Skip to main content

View Diary: The Illinois Department of Public Health vs. Illinois Raw Milk Farmers (267 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Unpasteurized milk... (19+ / 0-)

    can contain dangerous levels of bacteria including E. coli, Salmonella and Listeria.

    •  Brucellosis too! Cows don't have to appear sick (9+ / 0-)

      either. The worst are kids who get kidney damage from e coli, completely avoidable. I'm hoping someday there will be UV pasteurization for milk, low temps, keep enzymes intact.

      Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

      by the fan man on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 12:23:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am unaware of a widespread outbreak of (6+ / 0-)

        E. coli, salmonella, or listeria due to pasteurized milk. Care to enlighten me?

        Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

        by elfling on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 12:48:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And the widespread outbreaks from Raw Milk (6+ / 0-)


          Anyway, it's beside the point. It's my body, my family. If we feel the evidence shows Raw milk is better for us what the fuck is it the government's business. We can all see how it might be a politician's business, and a lucrative one at that.

          We live in a nation where doctors destroy health; lawyers, justice; universities, knowledge; governments, freedom; the press, information; religion, morals; and our banks destroy the economy. -- Chris Hedges

          by Jim P on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 02:52:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't mind you having that choice (6+ / 0-)

            But it's not necessary or appropriate to claim that pasteurized milk is causing widespread foodborne illness to make your case.

            Be honest with the facts and with the science, and I think you'll get further.

            Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

            by elfling on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 03:12:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You are correct (4+ / 0-)

              They cook industrial milk precisely because it makes a dangerous product safe.  The point of this diary is that a farm that understands cows, pasture and milking can produce a superior product that is completely safe and thus, does not need pasteurization.

              The real downside to pasteurized milk is not that you get sick from it.  It's that it has a miniscule fraction of the beneficial enzymes and bacteria which promote human health, and which our ancestors benefited from for centuries.

              Industrial food production in America ruins our health, our environment and consumes more fossil fuel than any segment of our economy.

              by Mi Corazon on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 05:11:41 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Depends on whose ancestors (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LilithGardener, crose

                People whose ancestors lived with cows for a hundred generations and got used to drinking cows' milk all their lives, sure, no problem.

                People whose ancestors didn't have cows and stopped drinking milk - any kind of milk - when they were weaned, that 's a whole different situation.

                One size does not fit everybody.

                If it's
                Not your body,
                Then it's
                Not your choice
                And it's
                None of your damn business!

                by TheOtherMaven on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 06:48:29 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  True enough (0+ / 0-)

                  I am speaking mainly of northern European groups, though, of course, others in Africa and Asia also drank animal milks as part of a regular diet.

                  Industrial food production in America ruins our health, our environment and consumes more fossil fuel than any segment of our economy.

                  by Mi Corazon on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 06:52:50 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  It's the government's business (0+ / 0-)

            because if there IS evidence that unpasteurized milk increases the risk of the bacterial infections mentioned, it poses a potential public safety risk.

            •  The FDA approves things which kill (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              people by their tens of thousands and can lead to birth defects and suicidal behavior, again in the thousands and tens of thousands.

              Why would you think that there's integrity in our regulatory bodies, when there's not a sign of it; although there's decades-long evidence of pushing deadly crap and suppressing harmless and even useful things?

              We live in a nation where doctors destroy health; lawyers, justice; universities, knowledge; governments, freedom; the press, information; religion, morals; and our banks destroy the economy. -- Chris Hedges

              by Jim P on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 01:16:51 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Because history has shown (0+ / 0-)

                that unregulated industries have even less integrity.

                •  You Are Transparent (0+ / 0-)

                  That's an interesting comment considering the fact that you've debated the validity of The U.S. Constitution in the past and have suggested that people may not have the right to vote because they live in "A Republic."

                  •  Um, what? (0+ / 0-)

                    My argument is that people DO have the right to vote because they live in a republic.  If you actually read and understand my comments where you posted, as well as reading my comments elsewhere concerning the existence of the right to vote, the argument I was making was that while the Constitution does not specifically provide for the right to vote, the fact that it guarantees a Republican form of government, along with the wordings of the 15th and 19th amendments, imply a right to vote.

