Changing the Definition of Milk to “Help” Consumers

So, this came across my screen today:

“Flavored Milk; Petition to Amend the Standard of Identity for Milk and 17 Additional Dairy Products

A Proposed Rule by the Food and Drug Administration on 02/20/2013

SUMMARY

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) have filed a petition requesting that the Agency amend the standard of identity for milk and 17 other dairy products to provide for the use of any safe and suitable sweetener as an optional ingredient. FDA is issuing this notice to request comments, data, and information about the issues presented in the petition.”

You can, and should, read the whole thing here: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/20/2013-03835/flavored-milk-petition-to-amend-the-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-17-additional-dairy-products

The dairy industry just wants to help you! You, as a consumer, are just too stupid to know  that there’s sugar in milk (and this is what the petition says, not me), and so they just want to make it easier for you to make completely uninformed choices.  Because, educating consumers…well, that’s just silly.

There are so many things wrong with the propose amendment that I am only going to have time to cover a few:

1. Children don’t like the label “Reduced Calorie.”  It is not the FDA’s job to market to children, so it isn’t their job to come up with a definition of food that makes kids want to eat more of it. It’s their job to monitor food safety and quality. If children have a problem with “reduced calorie,” education of both children and parents, not re-labeling for better marketing, is a far more ethical way to deal with that issue.  And, it’s been proven to work.

2. “Safe” sweeteners. No one thing is “safe” for everyone. People have allergies, medication interactions, and other issues that can make what is “safe” for one person a life-threatening issue for another.  Having unlisted ingredients on any product is a safety hazard; but, especially in a product like milk, where the only ingredient ought to be “Milk,” it’s a large and irresponsible safety risk. Those with allergies, or their parents, would have no reason to suspect added hidden or new ingredients in what is supposed to be a whole food (would you look for aspartame in an apple? a green pepper?), and because these ingredients  can be listed as many different things (or, not listed at all, depending what they are and how much of them is present), they would have a difficult time finding out that they were present.

This would, of course, disproportionately impact the poor, especially children who receive free or reduced lunches and breakfasts through school, which almost always include milk. These parents and children often do not have the resources to research hidden ingredients, or access to news that they are now being added to a food that is generally considered a “whole” food.

3. Promoting good eating habits and reducing childhood obesity.  Yes, I can definitely see how including more processed additives to a whole food is going to promote good eating. Wait..what? No, no I can’t.  Added processed ingredients and sweeteners are part of what has gotten us in this mess in the first place.  That children are more likely to drink sweeter milk is no shock. The shock is that we keep giving it to them. Kids are also more likely to not do their homework, not take their bath, not do their chores, and not clean their room if left to their own devices. That is why we have parents and other adults who supervise them.

Also, the whole “kids won’t drink it” line regarding white milk is just wrong. When flavored milk is taken out of schools, milk consumption initially drops, but rebounds quickly.  And, of course, this isn’t just about flavored milk. This is about 17 different dairy products, including yogurt and white milk, having added sugars and artificial sweeteners (you can use the term “non-nutritive” all you want).

4. Consumers don’t know there’s sugar in milk*. This is a straw-man argument. Whether it is true or not has absolutely nothing to do with adding hidden sweeteners to milk and changing the definition of milk to accommodate that. If consumers don’t know there’s lactose in milk, or that lactose is a sugar, then the problem is (again) education. Lack of education isn’t solved by taking choices away from consumers, it’s solved by…well, education.

5.  The proposed amendments to the milk standard of identity would promote honesty and fair dealing in the marketplace and are therefore appropriate under section 401 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.  I have no idea how changing an established definition of a whole food to include ingredients that are not naturally found in that food, with the express purpose that the consumer have no indication those ingredients are present, can be seen as “honest and fair dealing.”  Lack of disclosure, bait-and-switch definitions, and pretending it’s all for the “good of the consumer” is pretty much the antithesis of “honest and fair dealing.”

6. Accordingly, the petitioners state that milk flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners should be labeled as milk without further claims so that consumers can “more easily identify its overall nutritional value.”  To be read: consumers are so stupid that they just can’t handle more words on a package, and so it’s just better not to clutter their pretty little heads with all that crazy nutrition talk. The dairy lobby and the FDA should just take that horrible burden off their shoulders by lying and hiding the truth, because blissful ignorance is much better for everyone.

