I’ve written before about the irony of a dairy state banning nearly all sales of raw milk. The governor’s recent veto of a popular bill to allow a limited increase in raw milk sales was the latest example of Wisconsin as a dairyland nanny state. It was worse really, as the public health claims against raw milk are the trumped up and transparent attempts of big special interests to prevent competition from small farmers.
For prior FREE WHITEWATER coverage of the raw milk controversy, see these posts.
If the big dairy interests and their allies thought that the issue would go away with Governor Doyle’s veto, they were mistaken. The story has become a national one, with coverage at Reason, the Huffington Post, and now the Economist. The story is entitled, “Arguing over Unpasteurised Milk“, but the subtitle tells the tale: “Raw deal – The people v pasteurisation.”
Here’s a description of raw milk sales at a small dairy in Texas:
Susan Dyer of Dyer Dairy in Georgetown, Texas, explains that she and her husband both come from dairy-farming families well acquainted with the stresses of the industry. Her father, for example, struggled to compete with the big corporate operations. He eventually had to shut down his farm. For years, Mrs Dyer continues, she and her husband sold most of their milk to a co-op, with unpasteurised or “raw” milk as a sideline. But two years ago they decided they wanted to focus on running a small family farm. Today they have a raw-milk dairy with an attached shop selling cheese, honey and vegetables.
It is a cheerful place. One customer, sniffing a shallot, announced that if you rub garlic on your feet you can taste it in your mouth. But the main attraction is the raw milk, bottled fresh every day directly after Mr and Mrs Dyer have finished milking the cows.
Raw milk makes up a tiny part of the overall American milk market, perhaps half a percent. Industry watchers say that raw milk is becoming more popular as consumers take a greater interest in where their food has come from. Enthusiasts say that the unpasteurised stuff tastes better, and some of them even claim that raw milk is a sort of superfood, chock-full of nutrients and enzymes that the pasteurisation process, which involves a short burst of high heat, destroys.
The Economist story doesn’t compare the risks of raw milk to the risks of other foods, failing to note that all foods are “inherently risky” to those with allergies, etc. Many foods that are lawfully sold across sate lines carry the same risks that raw milk does; raw milk is banned for anti-competitive, not simply public health, reasons.
The story mentions Governor Doyle’s veto specifically, and notes that
His veto was something of a surprise. The bill had passed both houses of the state legislature by a healthy margin. Many lawmakers were moved by the idea that allowing raw-milk sales would help small farmers. Mr Doyle had indicated that he would sign the bill. But after lobbying by the dairy industry and public-health pressure groups, he changed his mind. One concern was that an outbreak caused by dodgy raw milk could damage the reputation of Wisconsin’s entire dairy industry. It is an emotive issue on both sides, and the debate will continue.
It is a debate that will, surely, continue.
This reverse for raw milk followed another last. I think that David Gumpert, whose work on raw milk I mentioned yesterday, will prove right about where this debate is heading. Raw milk opponents, using exaggerated public health claims to stifle competition, will prove unable to stop the legalization of raw milk sales.
We’ll then have more dairy products for sale in America’s Dairyland.