Globe and Mail editorial gets it wrong on unpasteurized milk
An editorial in the August 4, 2008 edition of the Globe and Mail has come out in support of Ontario farmer Michael Schmidt’s right to sell unpasteurized milk to the general public. Back in 2006 Schmidt’s farm near Owen Sound, was raided by Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ontario Provincial Police. He was subsequently charged for selling “raw milk.” The sale of unpasteurized milk is illegal in Ontario for health reasons because of the possibility it could contain bacteria such as E-coli or salmonella.
The Globe and Mail editorial contends that the raw milk ban is “unjustified and unfair.” They maintain that even if raw milk is more dangerous than other products, “so what?” The onus is on consumers to make their own informed decisions and choices on what to purchase. The editorial says that as long as the people buying the raw milk know the risks involved they should be able to do so and it should not be illegal. Consumers are supposed to make informed decisions about the food they buy. The position the Globe and Mail takes, that as long as the consumer is aware of all the information on the label about the raw milk, its sale should be allowed.
If you can imagine, they use the example of cigarettes as a comparison. It is hard to believe that one of Canada’s leading newspapers would take such a simplistic point of view on this subject. Sure it is true consumers can choose to purchase cigarettes (provided you are not a minor) if they wish – or not. That market is shrinking fast too, with tobacco farmers in Ontario receiving a government buyout just this past week. The medical evidence is undisputable, smoking cigarettes will kill you. Eventually they will be banned from sale altogether, but this takes time.
Should consumers be able to purchase raw unpasteurized milk when the undisputable facts are that it could be dangerous, even deadly to your health? Of course the answer is no, absolutely not. In the past when the pasteurization process was not yet perfected we had no choice but to consume raw milk. We have learned and medically proven that doing so can have devastating affects on human health and even more importantly children who consume large quantities of milk and are more susceptible to disease than adults.
For the Globe and Mail to compare the right of consumers to purchase raw milk versus cigarettes is a shame. Let me make this clear, I am not against organic farming or their products however the public’s health must and should be protected from any food products that might be contaminated. The existing law should be upheld and Mr. Schmidt’s illegal sale of raw milk stopped. The possible benefits of raw milk for chefs or organic consumers do not outweigh the potential health dangers raw milk presents.
The truth is that we already have a relatively easy, proven solution to deliver safe milk to the public and it is called pasteurization, why take a chance on our health consuming raw milk?