It is not the FDA’s job to treat consumers like 2-year-old children who can’t be trusted to make reasonable decisions without being baby-talked into it. I don’t need to be goo-goo and ga-ga’d at, thanks.

So, why is the dairy industry even doing this?  Are they just concerned for all of us uneducated consumers making poor eating choices for ourselves and our families? No. There are several reasons the industry is lobbying for this amendment: decreasing costs by lowering quality and camouflaging it with cheap additives, and increasing consumption by providing unnaturally sweet dairy products to the public. But, of course, they want to do it under the flag of public health and concern. Don’t let them.

If you are as outraged at this idea as I am, please take a moment and leave a comment on the FDA’s page. Consumers do not have the same money and political leverage as the dairy lobby. All we have are our voices, and they need to be loud and numerous if we want to keep special interests out of our food.

*Citation needed. 

From the Archives: Food Costs, Health Implications, and Income Equality

Yeah, that’s a lot to cover.

In 2010, the Justice Department held a series of hearings regarding the state of food in the US. It was interesting, and, I must admit, mostly depressing. It did, however, lead to a series of blog posts by myself and others about some of the information presented. This came up recently on a board I frequent in the form of a rising food costs discussion, and it dovetails nicely with the series of blog posts that will start here on Monday about saving money on groceries, too. So, today you get not just my blogs about it, but also the Grist.org article by Tom Philpot!

From EclecticEdibles:

“Some of you may know that the Department of Justice has been holding agriculture antitrust workshops over the past year, culminating with the final workshop this past week in Washington, DC. You can catch some of it on C-Span, including what I am writing about here.  I am going to leave aside things from this panel like what farmers make in relation to prices charged for food, and focus on one of the panelists, because listening to his patter you’d think we were living in a Golden Age here in the US.” Read the rest…

Continue your reading with this post from Grist.org (I’m linked & referenced by Mr. Philpott, which I have to admit was a bit heady for me!):

“Mythbusting: Cheap food does not equal higher quality of life.”

A Moral Dilemma: What About Walmart?

Most of my regular readers know how I feel about Walmart: I despise them. They run local businesses out, they use shady practices to lower their prices, etc. We have a standing rule that the only time we shop there is if we 100% need something and no where else in town carries it and/or the need is immediate.  Generally, this mostly applies to prescriptions. There are times when literally no other pharmacy in town carries something, and it’ll either take days to get or they can’t order it at all. In places we’ve lived in the past, Walmart has also often been the only 24-hour pharmacy, and there’ve been a few times that’s been pretty important (they’re not 24 hours here, however).

About once a year, I do an investigative shopping trip to compare prices, selection, and service with other local stores. Every year, I’ve been proven pretty much right: on top of the issues I have with Walmart’s overall business practices, prices aren’t really lower overall, service sucks, and the selection was “meh,” at best.

Until today.

Here’s how it went: It was with a feeling of dread I walked into Walmart today. I hate doing this annual trip. It’s draining, it’s depressing, and I really don’t have time. However, if I am going to intelligently argue against Walmart with people, I need the first hand knowledge. Today, I didn’t leave feeling drained, tired, or depressed, I left confused.

The produce was gorgeous, and there was a wide selection, including some off-beat seasonal fruits from other parts of the country. The meat looked great, and the prices were lower by a fair margin than the other stores I mentioned (yes, I do local, but not everyone does; so, I still need to compare prices). The overall grocery selection was far and away better, and certainly far better organized, than any of the local stores. It was clean, well-stocked, and well-lit. The employees were ridiculously helpful and friendly, even when I asked for off-beat and obscure stuff (yes, this is intentional). One employee walked me from his department all the way across the store to the section I needed for one tiny item, and he was happy about it, asking pertinent questions and giving engaged answers the whole way. The cashier was so nice, and so apparently sincerely happy to talk to me, that I was almost a bit weirded out. Who’s that happy working at Walmart? Well, it appears she is. She asked me if I was new to the area (I wrote a check, and it asked for ID, which only happens if you’re not in their system, which I was not), and told me how much they appreciated my business, and hoped I would keep shopping there. And she sounded like she meant it from the bottom of her heart.

