Herald Column: Resolving the Raw Milk Debate

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at Canada's laws forbidding the sale of raw milk, and also what the science tells us:

  

How strange that as Ottawa announced last week new, large and graphic tobacco warning labels, raw milk proponents were still fighting even to get their product on the market. To be treated like tobacco would be a step up.
Our prohibition on the distribution of raw milk may be well-intentioned, but its enforcement seems increasingly unfair and unjust.
Our laws are perplexing. There's nothing prohibiting a farmer from consuming the raw milk from one of his cows, or even serving it to his children.
Yet, that farmer is forbidden by law from selling raw milk to a consenting adult with no other means of procuring the product. Who is the victim in that equation?
Clearly, there must be a victim, because raw milk distributors have been treated as though they are dangerous criminals.
In a 2006 raid on the farm of Ontario raw milk crusader Michael Schmidt, two dozen armed officers were involved. Not only was the contraband product seized, but also computers, files and other equipment.
Yet, one year ago, some vindication for Schmidt: he was acquitted of 19 charges.
Schmidt was quite clear that he wasn't selling milk per se, but rather selling a "portion" of a cow. His "cow-share" operation allowed people to be joint owners of a dairy cow.
Undeterred, provincial officials have appealed the verdict. So Schmidt's persecution will continue for now, at taxpayers' expense, in the name of "protecting" those members of his cow-share program, which includes some top Toronto chefs.
In B.C., a long-targeted Chilliwack cow-share is trying a new end-run around provincial regulations. Last week, it was reported the farm was selling raw milk products as "cosmetics," including "bathing milk" and "raw milk skin lotion."
In Alberta, a cow-share west of Edmonton received a cease-and-desist order from Alberta Health Services in November. The farm's owners were ordered to hand over "contracts, records, contact information and other relevant information" on others involved with the operation.
Must we go to such an extent to protect people from themselves? If people choose to drink raw milk, it is their choice. Perhaps the state's role is to ensure the decision is an informed one.
In one sense, it mostly is. Those purchasing raw milk are under no illusions about what they are obtaining.
However, these choices are perhaps not as informed as they could be. Advocates speak in glowing terms of the safety and benefits of raw milk, but most scientific evidence indicates they labour under many illusions.
Pasteurization is not some industry conspiracy, but a scientific success story. The number of food-borne diseases from milk has dramatically decreased since 1991, when Health Canada mandated pasteurization.
If we're going to have a debate about laws pertaining to raw milk, and we should, it must be an honest debate.
A 2009 review in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases concluded that "scientific evidence to substantiate the assertions of the health benefits of unpasteurized milk is generally lacking"
The paper also noted "despite concerns to the contrary, pasteurization does not change the nutritional value of milk."
Another 2009 review in the journal Foodborne Pathogens and Disease pointed out that "numerous epidemiological studies have shown clearly that raw milk can be contaminated by a variety of pathogens."
The risks are real, though they may be manageably low considering raw milk is consumed regularly in several U.S. states and many European countries.
Rather than prohibition and the unregulated and underground market it has spawned, a better approach would be to regulate and inspect dairy farms selling raw milk. We can even have some graphic warning labels drawn up, too.