                    I did say that the fact that it's not explicitly stated makes it too easy for people like Scalia to argue that such a right does not exist, but nowhere did I say that that is my personal opinion.

                    In fact, nowhere in the comments you posted, nor in any comments that I've made, have I argued that we may not have the right to vote because we live in a Republic.

                    Nor do I recall ever making any arguments debating the validity of the US Constitution.

                    I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth, nor do I appreciate you ascribing beliefs to me that I don't actually hold.

                    •  In fact I got in some very heated (0+ / 0-)

                      discussions just the other day in regards to the EM laws here in which I argued that the right to vote at the local level was being circumvented, while others argued that the right to vote at the local level only exists if the states allow it to.

                      So you can go ahead and say all you want that I don't think we have the right to vote, but that doesn't make it true.

                      The fact that you are attempting to mislead people about what I've been saying recently, and what I believe, makes me wonder what else you're willing to mislead them about in order for you to appear right.  

                      •  You're right (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        The Dude 415

                        The manner in which you phrased your argument confused me. You never once mentioned Scalia, which lead me to believe you were stating your own opinion. You also later said, "How does that contradict the central point of my argument, that the right of the citizens to vote is implied?" I thought that was your argument.

                        I realize now that I was mistaken.

                        I never intended to mislead anyone concerning your position, and if I was scanning your comments (and I was), it's because I wanted to know more about the ideological makeup of the people who would be opposed to raw milk.

                        That WAS a bad choice on my part and in bad taste . . . but I think it's a natural inclination in this day of information over-saturation. I have no fucking clue who you are, who any of you are. The absence of a face and a voice makes commentary on these sites a difficult, alienating, anomic enterprise for me.

                        •  It happens. (0+ / 0-)

                          Especially when discussion gets somewhat heated.  I've done it myself recently, discussions about the fancy new Emergency Manager Detroit is getting.

                          And I definitely understand about it being a natural inclination.

                          As I said in another comment I just made to you, I have no interest in seeing the corporations you mentioned maintain their stranglehold, nor do I have any interest in keeping practices related to RGBH as they are now.

                          However, as a history buff (and someone who minored in history), I also realize that a lot of these requirements, like requiring that milk be pasteurized, were implemented in the first place for legitimate public health reasons.  

                          As someone who admittedly knows little about raw milk, the little that I've read hasn't had enough conclusiveness to assuage the concerns that I have.

                          And being a skeptic, I'm instinctively distrustful of a site with a name like raw milk facts, since it seems to me like a site that may have an interest in cherry-picking the information that it uses.

                          I certainly understand the concerns about the information the FDA and CDC are using, but I hope you understand why, to those of us who are a bit more skeptical, those concerns can also be seen to apply to the aforementioned sites.

                          •  Those Are Valid Concerns (0+ / 0-)

                            I've yet to gather the bailiwick of information that might constitute a groundbreaking new work of journalism, a New York Times Bestseller, a box office winner, but I am placing that item on my "to-do list."

                            I do know that many of those sites reference academic journals, articles and additional referential websites. I also know when descriptions of raw milk farms are misleading, false or guilty of argumentum ad baculum, an appeal to fear, because I've had fist-hand experience with the raw milk farming industry. I also know that raw milk farming promotes local commerce and fosters community. I also know that fully-armed, helmeted Federal agents have busted down doors, invaded homes without warrants and held families at gun point while their milk was being dumped into the soil. I know The Feds suspected the milk to be contaminated and I know they later found no trace of any foodborne pathogens.

                            We had to close The Federal Post Office on Saturdays because the country is strapped for cash. There are open air drug markets in Chicago. Detroit is turning into a ghost-town . . . and the Feds are convinced that the greatest threat to our safety is the milk?

                          • (0+ / 0-)
                    •  I Reread that and you're right. (0+ / 0-)
                    •  I Just Don't Understand . . . (0+ / 0-)

                      why you keep harping on this. Why would you suggest that the raw milk industry is unregulated or less regulated than large-scale dairies? Raw milk farmers are plenty regulated.