And this is where my moral dilemma comes in. You see, we have incredibly limited shopping possibilities here. As I understand it, this has always been the case–Walmart moving in didn’t actually run anyone out of business, because there wasn’t much here to begin with. The stores we do have, Food Lion and Kroger, and often inconveniently located for the majority of our population (I have no idea why this is, it just is), me included. But, I’ve been patronizing them anyway, because I loathe Walmart and they’re my only real options within about an hour.

Lately, the service and selection at all the Kroger and Food Lion stores save two have been sliding down at a rate that often means what I bought one week is no longer there the next. The produce selection at all but one store is just awful, and the “good” store that has a beautiful selection of good produce is about  a half-hour from me. Prices have been climbing exponentially at all stores, and service at all but two has gotten just plain bad. If you need help at any of the other stores, you’re just out of luck. When I ask about it, they just say corporate has decided to stop carrying as many ethnic foods, loose produce, etc., and that while they’ve gotten many complaints, there is nothing they can do.

So, here’s the dilemma: We have no truly “local” grocery stores. While Kroger and Food Lion certainly aren’t as large as Walmart, neither are they locally-owned or operated. (I wouldn’t mind the price hikes as much if the stores were smaller chains or singly-owned). They don’t pay their employees any better, and aside from some a few notable exceptions, it really has started to show. Their produce and overall selection (or, lack thereof) is making it more and more difficult for me to shop there, especially for clients. While I can adjust my menu for more locally-available items, that’s not something most of my paying clients are willing to do. And yes, I’ve talked to the store managers at the problem stores to no result.

I don’t ever see me buying anything but groceries and related items from Walmart, but I know that still supports the areas where they tend to be really egregious, like clothing. On the other hand, the other area stores are getting bad enough that I have to admit Walmart looks pretty darn attractive on the food front.

I’m mulling it over. I’ve been a staunch anti-Walmart person for many years, and this wasn’t something I ever really expected to even have to ponder. Will I switch? I don’t know. It’s not just my decision, since Thadd feels pretty much the same way I always have, and we make these kinds of decisions together. But, that I am even considering it says something about 1) what Walmart is apparently doing right, at least around here, and 2) what other stores are doing really, really wrong.

The Moderate Foodie Activist: Getting to Know Me

I was having a twitter interchange with Michele Simon the other day, in which she mentioned that she had expected me to disagree with something she’d written. It got me thinking about how people perceive food activists in general, and me in particular.

I am a foodie, and I am a food activist. I am also a food moderate.

Those statements don’t typically go together in the food movement world, especially the internet part of if, and it tends to really throw people who deal with other food activists and foodies regularly.  Many of the more vocal people in those fields are extremists, as tends to be true with the very vocal majority on most issues. But, it does make for some confusion when someone runs up against my view points, because they come into it with expectations that, while valid in general, don’t work for me specifically. There are lots of people that I wish would stop “helping” my food causes, because all their doing is making me look nuts by association, and making it difficult to be taken seriously.

A great example is raw milk. I drink raw milk, I advocate for the choice to drink raw milk, I believe that the science shows that raw milk can be perfectly safe and has some good nutritional benefits. This is where the confusions starts for people that tend to deal with raw milk activists most of the time, because they assume that if the above is true of me, then I also must fall in line with the rest of the “raw milk” party line of thinking raw milk is magic, wanting no regulation, and the complete elimination of pasteurization. In fact, I disagree with all of those ideals pretty strongly.  Raw milk isn’t magic–it comes from a cow, not a unicorn.* It is, however, a nutrient dense food that people should have the right to consume so long as they are, like all things, truthfully informed of risks (not fear-mongered into believing one sip is likely to kill them and their families). Reasonable regulation would be incredibly helpful for farms and consumers all around. Raw milk should be a choice where it’s feasible, but there are plenty of good reasons for pasteurized milk to be available, as well.

