Propaganda is the deliberate spreading of information, ideas, or rumors intended to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. I acknowledge that when most people are trying to promote or defend their ideas there is
normally going to be some natural bias. However, once that bias turns to blatant
manipulation and omission of relevant information, that that is propaganda.
When I see the information provided by individuals and
agencies suggesting raw milk is dangerous and should not be consumed I cannot
help but shake my head in aghast that some people have the arrogance and
audacity to try to push this sort of propaganda on the American people and
expect to retain credibility. It is
comforting to know, though, more and more people are seeing through the fog of
propaganda and seeing the reality of matters.
One of the CDCs favorite pieces of propaganda used to shape
peoples opinion about raw milk concerns the number of outbreaks from raw milk as
compared to the number of outbreaks from pasteurized milk. The CDC uses the number of outbreaks as an
example to mislead people to believe raw milk is overwhelmingly more dangerous
than pasteurized milk. Consider that raw
milk dairies tend to be smaller in size, and more numerous whereas dairy
processing plants handle a much larger volume and serve far more people. You can have an outbreak from 12 different
raw milk dairies each getting one person sick and one outbreak from a
pasteurized milk facility that gets 50 people sick, but what do you think
people "hear" when the media reports twelve outbreaks from raw milk
versus one outbreak from pasteurized milk?
For a really good look at how the recent CDC raw milk study is a classic
piece of propaganda take a look at this article. http://www.westonaprice.org/press/cdc-cherry-picks-data-to-make-case-against-raw-milk
I would like to point out one thing that is rarely, if ever,
mentioned during the course of raw milk discussion. The data that points to increased risk of
illness from raw milk does not consider the timeline and breadth of all illness
associated with both raw milk and processed dairy consumption. When someone gets sick from raw milk it
usually happens right away, such as getting diarrhea in the case of food
poisoning. Illness from raw milk is
usually relatively quick, over and done with, in most cases, involving no
long-lasting repercussions. Whereas the
debilitating health effects from consuming processed dairy is cumulative in
nature. For example, a person is not
going to get allergies, asthma, atherosclerosis, osteoporosis, lactose
intolerance from just one serving of pasteurized milk. The data and statistics from this would no
doubt be hard to discern. Yet, these
side effects need to be taken into consideration when people are discussing the
risks and benefits of raw vs. pasteurized milk in order to not be misled by
propaganda from either side.
Indianas Dairy Farmers are hard workers and put in long
hours lending them to not having much time or energy to do a lot of research and
think things through. They are prime people
for succumbing to the propaganda being disseminated by various organizations
and spread by their industry peers.
Conventional dairy farmers are unwittingly being enlisted to wage war
against fellow raw milk farmers. Mind
you, it is not raw milk farmers trying to assert regulations on them. We are not trying to make them test their
milk for pathogens or make them subscribe to practices which are otherwise
necessary to ensure healthy, quality, safe raw milk fit for human consumption.
There seems to be a pervasive view among conventional dairy
farmers that raw milk farmers are a competitive threat to their market. The market for raw milk intended for human
consumption and the market intended for milk processing are two different
markets serving two totally different segments of the population. For one, roughly half the herd-share owners
at Pastures Delights claim themselves to be lactose intolerant and cannot
even consume processed milk. I know very
few raw milk drinkers that would ever consider drinking pasteurized milk. There is a reason people are resorting to
drinking almond milk, soy milk, or no milk.
So how is raw milk a competitive threat?
It is interesting that organizations representing dairy farmers have misled
them to being more concerned about a manufactured competitive threat concerning
raw milk than the actual competitive threat such as Fair Oaks's 30,000 cow mega dairy
which displaced the milk from the equivalent of 260 average size dairy farms
forcing them to send their milk farther away.
Conventional Dairy is hanging their hat on the propaganda that
if someone gets sick from raw milk it will affect the entire dairy
industry. I take exception to that
notion because if anyone is incurring collateral damage because of people
getting sick it is the raw milk segment of the dairy industry. Perhaps Corporate Conventional Dairy would
care to provide an explanation why more and more medical professionals are
advising clients to avoid dairy altogether due to ailments such as allergies,
asthma, and diabetes, unbeknownst to these medical professionals that not all
milk is the same and that any issues with dairy stem mostly from the processing
of milk. With the idea of people
avoiding dairy, dairy farmers sending their milk to dairy processors are their
own worst enemy. It may take a couple
generations to fully play out, but conventional dairy farmers will continue to
see their market shrink due to people wishing to avoid
Conventional dairy farmers feel that raw milk dairy farmers
have an unfair competitive advantage with not being regulated and not having to
be inspected. Raw milk intended for
human consumption is its very own niche market.
Failing to grasp that concept, conventional farmers are pushing for
Grade A standards for raw milk dairy farms in order to level the playing
field in regards to competition.
Interestingly conventional dairy farmers and processors who fear competition
from raw milk dairies and wish to create barriers in the dairy business
will actually encourage the very competition they are seeking to avoid. Once raw milk dairies are Grade A regulated
and inspected they are just a stones throw away from directly competing by way
of installing a pasteurizer and actually joining the competition for their market
share. With the growing popularity of locally
grown food I imagine there will be numerous small dairies springing up serving
their local towns and neighborhoods.
