Raw Milk
Last week I read an article from the CBC about “Raw Milk Crusader” Michael Schmidt, a farmer in Ontario. Schmidt is a proponent of the consumption of raw milk, arguing it is beneficial to your health.
Selling raw milk for consumption is illegal in Canada:
Subject to subsection (2), no person shall sell the normal lacteal secretion obtained from the mammary gland of the cow, genus Bos, or of any other animal, or sell a dairy product made with any such secretion, unless the secretion or dairy product has been pasteurized by being held at a temperature and for a period that ensure the reduction of the alkaline phosphatase activity so as to meet the tolerances specified in official method MFO-3, Determination of Phosphatase Activity in Dairy Products, dated November 30, 1981.
According to several websites I read, Canada is the only G7 nation to ban unpasteurized milk sales (though more than half of the States have also outlawed raw milk sales).
Of course, you may have noticed that the law only pertains to the sale of raw milk – it’s perfectly legal to consume raw milk. Thus, a loop-hole: Michael Schmidt managed to get around the law by selling not the milk of his cows, but the privilege to look after the cows themselves. You can “sponsor” a cow – the food and care it needs is covered by you, and you therefore have a right to its milk. You can consume it any way you want. You have to hand it to Schmidt; this is creative. And sneaky.
According to www.naturalmilk.org, there are two types of raw milk supporters. First, the Michael Schmidt type of “cow sharing” whereby you can sneak past the laws and provide raw milk to people. And second, “official recognition” – petitioning the courts to legalize the sale of raw milk based on its health benefits. The website considers itself to be pushing for official recognition which is, in my books, a much more commendable effort. They’re using evidence to build their case (though some of the evidence is admittedly sketchy – the website’s author states that his partner has noticed that her breasts are larger and firmer when she drinks raw milk, and a couple of her friends have said the same. These are anecdotes, not evidence!).
The process of pasteurization is meant to remove harmful bacterium from milk, such as listeria, E. coli, and salmonella. However, it also removes several types of bacteria and enzymes that are either helpful or harmless to humans. This is why some people prefer raw milk (though some just like the taste of it more than processed milk). According to the FDA, though, “Research has shown that there is no significant difference in the nutritional value of pasteurized and unpasteurized milk”. The vitamins and “good bacteria” that the raw milk advocates claim are done away with through pasteurization are only slightly reduced – more than 90% of the naturally-occurring vitamins in milk survive pasteurization. It is true that most enzymes are removed from raw milk during processing, but that has little effect on humans: the enzymes in milk are useless to people because they’re cow enzymes.
As for the claims that raw milk “boosts your immune system” and “has healing qualities”, these are the same vague, nonsense claims made of many alternative health products. There’s no proof that raw milk can cure illness, nor will it help build your immune system. Any such claims are just confirmation bias in action.
Not only are there no benefits to drinking raw milk, it has also been very harmful in many cases. According to the FDA website, over 200 people became sick in the US in 2002 (sorry, most recent data I could find) as a direct result of drinking unpasteurized milk products. People can contract tuberculosis, salmonella poisoning, and many more illnesses from drinking milk that has not been properly processed. So, raw milk should be avoided. That’s why Canada outlawed the sale of unpasteurized dairy products, to protect its citizens from negative health effects.
But back to Michael Schmidt. Schmidt was first convicted in October 2008 for contempt of court, after violating a court order to stop selling or distributing raw milk. He was fined $55,000 altogether – not an insignificant amount for him, but not nearly enough to break the bank. However, contempt of court is not his most devious crime – last week, the trial began for 20 other counts against Schmidt after his farm was raided by police a few years ago.
Schmidt has stated that this case has more to do with human rights than with the sale of milk – “When it comes to our own body and what we put in our body as food, the government should respect what people want to do.” Normally I would agree with that statement, but when the substance in question is harmful to one’s health, and with such misinformation floating around, there needs to be some sort of governmental regulation around it.
In the interest of full disclosure, I did find several reputable sources claiming that raw milk, when “done right”, is not much more harmful to humans than pasteurized milk. This means more stringent controls on the cattle’s food, higher standards of veterinary care, and more rigorous testing for harmful bacteria in milk. If all these criteria were fulfilled, I would agree with raw milk advocates – in this case the government doesn’t have any right to withhold natural milk from the public. If it’s not harmful, why not? If it’s subjected to the same tests for bacteria and contaminants as all other foods, and as long as people understand the risk associated with its consumption, the government has no business prohibiting the sale of raw milk.
Humans aren’t really meant to drink milk anyways – we are the only species to continue to drink milk after early childhood, and the only species to drink the milk of a different species. That’s why lactose intolerance is so prevalent in humans – about 25% of North Americans are lactose intolerant – our bodies didn’t evolve to digest milk after we’re weaned.
April 30th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Well, that’s not entirely true. A relatively recent mutation that appeared amongst pastoral populations in Europe and Africa is what allows many of us to digest milk past infancy (although our ability to do so usually deteriorates with age). We did indeed evolve to drink milk.
May 1st, 2009 at 11:22 am
That’s interesting, I’ve never heard that before! Would you mind letting me know where you found that? I’d like to update the post. Thanks!
December 5th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Hi, thank you for your post. Lost of information, very good job. I just moved in and were looking for information like this. thanks again
January 16th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
I hate to tell you this, but my husband, his four siblings, our neighbors and their seven kids, as well as many people in our surrounding area grew up with and still consume raw milk. They washed their milk pails out with dish soap and never sterilized them; many can drink milk to this day with no trouble.
We also know several people who can no longer tolerate milk; these people got milk directly from the tank on their registered, licensed DAIRY FARMS. The milk on a dairy is stored in a tank at two degrees; it is agitated to keep it from separating and it is unpasteurized. These people likely became intolerant to the sanitizing chemicals and ACID used to clean the pipes on a daily basis; NOT the milk.
Science and research are all fine and dandy, but we need to speak with people who actually consume raw milk before taking sides.
Besides, since when do science and real life agree anyway? I read info about a health condition I had on the Government of Canada’s website devoted to the topic. This info terrified me; when I saw two local physicians about my fears, they both assured me that ‘they don’t see that in practice’.
So much for ’science’.