                    •  Also, (0+ / 0-)

                      I apolgize if I misunderstood your comments concerning the right to vote, but you did say,

                      The argument that the Constitution doesn't explicitly "assure" such rights is kind of misleading too, I'd argue, because the rights outlined in the Constitution are technically negative rights, as opposed to positive ones.  I don't remember the exact language of all the amendments, so I'm not sure if this is true of all of them, but the vast majority of them, instead of saying "the people shall have x right", it says "x right shall not be denied to the people."  Thus, the Constitution doesn't actually have to affirmatively assure the right to vote, since it didn't have to with any of those other rights.
                      Yes, but then the 15th and 19th amendments were passed.  How does that contradict the central point of my argument, that the right of the citizens to vote is implied?
                      •  Neither of those statements (0+ / 0-)

                        contradict each other.  The Constitution's use of negative rather than positive language toward rights is discussed all the time, and, as I understand it, is actually somewhat rare as far as Constitutions go.

                        My argument in the first statement was that the right to vote exists in a Republic, inherently.  The Constitution doesn't technically "affirmatively" assure any rights, it simply says which rights can't be taken away.

                        That's getting off-topic though.

                        To answer your other question, I simply don't see, considering some of the health issues that HAVE been linked to consumption of raw milk, why it's unreasonable for the government to insist that all milk be pasteurized, from a public health perspective.

                        You've made an argument about it being too expensive for small farmers to afford.  I'd like to see you cite sources for the number you gave, as far as cost.

                        I also would argue that, as cold as it sounds, while it would suck if some of those farmers had to go out of business, frankly, public health, is more important.

                      •  Having said all that, (0+ / 0-)

                        apology accepted.  These things happen, and you're right that while I did mention Scalia somewhere else, it wasn't in the part you linked.

                        I, too, have been guilty of scanning people's comments in similar situations.

                        I assure you that I have no interest in seeing some of the factory farms like Monsanto and such thrive.  I just have a concern for public health.

                        I also acknowledge that I know little about raw milk.  However, what little I've read about it suggests that the health benefits are inconclusive, and that there have been incidents of E. Coli and the like associated with it.

                        While you may not agree with those concerns, I hope you can at least understand them.

                        •  Consumers . . . (0+ / 0-)

                          can pasteurize their own milk. You just need to pour it in a pot and boil it.

                          Instances of E.coli have been found in both pasteurized and raw milk. It's a matter of sanitation. Unfortunately, at the moment, I don't have access to all the information you desire, and - in all honesty - it's something that should be discussed in a separate article.

                          Like I said, your concerns are valid. It seems your a stickler for details, and that's a good thing.

                          I can tell you there's never been one instance of illness from milk obtained at my Aunt's farm. I can also tell you that farmers have been threatened and their rights have been violated by a draconian campaign spear-headed by The Federal Government. Watch the documentary "Farmageddon." Check out The Farmer-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund.

                          A lot of people seem to think that the farmers are staunch Libertarians. Some of the farmers may sympathize with some Libertarian viewpoints - some may even be self-described Libertarians - but the vast majority just feel alienated by industrialized society. The vast majority of them are socially liberal and economically progressive. You might call them rural, salt-of-the-earth hippies. My Uncle is friends with all of the gurus and monks of Hindu and Buddhist temples in The Chicago Region. In general, I think a lot of people don't know who they're attacking.

                          These farmers don't feel antipathy towards the concept of government in general. Many of them have Phds. Many of them were scientists, biologists or child-psychologists. They're intelligent people who believe that The Federal Government is pursuing an agenda regardless of the facts, regardless of the human benefits of the farmer's activities.

                          They're political activists.

                          •  I understand. (0+ / 0-)

                            In no way did I mean to imply that your aunt's farm in particular had caused any health issues.  I would never make such a claim without having something to back it up, since it's a pretty serious charge.

                            I do have to ask though, if any consumer can pasteurize their own milk, why is it, then, unreasonable to ask that small farms pasteurize all of their milk as well?

                            I think the main disagreement you and I seem to have is that I'm of the opinion that requiring pasteurization serves a legitimate public health interest.

                            I agree that some of the enforcement methods you mentioned are unreasonable.  And I would never defend that.

                            I simply feel that the requirement, in and of itself, is perfectly reasonable.  

