Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Politics as pathology: A series. | Main | The alcohol debate in Scotland »

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Schmidt fights for food freedom and raw milk

Michael Schmidt has been charged with distributing raw milk. He was found guilty and then appealed the decision, and then he was found innocent. Now the government of Ontario is appealing this decision to the Supreme Court.

A few things have to be made clear here. First of all, as the article I posted above says, it is not illegal for a farmer to drink his own milk. Second of all, those that drank the milk were all part owners of the cow. This may or may not be characterized as a loop hole, it doesn't matter. That is the law.

Second thing that has to be made clear is that the health risks involved in drinking milk is doubtful. Ontario's lawyers failed to demonstrate anyone has been made sick by this practice. So the damage that is being done here is likely zero.

The final thing I want to point out is that the first two points don't matter. The question here isn't if this man is guilty or if it is healthy to drink raw milk. The question here is about an individual's right, or perhaps duty, to make his/her own decisions. The government should not be telling people what they can or cannot do.

If I decide to drink this milk, who am I hurting? At the very worst I am hurting myself.

Just myself.

No one else.

Do you see? I am making a decision that only affects me. What business is it of some government official?

In short this is about freedom; the ability to make your own decision. And I wish Mr. Schmidt all the luck in the world.

Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on February 13, 2010 | Permalink

Comments

Although this relates to individual rights and freedom from gov`t supervision , a more mundane question would be , is there a health hazard in drinking milk , be it raw or processed. I submit - yes..

Posted by: daveh | 2010-02-13 8:08:15 AM


Based on what evidence daveh?

Posted by: b | 2010-02-13 8:20:04 AM


I find it completely underhanded how the Ontario government handled this appeal. They waited until the day of the Opening Ceremonies of the 2010 Olympics as the news would be buried and less attention would be paid on it instead of appealing earlier.
I have been drinking Raw Milk for two years and in that time I have seen the complete opposite of what the government believes Raw Milk does to people - my health is much improved and for the first time in my life I am enjoying Milk.
This fight is about Food Freedom and a war must be waged so we and our future generations have the right to make educated choices about our food sources.
Shame on the government for taking our rights away.

Posted by: Kristine | 2010-02-13 8:52:58 AM


The real issue is the wounded pride of the prosecutor, or some big money driving his actions. He has no reason to appeal, like you said the law was not broken, in fact the law has done exactly what it was designed to do...protect the rights of people to enjoy the fruit of their own labor... in this case raw milk.
Great post - I linked to it along with a round up of other articles here:
http://vaughnshire.com/raw-milk/milk-nazis-appeal-raw-milk-ruling/


Posted by: PaulTN | 2010-02-13 9:54:51 AM


PaulTN: "The real issue is the wounded pride of the prosecutor, or some big money driving his actions."

You are at least partially right here. The "big money" driving this is the perceived drain on the Ontario Health budget if there is a large scale breakout of disease caused by unpasteurized milk.
Personally I see no harm in allowing people who want to drink raw milk, do so as long as they are sourcing from registered small enterprises.
It is obvious that small enterprises run by people who care are more successful at preventing disease that huge anonymous corporations.

Posted by: Ed Ellison | 2010-02-13 10:25:16 AM


I suggest that the real issue is industrialised agriculture protecting its turf, which in this case is the big dairy industry with its milk marketing board. As long as the state is willing to serve as the bully for special interest groups, we can only expect more of the same.

Posted by: Alain | 2010-02-13 11:09:58 AM


Alain, you are correct.

"You are at least partially right here. The "big money" driving this is the perceived drain on the Ontario Health budget if there is a large scale breakout of disease caused by unpasteurized milk.
Personally I see no harm in allowing people who want to drink raw milk, do so as long as they are sourcing from registered small enterprises.
It is obvious that small enterprises run by people who care are more successful at preventing disease that huge anonymous corporations."

Posted by: Ed Ellison | 2010-02-13 10:25:16 AM

Ed Ellison, the Ontario government might use that excuse but that is not really the driver. See Alain's comment for the real reason.

Regarding allowing people to drink milk so long as it is from registered small enterprises, who will do the allowing? And why would that even matter? You say because they care more than larger anonymous corporations. I seriously doubt they do care more. Large corporations have MUCH more to lose by the slightest scandal and spemd millions protecting their reputation.

