This month, the Portland (Maine) City Council is expected to decide if raw, unpasteurized milk can be sold at the city’s popular farmers’ markets. Although Maine is one of only a handful of states that allow milk to be sold straight from the cow with no processing, Portland health officials decided to reconsider local sales at farmers markets, and may require sellers to post warning labels and other information about the risks of consuming raw milk.
Whatever the council’s decision, the controversy over the sale and consumption of raw milk and raw milk products is unlikely to end there. Depending on who you talk to, raw milk is either a nutrient rich super-food that can boost your immune system and prevent children from getting asthma, or a swirling cauldron of bacteria and germs that can cause serious illness, even death.
After Portland began enforcing its local ban on the sale of raw milk in September, several organic farmers complained. They were unaware of Portland’s ordinance since state law allows the sale of raw milk at retail stores and farmers markets, as long as the raw milk dairies comply with stringent health inspection rules.
The nation’s laws regarding the sale of raw milk are confusing too. While federal law prohibits the interstate sale of raw milk, some states ban it outright. Others allow it to be sold only at the dairy or as pet food.
The US Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control are adamant that the consumption of raw milk and raw milk products pose a significant health risk. The agencies say they generally support the growing movement for the production and consumption of more natural, unprocessed food, but not when it comes to milk.
“Pasteurization of milk is an effective means of preventing outbreaks of foodborne illness, including tuberculosis, brucellosis, salmonellosis, scarlet fever, and listeriosis,” reads an FDA warning poster. “It was first used in the United States more than 100 years ago and has been widely used for more than a half-century.”
But Google “raw milk” and you’ll be directed to any one of dozens of websites proclaiming the health benefits of unpasteurized milk. Some even refer to it as a “stem cell” of foods. Advocates claim that pasteurization (the process of heating raw milk to 161 degrees for 15 seconds) is an outdated and unneeded process that removes many of the milk's beneficial nutrients and vitamins. They point to a recent European study that showed that children who drink raw milk are less likely to develop asthma and allergies than those who stick to the safer pasteurized version.
Raw milk advocates and organic farmers also point out that contracting a foodborne illness is a risk in many foods, and they complain that the FDA is far too aggressive in going after the producers and sellers of raw milk while ignoring the dangers of pesticides and other junk food. Last month, the state of Maine filed a lawsuit against a Blue Hill farmer for selling raw milk at his farm stand that had not been inspected by the state, and for not labeling it as “unpasteurized” as required by law. That promoted a letter to the FDA from US Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) seeking an explanation of the agency’s policies.
“During tight budget times, it appears that the Agency has chosen to commit scarce resources to activities like farm raids and what many believe to be overly zealous enforcement of the ban on interstate sale of raw milk,” Pingree wrote. “When consumers increasingly want to know where their food comes from and that it’s safe, why does the FDA choose to put so much energy into these enforcement activities aimed at small farmers?”
Portland officials believe they can reach a fair compromise. By requiring farmers to distribute information about the potential health hazards of unpasteurized dairy products, consumers can have their (raw) milk and read it too.
(Please subscribe to this column for instant updates, and share this on Facebook/Twitter.)
Comments