                          •  The Farmers . . . (0+ / 0-)

                            don't want to serve pasteurized milk. They're ethically and morally opposed to it. They believe their product is better for the consumer because it's nutrient-rich and stimulates local economies. They also don't want to farm on the scale of dairies that pasteurize. They believe it's inhumane to the animals, and - frankly - I think they nail that one right on the head.

                            I asked a local at the coffeehouse about this. He's working on his doctorate in medicine and has a background in ecology and evolutionary biology. He told me, based on his experience, there's nothing wrong with raw milk. In fact, it's probably better for you. I even asked him a hypothetical question: if he were to diagnose a patient with food poisoning and - assuming he and I had never had that conversation - if the patient told him that she drinks raw milk, would he attribute the illness to it? And you know what he said? He would. I asked him, "Wouldn't that be an illogical, unscientific conclusion?" "Yes," he said. "I just never considered it." He confirmed that he would be inclined to blame raw milk out of ignorance. Now, I don't need you to believe this story, but I'm proud to note that he told me he would go on the record with it. I also showed him the majority of responses I was receiving to this article and his words were, "Yeah, that's strange," because even he detected bias and fallacy in the arguments that were levied upon me. It was reassuring to me because I started to wonder, "Am I fucking imagining this shit? Am I a 'conspiracy theorist' like these people are saying." People make some ballsy remarks when they don't have a face and a fist to confront.

                            As an aside, my doctor friend  told me that it would be a simple matter to draft legislation that would provide regular inspections that are crafted for the raw milk industry. It would probably require a laboratory, office people, a couple scientists. Then I asked him, "Well, what would you say if I told you that the farmers would chomp at the bit to help draft sane and reasonable regulations alongside doctors and scientists, yet they've continually been denied?"

                            He just shook his head.

                          •  If you want to institute regular inspections, (0+ / 0-)

                            then I'm all for that.  Absolutely, that would be a good idea.

                            I just ended up getting the impression from your diary that you were of the opinion that any kind of regulation of the raw milk industry (though "industry" may be the wrong word to use here) only served to benefit companies like Monsanto.  That's what I took exception to, really.

                            However, the more you and I discuss the issue, the more I see that I misinterpreted.  I apologize for that.

                          •  I would also propose, (0+ / 0-)

                            if the government wants to force the Grade A thing on them, that may be reasonable if the feds are willing to subsidize it so it's less cost prohibitive to the smaller farmers.

                          •  The Bottom Line Is . . . (0+ / 0-)

                            The Federal Government is trying to shut them down, and if one set of regulations doesn't work, The IDPH, The FDA or CDC tries another approach. I've already found one soon-to-be medical doctor with a handsome background in evolutionary biology and ecology who's willing to admit that there's bias in The Healthcare Industry. The issue was certainly never taught to him or any of his peers  in medical school. Why would it be? Only 3 to 5 percent of all the food in the USA are produced on farms today. Our food comes from companies with shareholders and CEOS that are owned by other companies, which are owned by even more companies. These farmers don't want to just offer people the choice to drink a different product, they want to offer people the choice to live a different lifestyle, and I think there are a lot of powerful, moneyed people who find that notion threatening.

                            When my Aunt and Uncle revealed the extent of the problem to me, when my Aunt told me that she has raised my five cousins with the knowledge that they may be forced at gunpoint to surrender their property and livelihood, I was crying from anger. I was also surprised. Could this be happening in this country? No, I thought. It can't be. Why would this be happening in our country.

                            But the fact remains that stranger things have happened in this country. The President has signed a document that states that he has the authority to kill you without due process. All he needs to do is wave a piece of 8X11 piece of paper in the air with your face on it and "TERRORIST" in big bold letters on the top of the page. When the government declares that it can secretly spy on everyone without cause, and that a person can file suit only if they have proof that the government is secretly spying on them. What sort of due process is that? When it comes to the government having the ability to spy on everyone without giving legal notice to specific individuals and also having the power to kill them - again without charge, hearing, or court process - where does that leave us? Or "The Environmental Protection Agency." Wow. There's a misnomer. Fracking is one of the most disgusting practices that's ever been conceived and there's plenty of evidence of its harmful effects, but those folks in Pennsylvania are also running into roadblocks. They can't even drink their tap water. They can use it as fuel to light their cigarettes, but they can't drink it or bathe in it.