Posted by: TM | 2010-02-13 12:19:12 PM


i've been drinking raw milk for years. whether its dangerous or not (ridiculous, btw) is not the issue. the issue is liberty and a farmer's right to sell his produce without government regulation. there is no crime in the markets. caveat emptor, and looking for reputable sources are good rules of thumb. we don't need Mommystate meddling in our affairs and looking after us.

also, i kill my own meat or buy it directly from farmers whom i know grass feed their animals. i win, because i get quality and cheap prices. the farmer wins because its a quick sale and he doesn't have to declare income nor go through useless regulation and inspection bullsh:)t.

Posted by: shel | 2010-02-13 12:22:31 PM


~Alain and TM

that's right. remember a few years ago when Monsanto picked a fight with a Saskatchewan farmer, into whose fields blew some Roundup-Ready canola seeds from an adjacent field or truck or something? during harvest he unwittingly saved these seeds, along with his own crop seeds, as he'd always done.

Monsanto took him to court and spanked him.

corporatism gives capitalism a bad name.

Posted by: shel | 2010-02-13 1:05:49 PM


Sorry TM, but I am not buying into your arguement that any cows milk is a completely benign substance. Seeing as cows, and all bovines for that matter, are known vectors for TB, BSE, and a host of other disease-causing nasties, you drink raw milk at your own risk.
And if you get sick, then our socialized medical system will have to look after you. Paid for my tax dollars and yours. If you want to drink raw milk, and you get sick from it, should I have to pay for it?
By the way, I said enterprise, you said corporation. Big difference. A small farm would make it much easier to contain some sort of contagion if it did rear its ugly head. Huge factory farms have been known to expose a much larger population to disease.
Think salmonella and chicken farms here.
BTW, Alain's point is also well taken.

Posted by: Ed Ellison | 2010-02-13 5:22:57 PM


Sorry TM, but I am not buying into your arguement that any cows milk is a completely benign substance. Seeing as cows, and all bovines for that matter, are known vectors for TB, BSE, and a host of other disease-causing nasties, you drink raw milk at your own risk.
And if you get sick, then our socialized medical system will have to look after you. Paid for my tax dollars and yours. If you want to drink raw milk, and you get sick from it, should I have to pay for it?
By the way, I said enterprise, you said corporation. Big difference. A small farm would make it much easier to contain some sort of contagion if it did rear its ugly head. Huge factory farms have been known to expose a much larger population to disease.
Think salmonella and chicken farms here.
BTW, Alain's point is also well taken.

Posted by: Ed Ellison | 2010-02-13 5:22:57 PM

Ed, I didn't say it was benign. It doesn't matter if it is or not. Driving is not benign either. Yes, we would drink it at our own risk.

If you would use that type of control (the claim that it increases medical costs) over people then why stop there? If you are really concerned about this then why allow McDonalds to sell fries? Why allow people to drive? Why allow them to ski, fly, drink, not excercise, etc. That could lead to an arguement against socialized medicare. Rather than going there on this post I will just say that the person who dies from drinking raw milk is no longer a drain on the public system. In fact, they may cost the system less by dying quickly than someone living to 90.

Good point about enterprise and corporation. I would still argue that the large enterprise has a vested interest in containing a contagion. As much or more than a smaller one. You might even find that although some things may be more dificult because of the larger size, that on the other hand they have more strick standards.

Posted by: TM | 2010-02-13 6:59:19 PM


You want to drink raw milk fine. I'll let some milk sit in my house for six months and sell it to you real cheap. My only question concerns you getting sick. If you get sick that's your tough luck. However, I don't think that my tax dollars should have to cover you medical fees.

Posted by: Markham | 2010-02-13 7:23:53 PM


You want to drink raw milk fine. I'll let some milk sit in my house for six months and sell it to you real cheap. My only question concerns you getting sick. If you get sick that's your tough luck. However, I don't think that my tax dollars should have to cover you medical fees.

Posted by: Markham | 2010-02-13 7:23:53 PM

Excellent libertarian thinking Markham. I agree. There are a few arguments here. One is whether or not raw milk is good or bad for you. I really don't care. Nor do I care if driving is bad for you. Or if eating a certain way is bad for you. But whether or not government should step in to set some rules that make things, according to them healthier, is a different argument.

A 3rd argument is regarding the healthcare system. There is a long list of things that could be bad for you Markham. How far are you willing to go down that list and have government protect us from ourselves? All the way? That would be scary indeed. If not all the way then how far? Your idea of far enough, or some politician's idea? Then could you even trust them to be so all knowing and honest and benevolent that they would do the right thing, in spite of what it might do to their political career?