Another example, and the one that brought this post to mind, is animal treatment and longevity. In this case, the assertion was that more animal lives are saved by giving up eggs and milk than by giving up meat. In conventional farming, this is totally accurate. In what I’ll call “ethical” farming (local, humane, etc.), it’s actually often not accurate because animals generally have significantly longer lives. This was extrapolated to mean–and for many people in the local food movement, does mean–that everyone can eat all the animal products they want, as long as their “ethical, ” and that we should strive to parallel the production of the current US food system.

Again, I disagree with my more extreme counterparts.  Ms. Simon, in this article in the Grist, points out that designing a system that is “sustainable” which simply mimics the current food model–one that has demonstrably made the US fat and unhealthy and done incredible environmental damage–is part of where the food movement is getting it wrong. I agree, and I totally understand why she was surprised that I agree. Many local foodies and sustainable activists spend all their time pointing out how we can produce just as much, when what we really need it to produce less and in a better way. As I’ve said before, and as the WHO agrees, we already produce substantially more food that the world needs, and we throw much of it away (1/3-1/2, depending on which stats you use).

We don’t need to produce as much meat as we do now, and we certainly don’t need to be eating as much of it as we do now.** I realize animal products aren’t the only, or even the main, culprit in our national disease and obesity epidemics, but just because we could potentially produce as much meat ethically as we can in conventional farms doesn’t mean we should.  The nutrients those of us who are omnivores–and even those who are paleos–believe we need can be gotten from a fairly small portion of animal products, with the rest of the diet composed of vegetables and fruit.

Moving on. I am a firm believer in local food. It keeps money in the local economy, is key to food security and safety, creates community, is more nutritious because it can be picked at the peak of ripeness, and much of it has additional advantages like less environmental impact (depending on how it’s grown). I don’t, however, believe we need to get rid of all corporate agriculture. There’s a reasonable place for it, and the truth is that not everyone lives close enough to a rural area to get their produce from a local farmer. There are food deserts, there is poverty, there are transportation issues. What we do need is agriculture reform, where huge amounts of cash don’t flow into political coffers to keep subsidies coming, where poorly researched products aren’t legalized due to corporate pressure or funds, and rules aren’t made to encourage large agriculture at the expense of local producers.

I believe that eating too much grain, even whole grain, isn’t particularly good for you. I don’t believe eating a moderate amount of brown rice, whole grain bread, or pasta is a problem.

I believe that corporate agriculture is run by people who are greedy and don’t particularly care about the public health if it means hurting their profits, but I don’t believe there’s some secret collusion with the government to keep people sick.

I believe ethical farming is part of the solution to our environmental, security, and health problems in the US, but I don’t believe it’s a panacea.

I could go on and on. My point here is that not everyone who believes in better food, local food, and/or food freedom is extreme. There are lots of us in the middle, where reason, science, and freedom meet practicality and responsibility. Where idealism is great, but tempered with the reality we have to work with.

*I don’t remember who said this, but I loved it. If you know who it’s attributed to, please let me know.

**For total honesty, I was a lacto-ovum vegetarian for about 6 years in my 20s.

Related articles

• Government Data Proves Raw Milk Safe (wapfchicago.com)

How is That Frugal?

I get a lot of surprise when people read my posts about food, from what we eat overall to what we eat specifically, because I say it’s frugal. They see things like “London Broil,” or “Grass-fed local” and say, “But that’s so expensive.”  And they are right, it is expensive. Which is why you don’t sit down and eat a huge slab of it.

How is it frugal to eat this way? Let me break it down:

1. My definition of frugal is not: as much consumable calories as I can get for as little money as I can spend. My definition is: as much quality nutrition as I can get in as ecologically sustainable manner as I can mange, within a budget. This means making choices. For example, we eat a lot of vegetarian meals, which are cheaper than meat, so we can afford to buy quality meats.

2. At some point, this country is going to have to start paying the real cost of food. That is not what you are paying when you purchase many items at the store. The government is paying a large portion of the actual cost for you, in the form of subsidies, which go to large companies for the most part. I believe it is more cost-effective to buy food locally, to keep the money within the community rather than send it to some corporate honcho somewhere. This is a long-term outlook, of course, but buying “cheap” food just contributes to a larger problem that is going to come back to bite us in the butt.

