This is a topic that keeps coming up, similar to creationism, in that there is a lot of rhetoric but no science. There are too many cases where raw milk has been responsible for sickness and death in humans to allow it to be sold. Mr. Rutledge has no idea what bacteria are in his milk because most of them come from the environment, not his cows.
Furthermore, he has no idea what chronic diseases his cows have. Johne's disease is present on more than half the dairy herds surveyed across the country, but few of the farmers were aware of it because usually there are no obvious signs. The same goes for salmonellosis. Listeriosis is a bacteria associated with silage that no farmer can be sure is not present. It causes deaths and abortions in pregnant women. Read the literature of the outbreaks of human disease caused by drinking raw milk before signing onto this just terrible idea.
- by
Daniel Miller
© 2009, Change.org. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
The question is as I see it is this. Is raw milk inherently more dangerous than other foods that can be contaminated by bacteria? I think the record indicates the answer is no. But raw milk is banned, but not the other foods that have as high or higher incidences of bacterial comtamination. For example, I don't see any cries for the banning of peanut butter, but more people have died from eating that than drinking raw milk.
Posted by Ken Taylor on 01/21/2009 @ 01:41PM PT