Maybe, just maybe, it is better that they stay out of the milk business, and out of the medicare business. Then those who want to ruin their health are free to do so at their own cost.

Posted by: TM | 2010-02-13 8:46:48 PM


OK b , I suppose you think you`ve got me . As I see it milk from a cow is supposed to be used by a calf , not a human baby , let alone an adult . It seems unnatural . I `m not going to look it up and go into protein content of human vs cow ,mucous , bacteria ,pitfalls of pasteurization and homogenization , poor quality calcium [ try greens ] etc. If you want to do some research , check out -- notmilk.com-- It`s a lot simpler that way. If you would insist on having your milk , consider goats` milk ; and yes in my humble unqualified opinion , raw milk is healthier ; but congratulations , you have been convinced by one of the most powerful lobbies in the country that we absolutely must have it . Consider one ' fact ' , [ sorry I don`t have the actual studies in my possession ] The higher protein content of milk results in a more acidic condition in the body and calcium from your bones is being drawn upon to reduce said acidity to a healthier ph level.i.e. the more cow`s milk one drinks the more the bones are destroyed ; hmmm , that`s not what the dairy lobby says .. Gee I wonder why .. of course this fits the pattern - up is down ; good is bad. You have to do the research and not believe everything you are told .

Posted by: daveh | 2010-02-13 8:53:34 PM


You have to do the research and not believe everything you are told .

Posted by: daveh | 2010-02-13 8:53:34 PM


You do not have to do any research or believe anything you are told.

If you enjoy it....drink it, if not, leave it alone.
See how simple life can be ???

Posted by: peterj | 2010-02-13 9:57:29 PM


Attention all government flaks. Please answer this question:

How many people have become sick or died from drinking raw milk?

Posted by: snowgirl | 2010-02-14 12:18:10 AM


Not very many. From what I hear its the TB bacteria that makes it taste richer. lol.

Like others have said, if want to drink milk, go ahead.

Posted by: Floyd Looney | 2010-02-14 12:28:18 AM


I`ve known a few people that drank milk constantly . I swear they start to look like a cow , with the dull vacant stare and pale white complexion . I much prefer beer [ any booze will do ] , A new ' study ' just out says that beer builds better bones. [ healthzone.ca/health/yourhealth/agingwell--- etc. ] See Peter , how simple life can be..

Posted by: daveh | 2010-02-14 6:12:33 AM


Speaking of scientific nonsense, I love reading you guys here.

Posted by: fred | 2010-02-14 8:12:37 AM


You`re right Fred . I`d sooner sit here staring into space - stoned on cow juice.

Posted by: daveh | 2010-02-14 8:26:04 AM


Moooo. Oops, did I just moo out loud?

Seriously, if you want to argue about whether milk is good for you or not that is fine. I actually agree with some of what you say. This post is about whether those that choose to drink it raw should be "allowed" to.

Posted by: TM | 2010-02-14 8:52:21 AM


A new ' study ' just out says that beer builds better bones. [ healthzone.ca/health/yourhealth/agingwell--- etc. ] See Peter , how simple life can be..

Posted by: daveh | 2010-02-14 6:12:33 AM


Millions enjoy both. Mind you.....I see more vacant stares on beer drinkers than milk drinkers. They also have rosier complexions. They fall down more and probably break more bones. I see more beer bellies than milk bellies.
The bottom line is still the same, If you enjoy it, drink it. The decision should be yours.

Posted by: peterj | 2010-02-14 9:14:43 AM


Sorry TM In the Socilist Republik of Kanada , nobody should be ' allowed ' to do anything that doesn`t measure up to the Toronto - Vancouver coalition` expectations .

Peter - I`m not so sure about the beer belly - milk belly controversy . We should run a study.

Posted by: daveh | 2010-02-14 9:26:44 AM


LOL, its amazing to think how we survived for thousands of years without a proper pasteurization method for food lol. Its as if we have some sort of built in system to help with unwanted bacteria and virus's. Who here is willing to bet the germs found on the door knob leaving a washroom are not only more deadly, but more prevalent then bacteria and virus's in unpasteurized milk. Soo, should we make bathroom doorknobs illegal, or perhaps arrest non hand washers?

Posted by: Baker | 2010-02-14 10:18:24 AM


You obviously have heard the old cliche that it`s safer to eat off a toilet seat than a restaurant table. As far as the raw vs treated milk controversy goes, I`ve read that homogenization is the major culprit. The rearrangement of milk particulate causes minor abrasion to the blood vessels leading to arteresclerosis.