3. Being sick and/or fat is not frugal. The saying goes “you can pay now, or you can pay later.” I’ll pay now, thanks. Staying at a healthy weight and keeping as many crappy chemicals as I reasonably can out of my body is a worthwhile expenditure to me. If that means eating less so I ca afford better food, so be it.

As Thadd says, “Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick Two.” We choose Good and Cheap, which means it’s definitely not fast. There’s lots of planning involved, and I’ve learned to be a Master Food Organizer (hey, I think I’ll trademark that and start giving classes on how to become one!). It takes a very strong commitment, and it sometimes means giving up other things.  We all have decisions to make regarding food, and this is what works for us. We don’t eat like typical Americans by a long shot.  Our average food expenditure each week is about $70-80 for the two of us, but it takes a LOT of work to keep it that way. Mostly, that work is cooking, and finding good recipes that use less expensive ingredients. We go through a lot of lentils and beans, but we don’t do it grudgingly.  We have learned great recipe for these ingredients so that it is something we look forward to.

And, we enjoy the size of our grocery bill while we enjoy the food!

Volume Discount. Or, Stop Playing With Your Food!

We’ve been mislead about how to have a healthy relationship with food. For some reason, we’ve been taught to think that “good” or “healthy” eating and nutrition is about getting the largest volume of food into our stomachs with the least amount of calories. I am not sure where this trend started, but it’s definitely perpetuated in our food marketing, media, and a lot of nutrition advice.  Our society’s idea of nutrition has become about how much sheer volume we can pack into ourselves without “exceeding calories.”

This is not a healthy way to eat. It’s not a healthy relationship for our nation to have with food. If it were, we wouldn’t have the skyrocketing obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and other lifestyle-related disease rates we do today. The answer is simple, but it goes against the unfortunate American value that “bigger is better,” and the more you have the more you’re worth. Ergo, the more you can eat and stay “skinny,” the better you are, the healthier you must be.

There are many reasons that most people who lose weight put it back on, but one of the biggest is this: they have not changed their relationship with food and food culture. We’ve gotten used to feeling “full” all the time, and believing that it is necessary and good to feel this way. That we should be able to eat large amounts of food without gaining weight. That we all “deserve” to be able to eat whatever we want, whenever we want, and that it’s nutritionally reasonable to poke, pull, and tweak foods to fit into what we want them to be instead of what they are.  That we should be able to eat the way we want to eat, instead of the way we need to eat, without consequences. All of this despite demonstrable evidence that it’s a failing formula.

The fix for this is simple, and the more research that is done, the more it’s holding up: eat quality, whole, nutrient-dense foods, and eat them in an appropriate quantity.

A skin-on, bone-in chicken breast has only 50 or so more calories than it does skin off, and only about 2.5g saturated fats.* If you’re watching your weight, the answer isn’t to skin your chicken to save 50 calories, it’s to eat less chicken or do more exercise. In my last series about nutrition rules, you’ll note I said eat more veggies, and stop eating whole cuts of meat as frequently. Why? Because it makes far more sense to eat more vegetables and get the fiber and nutrients, while eating less meat and dairy but still getting the complete and natural fats, than it does to find “work-arounds.”

But what about those FDA “portion” sizes? It’s important to remember those are generalizations (and, frankly, bad ones). For a smaller/shorter person, a reasonable portion is much less. For a taller/larger person, much more.   Yes, as a small person I’ll be able to eat less skin-on chicken or whole milk than my partner, who is extremely tall, will be able to eat. And, that’s okay. It’s okay to eat less food, or less than than an “FDA” portion of a certain food. It’s okay to stock up on green veggies and take a smaller portion of the whole higher-calorie whole food, of which more and more studies are showing that removing nutrients (including fat) has detrimental effects (or, at the very least, removes potential beneficial effects and essential nutrients). Saturated fats are now being shown to help balance HDL and LDL cholesterol, for example. Which doesn’t mean an overabundance of saturated fats are good for you, either. Again, the answer is simply to eat it, just eat less of it.