                            I was raised being told that we live in a democratic Republic. I just don't think that's true anymore. I think we've reached the point where there's no difference between government and corporation and there are real people everywhere who are suffering because of it, and the extent of the problem remains cut off from the public spotlight. Do you watch MSNBC? Tell me, when was the last time the mentioned fracking? Never. I've stopped watching it. I've stopped watching all of it.

                            The farmers are reasonable people being put into an unreasonable situation and the deck is stacked against them. The only thing that will help them are their neighbors. The only thing that will help them is if more people know the extent of what's going on, and if the government gets their way, 100% of your food would come from corporations. I don't know about you, but that scares The Hell out of me. The idea that the actual knowledge of farming, actual farming will have been stripped from the collective knowledge of the people. If that were to happen, the commons will have suffered a deadly blow. That's our FOOD. Our fucking food, man. Can you imagine if no one in the country knew how to farm. Can you imagine if the only option you had was to buy food that is genetically engineered to synthesize it's own insecticidal proteins?

                            The only reason they started to pasteurize in the first place is because the swill dairies were making people sick. Industrialization was making people sick, so they produced their own solution: pasteurization. If you're a history buff, look it up and get back to me. I'm serious, any information would help.

                            The bottom line is that it's game time, and The American people need to wake up, or we, and all of our children, and all of our grandchildren will be majorly fucked.

                          •  I don't disagree with most of what you said. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            But the first couple paragraphs are in line with what you've said before here that's given me the impression that you're against ANY kind of regulation. Because it does make it sound like you're saying any kind of regulation is a plot to fuck over the small farmers.

                          •  Right . . . (0+ / 0-)

                            In the article I did say,

                            The farmers oppose only two of the suggested restrictions. One is a cap on the number of gallons sold per month. The IDPH believes 100 to be an amenable number. My Aunt's farm sells 100 gallons of raw milk in about 3 days. The second restriction they oppose is the acquisition of a Grade-A Dairy license, which could cost a farmer up to $25,000.
                            But I understand how the following statement could give you a different impression.
                            The Federal Government is trying to shut them down, and if one set of regulations doesn't work, The IDPH, The FDA or CDC tries another approach.
                            The fact remains that the raw milk industry is highly regulated. My Aunt cannot advertise, she cannot ship her product and she can't even service her product despite the fact that there's nothing wrong with it. It doesn't seem like The Federal Government is concerned with the safe regulation of the milk. If they were, wouldn't they just draft legislation in collaboration with scientists, medical professionals and farmers? Would there not be peer-reviewed research?

                            Don't you think the restrictions placed upon the sale of marijuana have opened the doors to a New Jim Crow? The facts would certainly suggest it. The fact that there are private prisons that lobby congressman to continue locking people up for no reason is suspicious too, don't you think? The government doesn't seem to have a problem with that. There are open-air illegal drug markets in the streets of Austin, Chicago - the cars line up down the block - but The Feds are worried about my Aunt's raw milk farm? Six of them go to her farm and interrogate her and my Uncle? Don't they have better things to be doing? These aren't inspectors. These are armed agents. I'm sorry, I've got to say it. That sounds like a whole lot of bullshit to me. It seems like The Federal Government is concerned with stopping the farmers no matter what. That's the problem, but because it's our trusted democracy, our trusted bureaucracy that's making the decisions - and the bureaucrats have deemed themselves to be right - people are convinced that people like my Aunt, Uncle and I are conspiracy theorists.

                            The whole world has been turned inside-out. Everything's backwards, if you ask me.

                          •  To an extent (0+ / 0-)

                            I can understand the shipping thing, if we're talking about shipping it to people outside of her general area, just because of some of the concerns others have brought up here which seem valid.  

                            However, I agree that not being allowed to advertise seems like unnecessary regulation that really only serves to harm those who make those products.

                            There's really no reason for the government not to consult with raw dairy farmers at least to some extent on this stuff.  Especially since they're clearly willing to do so with Monsanto and the like.

                            I know our debate has gone on quite a bit past when you posted this diary, but I'm actually glad it has.  I feel I have a better understanding now of where you're coming from than I did before.

