As many of you know, there is a war against the sale and consumption of raw milk. The government, along with big business, has taken away your basic constitutional right to choose what you want to consume, by claiming it’s in the interest of public safety. However, is raw milk a danger to the public?

According to research conducted by Ted Beals, MD, and published in the 2011 issue of Wise Traditions, you’re more likely to get injured driving to the farm to pick up your raw milk than becoming ill drinking it.

From the perspective of a national public health professional looking at an estimated total of 48 million foodborne illnesses each year [from all foods]… there is no rational justification to focus national attention on raw milk, which may be associated with an average of 42 illnesses maximum among the more than nine million people (about 0.0005 percent) who have chosen to drink milk in its fresh unprocessed form.

On May 16th, Representative Ron Paul asked,

“If we are not even free anymore to decide something as basic as what we wish to eat or drink, how much freedom do we really have left?”

Presidential candidate Ron Paul was talking about the FDA ban on the sale of raw milk (non-pasteurized) for human consumption across state lines. The ban began in 1987, but the FDA didn’t really begin enforcing it seriously until 2006 — when the government began sting operations and armed raids of dairy farmers and their willing customers.

The New American reports:

“Even if the FDA were correct in its assertions about the dangers of raw milk, its prohibition on interstate raw milk sales would still be, as Paul termed it, ‘an unconstitutional misapplication of the commerce clause for legislative ends’ …

Saying he is outraged by the FDA’s raids on peaceful dairy farmers and their customers, Paul has introduced legislation to allow the shipment and distribution of unpasteurized milk and milk products for human consumption across state lines, in effect reversing the FDA’s unconstitutional ban on such sales.

A Daily Finance article cited by Dr. Joe Mercola addresses the issue of safety:

On occasion, people do get sick from raw milk. But the number of people sickened by raw milk compared to other foods does not seem to warrant the FDA’s focused, expensive campaign….

No government regulations of interstate commerce in peanuts, kale, or cantaloupes have been suggested, despite the much greater number of people sickened by consuming these foods.

Children raised on farms have fewer allergies than children raised in cities. 1 in 3 children are currently affected by eczema, hay fever, or asthma, as opposed to 1 in 6 twenty years ago. The number of people needing emergency hospital treatment for severe allergic reactions has tripled over the last 10 years. A new study suggests the boom in allergies is largely due to pasteurized and homogenized milk. The study shows that children raised on farms who drink just 2 glasses of raw milk per week reduce their chances of eczema by 40% and hay fever by 10%. Blood samples revealed the consumption of raw milk decreased the levels of immunoglobulin E by half, which causes allergy symptoms.
Mercola.com

Raw milk has been gaining popularity for years now. The conventional dairy industry, realizing this, has stepped up their efforts to ensure that raw milk does not become mainstream. If the health and economic benefits of raw milk were to ever catch on with the general public, it would threaten the livelihoods of the conventional dairy industry.

If raw dairy did catch on, you would think that the dairy industry would simply follow suit and begin producing raw products to meet the demand. However, this would be virtually impossible. Their business depends on pasteurization in order to be able to mass-produce and ship a product that by nature is meant to be grown and consumed locally. this is why their powerful lobbyists will stop at nothing to persuade government agencies to keep raw milk bans in full force.

There’s a vast difference between the quality and safety of milk from organically raised, grass-fed cows, and conventionally raised, grain-fed livestock. Conventional dairy farms are not set up to produce healthy milk. The very idea of producing mass quantities of milk from huge numbers of cows confined to one area is contrary to the very nature of healthy milk.

Cows that are fed grain and raised under substandard conditions will likely produce milk that is unhealthy to drink raw because grains, antibiotics, growth hormones, and filthy living conditions change the pH balance and the natural bacteria present in a cow’s gut, which in turn affects the natural bacteria and pathogens present in their milk.

In order for conventional dairy farms to safely produce raw milk, they’d be forced to clean up their production practices, raise healthier cows (and likely fewer cows), and give them access to pasture. This would cost them money ? lots of money.

Mercola.com

Unfortunately for consumers, money has been, and is the number one reason why our food supply is so devoid of nutrients. To learn more about the health and economical benefits of local farming and products like raw milk visit The Weston A. Price Foundation or The Campaign for Real Milk or read The Raw Milk Revolution

Ron Schmid, the author, is a naturopathic physician and farmer. A graduate of MIT, he has served as Clinical Director and Chief Medical Officer at the University Of Bridgeport College Of Naturopathic Medicine. This book is a must for anyone who is interested in whole natural foods. Milk, raw milk that is, has been referred to as nature’s most perfect food because of it numerous health benefits.

The debate of raw versus pasteurized milk is overwhelmingly over safety. We’ve been told over and over again for decades in order for milk to be safe to consume, it needs to be pasteurized. Could it be that people extolling its benefits for thousands of years had no idea how dangerous it was? According to Ron Schmid, we should have the same right to whole raw dairy products in order to reap the benefits our ancestors had.

How much disease attributed to raw milk was actually caused by raw milk? In the early 1900’s when both types, raw and pasteurized coexisted, there was significant controversy within the public health establishment. Official numbers concluded that raw milk was responsible for 10 – 40 percent of all typhoid fever. One paper concluded .221 of one percent of typhoid fever, scarlet fever and diphtheria in the entire U.S. was attributable to milk. Looks to me like more unbiased research should have been done.

One thing we do know is that chronic diseases attributed to cattle have been effectively eradicated, which obviously makes the milk produced by these cattle more safe. Another is that many other contaminants such as Salmonella and Campylobacter originate in feces. These organisms cause over 2 million cases per year in the U.S. In an 8 year period, only 700 cases were attributed to raw milk consumption. The total number of food-borne illness from all causes is now 73 million per year. Schimid points out the obvious, that milk is not uniquely hazardous and should not be treated as such. He makes a strong case for treating raw milk production and like another food. Why can we eat raw fish but not raw milk?

So how much of a problem was raw milk? No matter what the answer was, raw milk became a problem. A large push by commercial interests to influence politicians and market the virtues of pasteurized milk occurred in the early 1900’s. Unfortunately, the public’s perception of raw milk went sour and so did sales. Never mind the fact that the dairy industry was more interested in mass production and shelf life than health.

It has become very clear as with many other products in our food supply money, not health is the deciding factor. If you are at all interested in learning about the benefits of raw milk, its history and how you can get involved in making raw milk available to all, read this book, and visit www.westonaprice.com.