Re: it's about personal liberty

[Guest guest]

Great arguments on the unfounded fears about raw milk.Subject: it's about personal libertyTo: RawDairy Date: Friday, February 5, 2010, 11:36 AM

Raw milk facts

Many of your readers no doubt have heard about the recent verdict regarding Schmidt, raw milk advocate. Schmidt was acquitted on all 19 charges that he faced, and he is free to continue his "cow-share" operation. This verdict has broad implications for the food industry, for independent farmers, and for the general public as well. Since I was privileged to host Schmidt as the inaugural speaker in my Guest Lecture Series last October, I felt it only appropriate to address the issues raised in this debate.

Many may wonder what all the fuss is about. Unpasteurized milk is readily and legally available in many parts of the world, including the U.S. and Europe. In fact, in some jurisdictions it can be purchased out of vending machines! So why in Canada is this product treated as a deadly scourge?

Although I no way am belittling anyone who has suffered a serious food-borne illness, those who advocate that only pasteurized dairy products should be legally available usually commit the following logical errors in support of their position:

1. The dangers are reported out of context. Given the illnesses caused by many other still readily available foods (remember Maple Leaf meats?), the thousands of yearly deaths caused by prescription medications, and of course, completely legal cigarettes and alcohol, to single out raw milk of all things as a dangerous product with such fervour is utterly absurd.

2. They make no distinction between milk intended for pasteurization and that which is intended for direct consumption. Schmidt advocates farming procedures (grass-fed animals, no hormones or antibiotics, clean environment) which produces a much healthier cow, and hence superior quality milk. Such care is not possible in a large confinement dairy. Industrial milk and the type which is produced by Schmidt are two different products. This distinction is never made when discussing raw milk dangers.

In fact, there is no reason why both products cannot be readily available to consumers. This is precisely the choice that many other countries allow their citizens.

3. They assume pasteurization is a fool-proof process. There are many reported instances of food poisoning from pasteurized dairy. This process certainly extends shelf-life, but is no guarantee of food safety.

In the end, though, this debate is not really about milk, but about freedom, which is increasingly under threat these days. This is especially true in the area of health. The international Codex Alimentarius, in Canada Bill C-51/52 and Bill C-6 , and raw milk are all examples of the state inhibiting freedom and personal choice in the guise of "safety" and public protection (i. e. protecting us from ourselves), when in fact this has more to do with maintaining the monopolies of the industrial food system and the pharmaceutical industry. This is definitely something to think about, especially in Northumberland County where local, independent food producers and direct farm sales are highly cherished.

Dr. Weber, Port Hope Ontario

[Guest guest]

“Raw”

milk? It was just “milk”

for thousands of years. The pasteurized, homogenized stuff should

be labeled “adulterated”.

J.

it's about personal liberty

To: RawDairy

Date: Friday, February 5, 2010, 11:36 AM

Raw milk facts

Many of

your readers no doubt have heard about the recent verdict regarding

Schmidt, raw milk advocate. Schmidt was acquitted on

all 19 charges that he faced, and he is free to continue his

" cow-share " operation. This verdict has broad

implications for the food industry, for independent farmers, and for the

general public as well. Since I was privileged to host Schmidt as the

inaugural speaker in my Guest Lecture Series last October, I felt it only

appropriate to address the issues raised in this debate.

Many

may wonder what all the fuss is about. Unpasteurized milk is

readily and legally available in many parts of the world, including the U.S.

and Europe. In fact, in some jurisdictions it can be purchased out of vending

machines! So why in Canada is this product treated as a deadly scourge?

Although

I no way am belittling anyone who has suffered a serious food-borne illness,

those who advocate that only pasteurized dairy products should be legally

available usually commit the following logical errors in support of their

position:

1. The

dangers are reported out of context. Given the illnesses caused by many other

still readily available foods (remember Maple Leaf meats?), the thousands of

yearly deaths caused by prescription medications, and of course, completely

legal cigarettes and alcohol, to single out raw milk of all things as a

dangerous product with such fervour is utterly absurd.