                            Having said that, I can't see myself ever trying raw milk, just because I do have a tendency to be a bit paranoid about such things.

                          •  Also, (0+ / 0-)

                            * * * * *

                            * * * * *

                            * * * * *

                            WATCH THIS

                            And READ THIS

                            * * * * *

                            * * * * *

                            * * * * *

                          •  And if anyone has any questions concerning . . . (0+ / 0-)

                            the sanitary requirements of a raw dairy farm, perhaps this will provide you with some insight.

          •  You don't mind if Health Care doesn't cover (0+ / 0-)

            E. Coli from raw milk? Then I'm OK with it.

            Insurers surcharge smokers. Frankly, I wouldn't mind if they surcharge soda drinkers by taxes. And they ought to surcharge raw milk, for when somebody's kid gets kidney failure.

            •  Also, people who don't look both (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              ways should be taxed also. And those who don't floss well enough. Plus, the government/medical business should keep an eye on people who don't exercise the right amount, and with the right kind of exercise. Moreover, people using hair dye are exposing themselves to cancer causing chemicals....

              hell, I don't think we can safely take a shit without some financial or government interest being threatened. We need shitometers in every toilet!

              Whew! I'm feeling safer already.

              We live in a nation where doctors destroy health; lawyers, justice; universities, knowledge; governments, freedom; the press, information; religion, morals; and our banks destroy the economy. -- Chris Hedges

              by Jim P on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 01:08:00 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  If you're going to cite (4+ / 0-)

        I won't trust a thing you have to say about raw milk.

        That's like Republicans citing World Net Daily.

    •  Raw Milk Can Also Contain Tuberculosis (8+ / 0-)

      Which tends to cause an infection of the bones, such as the spine.  Having your bones rot and collapse from the inside out over a period of years is supposed to be spectacularly painful.

      There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

      by bernardpliers on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 12:38:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So can water. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      The point is, do you source your food carefully?  Or, do you have to go to a corporate grocery chain, supplied by an industrial farm, where, because of government regulation, every producer has to do the same thing -- nuke their milk to ensure that it is safe?

      Anything can carry dangerous levels of bacteria, fruits, vegetables, and yes, even water.  So, the war on milk is all about protecting big producers whose industrial methods mean that cows never go outdoors, never look into the eyes of the person who milks her, and live in a confined space replete with urine, feces and the stench of ammonia.

      And people think that represents safe milk?

      Industrial food production in America ruins our health, our environment and consumes more fossil fuel than any segment of our economy.

      by Mi Corazon on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 05:07:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ok, (0+ / 0-)

        but why not going small and local, but still pasteurizing?  What's wrong with pasteurized non-RGBH?

        •  Nothing, Really (0+ / 0-)

          Raw Milk farmers might claim that its an inferior product, or a product that doesn't jive with their moral and ethical makeup, but - provided sanitation standards are up to code - I don't think many people would claim that it's bad for you.

          •  I guess I just feel like (0+ / 0-)

            the implication here is that it's one extreme or another.  Like raw milk is being portrayed as the only alternative to pasteurized milk with RGBH.  I certainly got that impression from the diary itself.

            I also don't understand why you can't have pasteurized milk that's done in the same humane way that raw milk is, but it just happens to go through the pasteurization process.

            •  You Can, With One Exception: It's Not Raw (0+ / 0-)

              You can pasteurize organic milk in a perfectly sanitary dairy. There's nothing stopping anyone from doing that except scale. The larger the business is, the more difficult it may become to upkeep sanitation. Size could start eating into profits, and nowadays, when 95% of our food supply is produced by companies instead of farmers, its often shareholders who decide how the business is run. So they cut corners or start injecting their cows with rBGH to increase profit.

              Of course, not all dairies do that. My concern is that raw, locally-sourced milk is healthy, and many of the arguments being made to discredit it resemble fear-mongering. The consequences of that type of discourse could result in fewer opportunities for consumers, many of whom prefer raw milk and the opportunities it provides.

              Not everyone digs this world we've inherited. A lot of people would prefer natural alternatives that promote local commerce.

        •  Local Commerce Will Suffer (0+ / 0-)

          That's for sure.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site