Barry Estabrook, who I’ve linked to before, has a piece in the Atlantic suggesting raw milk gets a bum rap:
The Price Foundation’s website cites statistics showing that between 1990 and 2004, bacteria-contaminated produce caused 639 disease outbreaks in the United States, poultry 541, beef 467, and seafood 984. Between 1994 and 2008 there were only 85 disease outbreaks associated with raw milk, according to the FDA. Most recently, campylobacter-tainted raw milk sickened 13 people in Michigan late last month and sparked a barrage of dire warnings from the FDA.
The trouble with these numbers is that all of the foods mentioned except raw milk are eaten by the overwhelming majority of Americans. Raw milk, by contrast, has a significant number of outbreaks even though its sales are miniscule. I can’t find the numbers online, but I’d be shocked if raw milk accounts for even one percent of USA milk sales.
What do you suppose would happen to the raw milk food poisoning numbers if the stuff was being widely consumed?
I like Estabrook, but this time around he screwed the pooch. That’s what happens when you pay attention to the bozos at the Weston A. Price foundation. Link.
