A victory for advocates of drinking raw milk must not be allowed to become a defeat for public health.
In late January, Ontario justice of the peace Paul Kowarsky ruled that dairy farmer Michael Schmidt did not break health protection laws by setting up a raw milk co-operative where about 200 members bought shares in dairy cattle and in return received raw milk.
Those who believe raw milk is more nutritious than pasteurized product, and more generally, those who believe the modern food system separates consumers from the producers of food and encourages industrialization of food production, hailed the decision.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
It was criticized by public health experts who say that drinking unpasteurized milk greatly increases the risk of consuming disease-causing bacteria such as coliforms, E.coli, listeriosis, salmonella and even tuberculosis.
Pasteurization, where beverages such as milk, beer and wine are heated to near the boiling point to kill most bacteria, discovered by Louis Pasteur in the 1860s, is considered one of the great advances of public health, eliminating millions of deaths.
Health Canada in 1991 made it illegal to sell unpasteurized milk, but it is not illegal to drink it so it is permissible for the owner of a cow to drink its raw milk. That is how Schmidt’s cow-share co-op was judged not to have broken the law.
The Ontario ruling, made at a lower court level, is likely not the last word on the case and it might prompt a rewriting of the law.
The case has broad implications. It will likely encourage similar milk operations in other provinces, which has implications for dairy supply management. Beyond that, it goes to our system of government food safety regulations.
They are a welcome and necessary part of the modern food system, which is mostly a large scale process where food from many farms is sent to large processing plants that produce finished products and distribute them widely.
Consumers shopping in grocery stores assume government regulates the safety of what they buy. Any cases where people get sick from food spark fear and outrage, damage the public’s faith in the food system and can cause people to avoid certain foods, to the detriment of farmers who produce the raw product.
That is why farmers generally support strong food safety laws to protect the reputation of their food.
However, laws are blunt instruments.
Safety regulations needed at large processing plants, abattoirs and grocery stores can be prohibitively costly for small processors and farmers markets.
Farmers attempting to develop value-added processed products from their crops and livestock often find that conforming to government safety regulations is as great a task as developing the product itself.
The dilemma is how to balance the need to protect consumers without unduly limiting the development of small scale food businesses.
Kowarsky’s well considered judgment gives welcome guidance. He put emphasis on the limited nature of Schmidt’s operation, providing raw milk only to members who were aware and accepted the risk of consuming the raw milk.
And make no mistake, there is a serious risk to drinking raw milk. In the United States, although raw milk is a miniscule part of the milk supply, 33 percent of all milk sicknesses are due to raw milk.
But people do risky things all the time. The decision to regulate must be based on whether people are aware and knowledgeable about the risk.
Most people shopping at supermarkets are unaware of the risks and should be protected, but those who purposely seek certain foods through direct relationships with farmers are aware of the risks and should be allowed to do so.
Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen, D’Arce McMillan and Ken Zacharias collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.
