow direct sales of raw milk from dairy farmers to individuals, and nine states permit retail sale (Herald Times Reporter). Some areas in NY with farms producing raw milk are Kingston, Truxton, Medina, Bloomville, Cassadaga, Clifton Springs, and Westchester (A Campaign For Real Milk). It is illegal to sell raw milk on supermarket shelves in New York. As a result there is raw milk coming from black market sellers, being brought closer to the buyer instead of being sold on the ground where it is produced, basically causing a convenient yet sneaky and illegal transaction to occur. The term Milk Dealer has even become popular among the raw milk transactions, and is defined within the milk control laws as anyone in the business of receiving, purchasing, pasteurizing, bottling, processing, distributing or handling milk (Justia). Some folks have created "milk clubs" with people taking turns driving to farms to get raw milk for everyone else. Mrs. Robinson, a raw milk producer says more than 50 percent of her customers share a ride to the farm or pay someone to pick up the milk for them (Miner). Many other certified raw milk producers depend on sales to individuals who pick up milk to deliver to others, and tightened regulation of that network worries both consumers and producers. A good amount of black market delivery services have grown and some farmers in the U.S. and Canada have been arrested, their operations shuttered. But that doesn't seem to be slowing down supply or demand (Pashman).

There are a number of reasons why one should not solely follow the FDA’s advice and studies regarding raw milk. In 1993 the FDA approved genetically engineered artificial bovine growth hormone for commercial use in the U.S, based only on an unpublished study by Monsanto (Cruzan). The European Union, Canada, Australia and Japan did not approve of rBGH. Shouldn’t the word artificial be something to be concerned about, I wouldn’t want to consume something that is made in imitation when it could be made naturally. The following year, it advised that no significant difference had been shown between milk derived from rBST-treated and non rBST-treated cows. But what does “significant” really mean? There is a difference…just nothing extremely significant to get worried about according to the FDA, so are we to just put that information aside? No, because the FDA basically has stated that a difference does exist between the rBST-treated and non rBST-treated milk. M.D. Samuel S. Epstein the chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition says “The milk from cows injected with rBGH has higher levels of another hormone called insulin-like growth factor 1. Levels of this hormone have been linked to breast and colon cancer.” More recent studies have shown that rBGH/rBST caused a high increase in bacterial udder infections known as mastitis (Epstein). In 2008, the FDA released it 968 page report “Animal cloning: A risk Assessment” and informed the public that milk from cloned cows had been approved for human consumption. The milk the majority of the public has been purchasing comes from a synthetic cow, a cloned cow which has also endured abuse and been injected with hormones. Keep in mind these types of cows spend most of the time standing on manure in crowded feedlots.
Perhaps the idea of having a vast amount of grass fed cows and letting them roam freely seems like too much of a hassle. This farming style would also require patience, a feature the corrupt agricultural business seems to tremendously lack today. It seems as if our society wants everything done quickly and forgot the value of letting animals grow how nature intended them to. Possibly you already know that in a gallon of pasteurized milk, is the milk from a number of different cows, some are not even from the same farms or states. One of the largest milk corporations in America is Dean Foods; it is in charge of processing more than two billion gallons of milk per year, as well as owning many regional milk labels such as Berkley Farms, Horizon Organic Milk, Alta Dena and more. Worst of all nobody knows how much gets mixed in bulk tanks and is produced using the rBGH growth hormone (Katz).

The FDA might say well at least a superfluous amount of milk is being produced; however the quality is not good. Instead of eliminating the problems for good, the FDA will be there … soothing the problem with the huge amount of antibiotics and fixing up the milk by pasteurizing it. Over a long period of time the antibiotics destroy the “friendly” bacteria which are necessary for protecting from infection in the first place. Clearly, pasteurization serves as a band-aid, covering up all the ugly truths of industrial farming. Raw milk cannot possibly be more dangerous when coming from a natural grass-fed cow. Today, cows have basically become mini carnivores, given feed that contains pigs and poultry. The FDA has announced these feeding practices as unsafe, but it has not done enough to enforce it. The real solution would be to get rid of all plate waste, poultry litter, and cattle blood from cows’ diets. But cows are still consuming pig and even horse blood for protein, to simply fatten them up. We have transformed milk drinking calves into blood drinking monsters. Due to these absurd ways of feeding cows the bacteria known as E-coli has increased. Michael Pollan says,
“The lethal strain of E. coli known as 0157:H7, responsible for this latest outbreak of food poisoning, was unknown before 1982; it is believed to have evolved in the gut of feedlot cattle. These are animals that stand around in their manure all day long, eating a diet of grain that happens to turn a cow’s rumen into an ideal habitat for E. coli 0157:H7. (The bug can’t survive long in cattle living on grass.).”
None of these procedures are ethical or natural, so of course drinking raw milk from these modified “Frankenstein” cows would be unsafe. Hence, pasteurization is seen as a must.

Some people argue that pasteurized milk is easier to buy; it has extended shelf life, and is not as delicate as raw milk and overall it does not require much looking after. Pasteurization changes the quality and flavor of milk, and we have all been fooled into thinking so greatly about it. The “Got Milk?” saying and advertising can be seen in many magazines and worst of all is supported by a number of mainstream celebrities. Therefore, milk is definitely seen as essential in our society, but the type of pasteurized milk that is being produced in such great amounts is not necessarily the best for us. On an even sadder note, pasteurization has turned into ultra-pasteurization due to the unsanitary conditions of milk being produced in the unfriendly industrial farming environments. When milk is pasteurized, the beneficial enzyme Lipase, as with most enzymes in milk is inactivated. Lipase is an enzyme the body uses to break down fats in foods and helps with digestion (A Campaign For Real Milk). In the dairy industry, the primary measure of quality is somatic cell count which is measured in the number of cells per milliliter. A somatic cell is a white blood cell and is most often highly present in milk due to bacterial infections. Currently, the U.S. legal limit is 750,000 cells per milliliter. The University of Minnesota stated in the Journal of Animal Science that less than 26% of the herds of the states were able of delivering milk with somatic cell counts under 400,000 and that only 38% could consistently meet the legal limit of 750,000(Hartke). Now imagine this situation, you are to visit an industrial modern day dairy farm, I am certain after seeing and smelling all the disgusting factors you would probably not pick up another glass of pasteurized milk again.

