Pasteurization came about with the industrial revolution, when milk started making people sick at an increasing and alarming rate. Pasteurization of dairy prevented acute illness associated with drinking the milk of sick animals. These animals were sick because they had been moved from the country and closer to the city, were being fed less grass and more grains, and the farms were being moved out of the hands of family owned farms into the hands of the ever-consolidating corporate entities.
Instead of treating the problem (sick animals) it was decided to treat the symptoms (people getting ill) by killing all the bacteria in the tainted milk.
Now doesn't that sound familiar ...
Time has passed, however the conventional (pasteurized) milk from the store still comes from unhealthy animals eating an unnatural diet for their digestive tracts, are in confined living conditions, and we are still treating symptoms of the problem by giving the animals routine medications to keep them "well" and killing all bacteria (the good with the bad) with pasteurization or even ULTRA-pasteurization of the milk.
In contrast, it is estimated that 1% of the population of America drinks raw milk from either their own farm animals or from healthy animals raised on a small family farm. The risk of illness associated with drinking raw milk from healthy animals is
lower than the risk associated with many produce items in the supermarket and much lower than the risk of eating raw oysters.
Are the tides turning?
It certainly seems to me that the real food movement is growing and may soon turn the tides on how we currently choose to involve government in food safety issues.
While it is absolutely, positively true that large corporations producing our food in monocultures (think spinach, cantaloupes), feed lots (think cows, chickens, eggs, dairy), or other areas of mass production (think fast food, most school food systems) need government oversight to ensure that they do not make make us sick because we cannot change this dysfunctional system overnight - the rules and regulations created for the dysfunctional food systems cannot be applied to the small family farms following the rules of the land and of tradition.
Who benefits from the rules and regulations of large corporations imposed on the family farm?
Large corporations. There is a significant financial burden of sterilization and pasteurization of our food that small businesses simply cannot compete with. Not to mention, folks that seek out small family farms for their food supply do not want sterile food.
People want raw milk from healthy cows and goats. People want fresh eggs from healthy chickens. People want homemade sauerkraut from pesticide-free cabbages. And farmers want to provide this for their eager customers.
"Free market" to me is usually said with a nasty sneer, however, in this case I must give it a good nod of my head as I think that if the true fundamental of the term was honored, then small businesses really could flourish and there could be less consolidation of our food system.
So who is getting in the way of the turning tides?
As a low-active person in the democrat process, I recently surprised myself by testifying in front of the public health committee of the Texas state legislature on the topic of allowing raw milk from certified raw milk dairies to be legally sold at farmer's markets,
HB 46 (currently in Texas it is only legal to buy from a certified raw milk dairy on the farm).
I'll be completely honest, it was the most excited political event of my 30 years!! My blood pressure peaked to an all-time high during my testimony, but after that, I just sat back and listened.
In the morning the pro-HB 46 folks provided testimony of which my favorite testimonies were from the farmers, who are the home-style folk standing up for their way of living. In contrast, some of the raw milk drinkers' testimonies were quite frightful, but so goes the democratic process.
In the afternoon the anti-HB 46 folks provided testimony. I was prepared to hear all the same bullshi*t about how "unsafe" raw milk is and la-de-dah usual fear tactics, but they added in some new angles this time...
Department of State Health Services
There was a last minute (~8 hours before the hearing) attachment of a
5K fiscal note to the bill, which committee representatives stated was a "death sentence" for the bill in the current fiscal climate. A DSHS employee stated that this fiscal note was added due to 'the increase in staff needed to support the estimated 20+ more raw milk dairies that are likely to pop up after passage of this bill'.
The committee showed no mercy to this DSHS employee. They ripped him a new one and honestly I felt bad for the guy.
But really, his logic and research was lacking and sad in itself.
Harris County Food Safety
This woman's opposition was the same-old fear tactics and was really too lacking of substance to even waste type on.
Infectious Disease, representing Texas Medical Association & Texas Pediatric Association
He provided at different twist on the safety issue, stated something like 'yes, I agree the risk is small, but if it's your child that dies, the risk is 100%'.
He also lobbied for "accurate labeling" so that folks who may not know about the 'risks' of raw milk may read about the dangers on the bottle and make an 'informed decision' from there.
He then nit-picked the fact that this bill does not dictate the rules for transportation of raw milk. (Why would raw milk not be subject to the same rules/regulations as the transport of pasteurized milk?!)
Texas Association of Dairymen
By far the most fascinating opposition, as his case sounded more like it was for the bill and yet he was opposing... He seemed to believe that the market for conventional is on the decline and the market for raw milk is on the incline and they 'missed the boat on organics, so we don't want to miss this one' *chills*.
So the stated reasons for opposition was that the bill 'wasn't quite right yet' and needed to include more detail on what the raw milk containers need to have on them (bottling date and expiration date) and that testing for raw milk should be increased to once per month. He also wants strict rules on record keeping so that "as the industry grows" there is correct foundation in place.
The future of raw milk...
From these testimonies in opposition to increasing access to raw milk we can see that the arguments are evolving and it is likely only a matter of time before drinkers of real milk break through barriers and remove the stigma of raw milk as a 'risky food'. See my previous
blog post addressing food safety.
I was blown away by the quality of insight that the committee members provided to the hearing of HB-46, several of which are also co-sponsors for the bill. Texas has a long history of cattle ranching, dairy production, and small family farms. I heard several of the committee members interject their own life experience with raw milk and raising dairy cows. And of course (because you'd have to be dumb or blind not to see it when you drive through Texas countryside) several of them stated an intimate understanding of how the decline of the family farm and local food industry has devastated small towns across Texas.
I think the future of raw milk and real food is bright. When I moved to Texas 3 years ago, I expected a wasteland of Wal-Mart-type thinking but within the last year my eyes have really opened to the strengthening movement of passionate people fighting for a better food future in Texas.
Be a part of this bright future! Stay up-to-date on how you can make a difference by joining the
Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, who supports all things family farm & real food.