This isn’t a new or even radical viewpoint on my part. Pretty much this same thing has been said in countless works on the subject, including the best-selling “French Women Don’t Get Fat.”  French cuisine isn’t exactly known for it’s use of skim milk, margarine, or skinned chicken. Yet, despite it being a best-seller and making the talk-show rounds, eating habits in the US have not changed. We still demand larger and larger portions, and try to find ways to make those portions contain less and less calories.

And yet, as a nation we continue to wonder why we’re getting fatter and sicker.

(Author’s note: Any inflammatoy/name-calling/trolling posts or off-topic vegan/paleo/locavore/whatever proselytizing comments will be deleted.)

* Info from Julie Upton, dietician writing in “Eating Light” magazine. I don’t have this online, so you’ll need to find the issue for yourself.

Back to Basics, Nutrition Rule 4

Get crappy food out of the house. Throw it out, donate it, whatever.

Why?

Here’s the deal: I occasionally eat a Butterfinger, or ice cream. But, we don’t keep them in the house. If I want something like this, I have to go get it. Because the dirty little truth is that if I keep it in the house, I’ll do exactly what most of us will do: I’ll eat it all, and I’ll do it in a far shorter time than is healthy or wise.If I have to go get it, I think more about it, and almost always make the healthier choice. Those treats are about instant gratification, and it’s not “instant” if I have to run my behind to the store to get it.

I am not saying you can never have your favorite candy bar again (obviously), or that you can’t ever get take-out. I am saying that almost everyone makes far healthier eating choices if they have to think about them. If they’re on hand, we tend to over-eat them, because they’re easy.

How:

Keep replacements in the house. Want crunchy? Grab roasted nuts. Want sweet? Grab an orange or apple. Want salty? Grab some pickles. Want fatty? Grab the cheese. Considering frozen pizza for dinner? Make an easy homemade crust and throw on some tomato sauce, cheese, and your other favorite toppings (yes, this is still way better for you than DiGiorno, or however it’s spelled).  You get the idea.

Usually, you’ll find that if you satisfy your craving with a healthier food, the want for an unhealthy one will subside.

This series will take a break over the weekend, and return Monday with rule 5!

Related Articles

• Back to Basics: Nutrition Rule 2 (eclecticedibles.wordpress.com)
• Stop Complicating Things. Eating Well Isn’t Magic. (eclecticedibles.wordpress.com)
• Back to Basics Series: Rule 1 (eclecticedibles.wordpress.com)
• Back to Basics: Rule 3 (eclecticedibles.wordpress.com)

Back to Basics Series: Rule 1

As I promised, each rule on my “Back to Basics” nutrition steps are going to get their own posts. I don’t intend to go into deep science here, as hat is a lot of what seems to be confusing for people.  There is a lot of hard science to back what I am saying, and I may end up going into more detail at a later date (and, it’s already in many of my archived posts). For this, though, I wanted basic information people can get started on right away, with solid and easy-to-understand foundations.

Rule 1: Do not eat prepackaged or precooked foods. Period. Put it back on the shelf.

Reasons:

-Prepackaged and precooked foods usually contain a lot of additives that are bad for you, and that are linked to everything from obesity to diabetes to cancer. Also, many contain additives that can actually make you hungrier.

-You are likely to eat more of them than the stated portion size. Most “foods” of this type have unrealistically small portions sizes, and most people eat far more than that. So, while you think you’re getting 100 calories, you could be getting far, far more.

-Empty calories. Your body can tell the difference in the types of calories you put into your body. For example, fructose and sucrose–two types of sugar–are processed in a completely different way.  This means that you will retain fat in different amounts from different foods.  Highly processed foods metabolize more quickly, and send signals to your body that there is an excess amount of energy available, which it stores as fat. Whole grains, lean proteins, and produce metabolize more slowly, and so are less likely to get stored as fat.

-You are likely to feel less satisfied, and therefore eat more. Processed foods often do not trigger the hormonal response your body needs to feel satisfied. They can trigger the production of Ghrelin, the “hunger hormone,” and suppress the production and uptake of the hormone that signals your full and that your body needs to metabolize, Leptin.

Aside from seeing you through an emergency when you have no power or clean water, processed foods do nothing good for you. They’re not only not worth eating, they sabotage healthy weight maintenance, and they don’t taste nearly as good as the real thing!

