Arguing over unpasteurised milk

Arguing over unpasteurised milk

 

Raw deal

 

The people v pasteurisation

 

Jun 10th 2010 | GEORGETOWN, TEXAS

 

The raw or the cooked?

 

SUSAN DYER of Dyer Dairy in Georgetown, Texas, explains that she and her husband both come from dairy-farming families well acquainted with the stresses of the industry. Her father, for example, struggled to compete with the big corporate operations. He eventually had to shut down his farm. For years, Mrs Dyer continues, she and her husband sold most of their milk to a co-op, with unpasteurised or "raw" milk as a sideline. But two years ago they decided they wanted to focus on running a small family farm. Today they have a raw-milk dairy with an attached shop selling cheese, honey and vegetables. It is a cheerful place. One customer, sniffing a shallot, announced that if you rub garlic on your feet you can taste it in your mouth. But the main attraction is the raw milk, bottled fresh every day directly after Mr and Mrs Dyer have finished milking the cows.

 

Raw milk makes up a tiny part of the overall American milk market, perhaps half a percent. Industry watchers say that raw milk is becoming more popular as consumers take a greater interest in where their food has come from. Enthusiasts say that the unpasteurised stuff tastes better, and some of them even claim that raw milk is a sort of superfood, chock-full of nutrients and enzymes that the pasteurisation process, which involves a short burst of high heat, destroys.

 

Raw milk certainly tastes good. Public health advocates dispute the health benefits, though, and say that raw milk is inherently risky, especially for children, old people, and anybody with health problems. Between 1998 and 2008, according to the Centres for Disease Control, some 1,600 people became sick after drinking the stuff. Nearly 200 were hospitalised and two died. The actual incidence of minor illness may be higher, as many people afflicted by food-borne disease suffer in the privacy of their homes.

 

John Sheehan, the director of dairy safety for the Food and Drug Administration, says that the agency has thoroughly examined the claimed health benefits and found no support for any of them. He adds that regulation cannot guarantee safety: in the states where raw milk is sold legally, there have been nearly three times as many outbreaks of illness as in the states where it is not. Presumably there is also more raw milk drunk in the former group, but there is no good way to measure the size of the illicit market in the latter.

 

Because of the risk of salmonella and other nasty bugs, it is against the law to sell raw milk across state lines. But more than two dozen states let farmers sell raw milk directly from their farms, subject to various rules, and a handful even allow retail sales. Several states are taking a new look at the issue. A serious blow to the cause came last month in Wisconsin, one of America's largest dairy states. It already allows incidental sales of raw milk—a few gallons here and there—but Jim Doyle, the governor, has vetoed a bill that would have allowed it to be sold more widely.

 

His veto was something of a surprise. The bill had passed both houses of the state legislature by a healthy margin. Many lawmakers were moved by the idea that allowing raw-milk sales would help small farmers. Mr Doyle had indicated that he would sign the bill. But after lobbying by the dairy industry and public-health pressure groups, he changed his mind. One concern was that an outbreak caused by dodgy raw milk could damage the reputation of Wisconsin's entire dairy industry. It is an emotive issue on both sides, and the debate will continue.

 

This reverse for raw milk followed another last month, when the board of Organic Valley, a national co-operative of organic farmers, voted against letting its members sell raw milk on the side. George Siemon, the co-op's boss, says that the co-op had debated the issue for a year and was closely divided. But ultimately the co-op took the conservative approach for organisational reasons: it was a nuisance to have farmer members distracted by their raw-milk sidelines. Mr Siemon says that he was in favour of raw-milk sales himself, although he respects the final decision. "People thinking about their food is a healthy thing," he says. Both sides can agree with that.

 

The Economist Newspaper | United States