Posted by: daveh | 2010-02-14 10:41:06 AM


The government has no business telling people what they can and cannot put into there bodies. Because just like the post says. The worst case scenario is that he is only hurting himself. And the people who buy his unpasteurized milk would only be hurting themselves too.

Posted by: Sheldon | 2010-02-14 1:46:52 PM


Baker: "LOL, its amazing to think how we survived for thousands of years without a proper pasteurization method for food lol"

A century ago, which may be considered modern times by some standards, the average life span in North America was 49 years. It wasn't until the 1930's that the average span approached 65 years. And is considerably more now.
The reason for the increase in span? Improved nutrition and sanitation. It continues to increase in many places around the world because of these two important reasons.

Baker; "Its as if we have some sort of built in system to help with unwanted bacteria and virus's"

It is well known that we have an immune system within our bodies to handle most of the day to day assaults on our physical well being. It can handle all but the most virulent attacks until it weakens or is compromised.

Baker: "Soo, should we make bathroom doorknobs illegal, or perhaps arrest non hand washers?""

No, we don't need to make handwashing mandatory or do away with bathroom door knobs. You are asking for more state intervention there.
Just use common sense and proper sanitation and you should be fine.

If you want to drink raw milk, you had better know your cow.

Posted by: Ed Ellison | 2010-02-14 4:09:23 PM


"A century ago, which may be considered modern times by some standards, the average life span in North America was 49 years. It wasn't until the 1930's that the average span approached 65 years. And is considerably more now.
The reason for the increase in span? Improved nutrition and sanitation. It continues to increase in many places around the world because of these two important reasons."

Bla Bla, it isnt the cleanliness of the food that increased the AVERAGE lifespan, was nutritious food to the mass's which increased the AVERAGE, which goes far beyond any specific product sterilized or pasteurized and is mainly due to the agricultural revolution and medicine/technology, not some specific heating process, lol! In fact the MOST NUTRITIOUS foods are going to be raw, due to the live enzymes and what not that are destroyed by heat. PS, really funny you omit MEDICINE in your lifespan increase hypothesis.

"It is well known that we have an immune system within our bodies to handle most of the day to day assaults on our physical well being. It can handle all but the most virulent attacks until it weakens or is compromised."

Its also well known that if you don't expose your immune system to bacteria and virus' it turns to shit. Bubble anyone?

"No, we don't need to make handwashing mandatory or do away with bathroom door knobs. You are asking for more state intervention there.
Just use common sense and proper sanitation and you should be fine."

My comment was sarcasm, chill buddy. I was saying how there are much more dangerous things then drinking raw milk that are considered common in life, if you didnt catch that i feel sad for you.

Posted by: Baker | 2010-02-14 9:34:41 PM


Baker: "Bla Bla, it isnt the cleanliness of the food that increased the AVERAGE lifespan,..."

Baker you are sharp tonight! However...
The two problems with raw milk are fecal contamination (hygiene), and viral disease, both serious health risks.
You deny the point that cleanliness of what you injest is very important? It can kill you. This is why the average life span has increased largely because we now understand hygiene and the connection between it and health. This understanding took place pretty much the same time as pasteurisation. See Louis Pasteur and Joseph Lister.
Of course the miracle of modern medicine has extended the span somewhat, but surgery would be useless without hygiene.

Baker: "Its also well known that if you don't expose your immune system to bacteria and virus' it turns to shit. Bubble anyone?"

Absolutely true. It needs to be stressed or it will turn against you.

Baker: "My comment was sarcasm, chill buddy. I was saying how there are much more dangerous things then drinking raw milk that are considered common in life, if you didnt catch that i feel sad for you."

Yup, lots of mundane things in this life will knock you dead. For me, it won't be raw milk from an unknown source.
Good to see you came back with some good points after a rather dull and pointless post.

Posted by: Ed Ellison | 2010-02-15 1:12:50 AM


"The two problems with raw milk are fecal contamination (hygiene), and viral disease, both serious health risks."

Very low risk of happening given the figures presented by others.

"You deny the point that cleanliness of what you injest is very important? It can kill you."

So can the cleanliness of your but hole, do you sterilize it? Whats your point? The risk is not there, and for the MAJORTY of food "cleanleness" does not involve needing a PASTURIZATION/STERILIZATION process, the majority of these non pasteurized foods are the ones that are going to be the greatest influence in overall health and lifespan. We do not need to pasteurize/sterilize everything to be health my friend.