2. They

make no distinction between milk intended for pasteurization and that which

is intended for direct consumption. Schmidt advocates farming procedures

(grass-fed animals, no hormones or antibiotics, clean environment) which

produces a much healthier cow, and hence superior quality milk. Such care is

not possible in a large confinement dairy. Industrial milk and the type which

is produced by Schmidt are two different products. This distinction is never

made when discussing raw milk dangers.

In

fact, there is no reason why both products cannot be readily available to

consumers. This is precisely the choice that many other countries allow their

citizens.

3. They

assume pasteurization is a fool-proof process. There are many reported

instances of food poisoning from pasteurized dairy. This process certainly

extends shelf-life, but is no guarantee of food safety.

In the

end, though, this debate is not really about milk, but about freedom, which

is increasingly under threat these days. This is especially true in the area

of health. The international Codex Alimentarius, in Canada Bill C-51/52 and

Bill C-6 , and raw milk are all examples of the state inhibiting freedom and

personal choice in the guise of " safety " and public protection (i.

e. protecting us from ourselves), when in fact this has more to do with

maintaining the monopolies of the industrial food system and the

pharmaceutical industry. This is definitely something to think about,

especially in Northumberland County where local, independent food producers

and direct farm sales are highly cherished.

Dr.

Weber, Port Hope Ontario

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2668 - Release Date: 02/04/10 12:35:00

[Guest guest]

Oh, Good One!!! Couldn't agree more!

Vickie

“Raw” milk? It was just “milk” for thousands of years. The pasteurized, homogenized stuff should be labeled “adulterated”.

J.

it's about personal libertyTo: RawDairy Date: Friday, February 5, 2010, 11:36 AM

Raw milk facts

Many of your readers no doubt have heard about the recent verdict regarding Schmidt, raw milk advocate. Schmidt was acquitted on all 19 charges that he faced, and he is free to continue his "cow-share" operation. This verdict has broad implications for the food industry, for independent farmers, and for the general public as well. Since I was privileged to host Schmidt as the inaugural speaker in my Guest Lecture Series last October, I felt it only appropriate to address the issues raised in this debate.

Many may wonder what all the fuss is about. Unpasteurized milk is readily and legally available in many parts of the world, including the U.S. and Europe. In fact, in some jurisdictions it can be purchased out of vending machines! So why in Canada is this product treated as a deadly scourge?

Although I no way am belittling anyone who has suffered a serious food-borne illness, those who advocate that only pasteurized dairy products should be legally available usually commit the following logical errors in support of their position:

1. The dangers are reported out of context. Given the illnesses caused by many other still readily available foods (remember Maple Leaf meats?), the thousands of yearly deaths caused by prescription medications, and of course, completely legal cigarettes and alcohol, to single out raw milk of all things as a dangerous product with such fervour is utterly absurd.

2. They make no distinction between milk intended for pasteurization and that which is intended for direct consumption. Schmidt advocates farming procedures (grass-fed animals, no hormones or antibiotics, clean environment) which produces a much healthier cow, and hence superior quality milk. Such care is not possible in a large confinement dairy. Industrial milk and the type which is produced by Schmidt are two different products. This distinction is never made when discussing raw milk dangers.

In fact, there is no reason why both products cannot be readily available to consumers. This is precisely the choice that many other countries allow their citizens.

3. They assume pasteurization is a fool-proof process. There are many reported instances of food poisoning from pasteurized dairy. This process certainly extends shelf-life, but is no guarantee of food safety.

In the end, though, this debate is not really about milk, but about freedom, which is increasingly under threat these days. This is especially true in the area of health. The international Codex Alimentarius, in Canada Bill C-51/52 and Bill C-6 , and raw milk are all examples of the state inhibiting freedom and personal choice in the guise of "safety" and public protection (i. e. protecting us from ourselves), when in fact this has more to do with maintaining the monopolies of the industrial food system and the pharmaceutical industry. This is definitely something to think about, especially in Northumberland County where local, independent food producers and direct farm sales are highly cherished.

Dr. Weber, Port Hope Ontario

No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG - www.avg.comVersion: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2668 - Release Date: 02/04/10 12:35:00