|
Letter To CBC Radio's Ontario Today |
THE CASE FOR PERMITTING THE SALE OF RAW MILK AND ITS PRODUCTS
The medical authorities are making a big issue about bacteria in raw milk. Perhaps it would help to put things into perspective regarding their track record. The world of modern medicine can give one the impression that it is responsible for an advanced state of health on the part of individuals and society at large (herein likely lies the alleged justification for resorting to strong-arm tactics like attempting to shut down the operations of organic raw milk suppliers). While health benefits have likely resulted from it, people should be aware of evidence which raises doubts about the significance of its role:
"One of the great achievements of medical historians is to have shown that the infectious scourges of the previous century [19th] were conquered mainly by improvements in nutrition and sanitation, shorter working hours, and a general improvement in living standards. The more rapid transport of foods, the systematic separation of drinking water from sewage, and improved work conditions were far more important to halting the spread of disease than novel forms of medical intervention. [Specific historical examples cited have been omitted here]. …Increased leisure time relieved work stress and allowed recovery from otherwise crippling illnesses. Medicine, as it is normally understood, appears to have played a relatively minor role. Medical historians have inferred from such examples that the best hope for the world's chronic ailments is prevention rather than cure. But there are many obstacles to its effective practice." Η [my emphasis]
Many modern diseases (that led to fatalities) have periodically surfaced in the past decade or two that defy even the most extreme measures of eradication. The lesson that may need to be recognised is simply that life involves risk, and the risks of susceptibility to disease cannot be completely eliminated. Reasonable measures by individuals in taking responsibility for their state of health seems to be the best and most effective approach.
Pasteurised milk products are well suited for a fast-paced, high-tech world that most city people live in. Perhaps it is not realistic to expect such people to take the time to inform themselves of the long-term [these types of studies cannot be adequately done; consequently, short-term (bacterial) effects are focused on by the medical authorities] compromises in health that consumption of commercial milk (pasteurised, homogenised and fortified—why not go the full measure and totally eliminate the cow; replacing it with completely fabricated milk products) poses to the consumer.
People who take the time to inform themselves on the precautionary measures (e.g., gradually becoming adapted to the particular bacterial culture commonly present in raw milk) necessary for having raw milk and raw milk products in their diet should be allowed to act on their objective of obtaining health benefits through these foods [while accepting the risk of incurring serious infectious disease, which is hopefully (implying a primary reliance on the protection and grace of God) acceptably low with the use of organic farming practises]. Perhaps the situation can be compared to the consumption of alcohol. This is permitted by society when it is done responsibly; likewise, should the case be for raw milk. What about cigarettes? Evidence of the harmful effects of tobacco smoke is quite clear: why isn't there a ban on the sale of tobacco products?
|