"his is why the average life span has increased largely because we now understand hygiene and the connection between it and health."

Is Hygiene pasturization? Or is pasturization only a tiny tiny specific part of a possible hygienic revolution? If so, is it specifically, still the major influence on lifespan as you claimed?

"Of course the miracle of modern medicine has extended the span somewhat, but surgery would be useless without hygiene."

I agree, but surgical hygiene IS NOT food pasteurization which were speaking about.

"Yup, lots of mundane things in this life will knock you dead."

True, but what are the odds? Are they that great to create laws that, going by the numbers, aren't really needed?


Umm.. So basically this is an argument i dont have the drive to continue lol.. Just doesn't really interest. Basically what i ment to say in my first post, there are much more dangerous things we accept as common in our daily life then unpasteurized milk, if people know the possible risk's involved they can giver in my mind, same with cannabis, same with anything.

Posted by: Baker | 2010-02-15 8:31:24 AM


Baker: "Basically what i ment to say in my first post, there are much more dangerous things we accept as common in our daily life then unpasteurized milk, if people know the possible risk's involved they can giver in my mind, same with cannabis, same with anything."

I can buy that line of reasoning, seeing as how I believe the same thing. My point was to make sure you know what you are getting into, and don't let dogma or blind faith lead you to somewhere you don't want to be.

Posted by: Ed Ellison | 2010-02-15 8:41:38 AM


You state that there are ' much more dangerous things than unpasteurized milk ---' You might have stumbled on the truth . Granted that pasteurization is an incomplete process , which doesn`t kill all bacteria , it at least increases the odds of our not being infected. On the other hand pasteurization and homogenization change the structure of the milk to a point where it is not healthy to the body. Which I suppose is why certain people cannot handle it . So you are sacrificing long term health for short term safety.
Anyhow, I seem to remember you from your postings a few years back , Baker man especially the plethora of ' LOL' S

Posted by: daveh | 2010-02-15 9:08:29 AM


Posted by: Ed Ellison | 2010-02-13 5:22:57 PM

Pasteurization is not effective in killing off some of the deadly impurities you mentioned. It's mainly intended to reduce bacteria that cause gut problems, to make it safer for children.

Store bought milk has most of the cream removed, and therefore, most of the nutrients. The cream contains most of the calcium, as well as most of the vitamins. That's why store bought milk has vitamins added.

The only real problem with raw milk is the incredible gut ache it could cause in kids who've never been exposed to its bacteria. If you've ever spent time in a dairy barn, you'll know that it's very hard to keep the milk free of bacteria. Cows are not the cleanest creatures, and being penned up makes them even more disgusting.

If a farmer is selling raw milk, he might not be so careful about keeping his procuct bacteria free. If he's shipping his milk to a dairy, he's subject to very strict, and regular testing.

I don't believe adults need to drink milk. It defies the laws of nature. As Arnold Schwarzenegger said, "milk is for babies". He wasn't talking about cow's milk, either.

Posted by: dp | 2010-02-15 11:01:22 AM


If a farmer is selling raw milk, he might not be so careful about keeping his procuct bacteria free. If he's shipping his milk to a dairy, he's subject to very strict, and regular testing.

I don't believe adults need to drink milk. It defies the laws of nature.

Posted by: dp | 2010-02-15 11:01:22 AM

dp, if there was no dairy cartel, then there would be large raw milk producers that would produce raw milk that is as safe as possible. Having contaminated milk would be bad for business so we would learn to trust the good producers. Take a look at produce like tomatoes or spinach for example. We don't require them to be pasturized, not even the organic variety. Yet we all feel pretty safe eating them. Even when cholera is discovered on them we just stop eating them until the producers themselves have sorted out the problem. Then we go back to trusting them. And I may be wrong but it seems to me that organic produce is more exposed to such things as pathogens.

How far are we willing to go to remove risk and responsibility and give it to the state? The state whom we all know we can totally trust with everything. Should the supermarket have nothing but sterilized and pasturized produce? It seems to me we would learn to get along just fine without the state telling us what is good for us.

Whats next, the state telling me when I shouldn't walk across the steet because I am too stupid to know myself when it is safe and I might get killed otherwise? Oh wait a minute, they do that already.

Regarding the laws of nature, what laws are you talkig about? How far are you willing to go to define them? And are you willing to define them for others?