Now getting back to the good stuff, precautions will always be needed when it comes to drinking raw milk; it does not have extended shelf life so one must understand it is meant to be consumed quickly. When kept at the most favorable temperature of 36-38 Fahrenheit, raw milk can be expected to last 7 to 10 days. With refrigerated trucks, regular testing, and inspection of cows specifically being raised to produce milk for consumption, more people would get to experience the great taste of natural 100% real milk. The University of Basel in Switzerland has conducted studies, with results showing that people who consumed raw milk had lower rates of asthma and hay fever. Milk produced from cattle raised entirely on pasture had higher levels of beneficial fat, including omega-3 fatty acids which may prevent heart disease and strengthen immune systems (Union of Concerned Scientists). You might now be wondering, well what about the bad bacteria in raw milk such as salmonella, e-coli? Surprisingly, deli meats are 10.8 times more dangerous than raw milk and one of America’s favorite summer indulgences hot dogs, when non-reheated are 9.8 times more dangerous than raw milk (Tribe).

Raw milk is not inherently hazardous yet one cannot be careless when it comes to raw milk because it can get contaminated in the course of its handling and storage. Therefore it takes meticulous handling from the consumer and an honest farmer who is willing to admit when the milk is potentially bad for consumption. When milk and milk products are mishandled or good management practices with cows are not followed, some defects can be observed in the flavor and appearance of fluid dairy foods (Bradley). The FDA is persistent in giving raw milk bad fame, but then again why should you have so much faith in officials who are being lobbied by industrial food lobbyists. Furthermore, while the FDA says there is little support to claim the salubrious properties of raw milk many folks here in America have written, spoken and shared with communities their personal opinions regarding the raw milk experience. Organic Pastures, the nation's largest raw-organic-dairy-products producer in North America, has about 60,000 customers in California (Beecher). For example, if raw milk did not have any benefits, why would one man be willing to go as far as telling the judge to give him the highest penalty? Raw milk activist and dairy farmer Michael Schmidt says none of his 150 customers have ever gotten sick from drinking the raw milk. Supporting Schmidt are two very well known celebrity chefs, Jamie Kennedy and MPP Greg Sorbara.
If farmers meet the requirements and the dairy is safe, the state of New York should allow small stores only selling raw milk and dairy products to open up in various locations, even if it were one per borough, people would no longer have to engage in the black market to obtain raw milk or have to drive out to farms located in Long Island. The price of raw milk should remain somewhat high, being that it will require farmers to transport their milk from out in the suburbs to the city. People should feel good about supporting local farmers and not big corrupt organizations. Raw milk contains beneficial bacteria, natural enzymes, and a rich source of healthy fat. Stronger immune systems, less digestive problems, and more nutrients the natural way will benefit us all. Hopefully, raw milk from healthy cows will prevail, and once again will people specifically young children benefit from the richness and wholesomeness of unpasteurized dairy!





RESOURCES
A Campaign For Real (Raw) Milk. The Weston A. Price Foundation, n.d. Web. 10 May 2010. .

Beecher, Cookson. "Dairy Farmer, FDA Score Points in Raw Milk Case." Food Safety News (20190): n. pag. Web. 23 May 2010. .

Bradley, Robert L. Jr., "Milk", in AccessScience@McGraw-Hill, http://www.accessscience.com, DOI 10.1036/1097-8542.425300
Cruzan, Susan M. FDA Press Release on rBST approval. Food and Drug Administration. November 5, 1993. http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/NEW00443.html


Epstein, S.S., “Unlabeled Milk from Cows, Treated with Biosynthetic Growth Hormones: A Case of Regulatory Abdication,” International Journal of Health Services 26, no 1 (1996): 173-185.
Hartke, Kimberly. "Milk Processing Covers Up Millions of Bad Bacteria." Hartke is online. N.p., April 29 2010. Web. 10 May 2010. .

Herald Times Reporter, The right choice Raw milk veto correct decision." Herald Times Reporter. N.p., 23 May 2019. Web. 20 May 2010. .
Justia, "New York Law:Agriculture Markets:Milk Control Definitions.." Justia. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May 2010. .

Katz, Sandor. The Revolution Will Not Be Microwaved: Inside America's Underground Food Movements . U.S.: Sterling Hill, 2006. Print.

Miner, Bradford. "Chill Over Milk." Telegram. Worcestor Telegram & Gazette Corp, 11, May, 2010. Web. 19 May 2010.

Pashman, Dan. "Raw Milk: Panacea or Poison?." NPR. NPR, June 25 2008. Web. 7 May 2010. .

Pollan, Michael. "The Vegetable-Industrial Complex." New York Times 2006: n. pag. Web. 23 May 2010. Tribe, http://tribes.tribe.net/traditionalnourishment/thread/69234734-9359-44a3-a794-6f02d9c12d20

Union of Concerned Scientists”, “Greener Pastures: How grass-fed beef and milk contribute to healthy eating,” 2006.