Talking about a competitive game changer for conventional dairy! On the idea of having a level playing field,
if that is going to be the premise to argue for Grade A standards for raw milk
dairies, then I will argue in turn that conventional dairies must comply with
the same milk testing requirements for which I presume will be required of raw
milk dairies. Of course they will say
their milk should be exempted because their milk is going be pasteurized. My point exactly: conventional milk serves a different
For all the hype about raw milk illness and testing raw milk for
pathogens, there is no testing done on pasteurized milk. Who hasnt had a spoiled carton of milk at
school? I mean the school milk spoils
prematurely for a reason, right?
As the raw milk study in Indiana continues it is interesting
to observe how people on one hand proclaim to be patriotic and believe in the
virtues of being free but on the other hand believe their opinion should dictate the laws everyone has to abide by. Sounds to me like they are
more fit for a role in a dictatorship than working for the freedom loving
people of Indiana!
For example, one person on the Indiana raw milk study panel
simply doesnt like the taste of raw milk and is therefore against approving it
be legalized for sale. First, someone
needs to get him a glass of Pastures Delights's great tasting REAL Milk! Then he needs to be reminded what state and
country he lives in. I might have an
opinion that pasteurized milk is bad, but I would never advocate for a law to
ban pasteurized milk. I stand firm that
it is not the governments responsibility to be making those kinds of decisions
I queried a health agency official why they ascribed the dangerous
label for raw milk. I asserted that no
information I have seen warrants that label and asked if they could provide the
information they were basing their opinion upon. They kindly obliged. In looking through two presentations on the
dangers of raw milk I could see why they or anyone would not want to consume
raw milk. However, I know just a tad
more about raw milk and the dairy industry than apparently the intended audience of these
presentations, and could easily point out the falacies in the information intended to shape people's opinion of raw milk. Here are just a few obvious examples:
"Drinking raw milk is like playing Russian
roulette with your health." - John
Sheehan, USAs top dairy safety specialist.
Really? Is he suggesting 1 in 6
people will experience adverse health effects from raw milk? This
is a far cry from Chris Kresser's calculation that there is more like a 1 in 6
million chance of being hospitalized from raw milk
(http://chriskresser.com/raw-milk-reality-is-raw-milk-dangerous ). How can Mr.
Sheehan make such a statement and still be taken seriously?
Still, a list of agencies (CDC, FDA, AMA, and
other agencies and associations, including farm organizations) repeat this
propaganda over and over, so that it is all they hear, monolithically believe,
and in turn behave the same way in their desire to squash raw milk in the name
of protecting public health.
They show pictures of a brand new, yet to be
used large modern day dairy farm and then pictures of a raw milk dairy barn
with weeds growing around it and ask Where do you want to get your milk from? Well, I prefer to get my milk from a dairy
that has cows with healthy immune systems, and a dairy that pays particular
attention to getting the teats clean before milking. Are those FDA approved robots that reliable in getting
Talk about Pasteurization and the germ
theory. People understand germs are bad
and that pasteurization kills germs! What is not mentioned is also the terrain
theory, in which researchers conclude that it is not germs causing disease but
rather a weakened terrain where biology functions are thrown off and give rise
to germs as the symptom of disease. Im
not a doctor or scientist, but there is a growing awareness and credible
acceptance that the whole germ theory is not what it is cracked up to be. Educate yourself: http://thehealthadvantage.com/biologicalterrain.html
The BOAH presentation says It is impossible to
collect sterile milk! I get what they
are saying in terms of the challenges in keeping milk free of contamination. Yet I will argue that milk that is healthy
for peoples diets is not supposed to be sterile!
They list 14 organisms that raw milk could
contain. Are you scared yet? Better wash your hands if youre going to eat
popcorn in front of the TV. Your TV
remote has most of these organisms on it too.
There is subtle preying on peoples lack of
knowledge and fear of raw milk. Lets
consider peoples fear of flying for a moment.
I suppose people who fear flying have a tendency to not understand the
physics of Bernoulli's principle and the mechanics of how airplanes work. In similar fashion those who fear raw milk with
the belief that there is a risk of germs in raw milk that are going to harm them
dont understand how (REAL) raw milk works.
Just as the Indiana BOAH says, it is impossible to collect sterile
milk. If raw milk did not contain some fifteen
different immune, microorganism fighting mechanisms I guarantee people would be
getting sick all the time from raw milk and we would not even be having this discussion about raw milk. Whereas flying is inherently dangerous due to defying the law of gravity, REAL milk is inherently safe by nature's design.
Another falsehood going around being promoted by
the BOAH and the State is they do not recognize the legitimacy of herd-share
contracts. This is a direct assault on a persons right to ownership and
contract law, fundamental concepts that define how America is set up to
function. A person can buy a cow and get
milk from their own cow. Two neighbors
can buy a cow and get milk from their own cow.
Ten people can go together and get milk from their own cow. The notion that the state pretends to not
recognize the legality and validity of herd-share contracts should send red
flags up for everyone, raw milk supporter or not.
Witnessing the propaganda campaign against raw milk makes me wonder what else government could be misleading us on. Ultimately, propaganda only works on the uneducated. Make sure you research for yourself and make your own (principled) decisions. Fight for your rights, because it seems these
days if one doesnt protect their rights others seem to feel they have the
right to take them. The battle for raw
milk is a battle for liberty and truth. May
Farmer Mark Grieshop