Posted by: TM | 2010-02-15 11:30:11 AM


No TM, I'm not interested in defining what's right for you. I was voicing an opinion. But, you have to admit, adults drinking the milk of a cow seems like a curious pastime. It's only done in a few cultures. I don't object to it, but I think it's strange behaviour.

I grew up in dairy country, and my sister married a dairy farmer. Her daughter married a dairy farmer. I have plenty of connections to the dairy industry. I drank raw milk until I was a teenager. I quit drinking milk over 30 years ago, but still consume a few dairy products. Dairy farming is an essential part of the Canadian economy.

I know, for a fact, that some of my relatives sell raw milk, to their neighbours. Making a big fuss over it will do more harm to these operations, than it will help them. The farmer in question here, is doing serious damage to small operators, who were operating under the radar for decades. He wants to change the system, because he failed to work around it.

Posted by: dp | 2010-02-15 11:49:17 AM


dp, interesting. I spent time on my grandparents farm when I was a kid and drank raw milk. I remember noticing them being quiete about getting it but didn't understand why at the time. And I didn't care for the taste either. Today I don't drink much milk.

Anyway, no farmer wants to intentionally sell contaminated milk and if the market was left to itself, then they would find ways to ensure a safe product. Some people would continue to demand pasturized and some would request raw. Neither are perfect but safety can be maximized and the perceived risks understood by consumers of either.

Posted by: TM | 2010-02-15 12:28:08 PM


In the old days, when people still understood food safety, you didn't give raw milk to babies. It was scalded first, then cooled, before any baby, (under a year old), could drink it. Nowadays, most people don't know about this practice. Leave it to some back to nature hippies to kill their baby, because they never learned to be truly independent.

The main reason for pasteurizing is to make food safe for small children. Many babies die from unpasteurized honey. When I was a baby, people knew better than to give babies honey. Now, most people would look at you with disbelief, if you told them that.

Posted by: dp | 2010-02-16 7:49:15 AM


dp, that is totally true. It doesn't change the point that people ought to be able to drink if they want but you are right. I learned not to give honey to my baby boy 18 years ago. After I gave it to him. I didn't know it was not a good idea. But now I do and I am glad I am free to eat it.

Posted by: TM | 2010-02-16 8:29:28 AM


TM- It might not seem like it, but I agree with you. I just wish there were some resource, that provides information to people who want to consume traditional foods.

Canning is another practise that can kill you, if it is done incorrectly. There's been a big gap in the knowledge that used to be handed down, generation to generation. People get the idea that they can do what their grandmothers did, but they miss a couple of important steps, in the process.

Posted by: dp | 2010-02-16 8:41:19 AM


I sorta thought we were on the same page. Ya, I don't eat canned goods from the "neighbors aunt" anymore because I have no idea how well she made it. I esepcially don't take them from in-laws. :)

Posted by: TM | 2010-02-16 9:11:46 AM


Do a search for the Weston A Price foundation , dp , for some info ..

Posted by: daveh | 2010-02-16 12:10:25 PM


The back-and-forth comments are interesting and some are rather ridiculous. As for "in the old days people did not give raw milk to children under a year old, I must say it is not true. Perhaps that was the case of some people but certainly not all people. My own children thrived on raw goat milk but could not tolerate commercial formula. I might also add that I was never a hippy nor ever met or associated with any. I simply did the same as my ancestors.

Still I cannot stress enough that this is about the industrial food system using government to enforce its monopoly with absolutely nothing to do with health risks. Life is full of risks and eating or drinking anything can be a risk, the same as walking, driving or anything else. I prefer to have the right to choose what I eat and drink, and I also prefer to know from where it came and how it was produced. I believe that it is my personal responsibility to do so.

I wonder how many are aware of the on-going war waged by the industrial food system to gain control over food the world over, be it the right to save and plant seeds and to grow and produce our own food. For our food supply to be in the hands of a few multinational corporations does not fit with the concept of freedom.

Posted by: Alain | 2010-02-17 12:12:06 PM


Alain- I didn't say that no one gave raw milk to babies. What I should have said is, people who understood food safety didn't give raw milk to babies, without scalding it. Plenty of babies survive all sorts of parental incompetence, by luck, and by natural born toughness.

Posted by: dp | 2010-02-17 8:00:08 PM


Sorry dp, I did not mean to single out or misrepresent your comments. I think we are in agreement that people need to show personal responsibility in the choices they make while retaining the freedom to make those choices.

Posted by: Alain | 2010-02-17 8:50:55 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.