Raw Milk: The Choices I Make, and Why

Raw milk has risks. It just does. That means it is exactly no different from anything else we ingest, from lettuce to alcohol. I choose to accept these risks,because I know what they are, and I’ve decided that any potential risks from raw milk from a local, well-vetted farm with excellent husbandry and milking practices is still lower than that of drinking conventional milk.

Here’s the deal:

-Not all of us who drink raw milk are uninformed, on jumping on some bandwagon. I’ve done the research. In fact, part of my job is literally to research food illness, benefits, husbandry practices,etc. I didn’t just hear someone says “raw milk is awesome” and decide “hey, I must drink that!” Raw milk isn’t a recent thing for me. I grew up drinking milk warm, directly from the teats of the cows and goats I milked on our farm. We didn’t pasteurize, but we were taught really excellent husbandry and milking practices. And yes, we milked by hand. We weren’t a dairy, we were too poor to have a milking machine, and as kids we were excellent free labor for our parents.

-I trust my local farmers far more than I trust corporate agriculture. I can stop by and visit my cow, help feed, watch the milking, and see what they do with the milk (including the fact that they’re drinking it, the same as we are) anytime I want, without notice. They provide any information I ask, including testing/herd testing information, with appropriate  verification if requested. I didn’t just wander onto some field with a guy milking a cow and say “hey, can I have some of that?”  Which is essentially what I’m doing if I buy food from corporate agriculture. Corporate Ag sickens thousands each year, from eggs to dairy to produces. Do people get sick from local goods? Of course. But, after looking at all the facts, I believe that–for my family–the risks of non-GMO, grass-fed, pastured, unpasteurized cow’s milk is simply far less than trusting a corporate food system we already know is horribly corrupt. I’ve been sick from mass-produced goods. I have never yet been sick from anything I’ve gotten from my local, vetted farmers. I realize that’s anecdotal, and I don’t expect others to make my choices. But *I* should have a right to make an informed decision about what I eat.

-The risks are, from all the data I can collect since the data is fairly sparse, pretty statistically insignificant. I know that when it’s you or a family member, statistics become irrelevant; but, when making reasonable food choices, they can be helpful. Depending who you listen to, between 3 and 10 Million people drink raw milk in the US. There is, from all the data I could find, an average of 100-150 cases of hospitalization a year reported, meaning they were serious enough to be diagnosed and hospitalized. Only 2 recorded deaths since 1998 that I could find (there may be more, I am willing to revise this, so please let me know). This means that reported cases of illness are between .00005% and .00016%. Even assuming there are, say, 100o unreported cases a year, you’re still only looking at well below a 1% chance of getting ill from raw milk.  I’ll live with that.

-Not all of us who drink raw milk espouse Weston A. Price Foundation values. I am not a member. I do believe in whole foods, I do believe in not eating processed sugars or many simple carobhydrates. I do think we get too few CLAs, Omegas, and the like in our diets as Americans overall. That is about where my paradigm similarities with them ends. I don’t have a problem with them. They’re free to make whatever food choices work for them, and I do applaud the fact that most members bother to educate themselves on what they’re eating, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of Americans who choose to eat crap “food.” I just don’t believe everything they do, and their paradigm borders too closely on fanaticism for me, personally. It’s also frequently tied to religion, and I prefer to keep religious issues out of my food choices.

-I don’t think raw milk is magic. Yes, there are many people who’ve got stories about it curing this or that, and maybe it does. Or, maybe it doesn’t. I don’t know, and that’s not why I choose it. I’m healthy, I am not looking for a panacea. I, personally, notice my (very mild) seasonal allergies are non-existent when I am drinking local, raw milk regularly. The same is true of local, raw honey. Is it psychosomatic? Possibly. But, since that’s not why I drink it, I don’t actually care. I drink it because I like the fact that the cow (from my farm) has been fed no corn or GMO feed, that it eats grass and therefore likely has higher levels of good fatty acids, that the milk tastes better to me, has a higher fat content (yes, we do actually look for that–Thadd needs something like 4 thousand calories a day, and we get almost none of them from simple carbs or sugars) , that it actually contains no hormones or antibiotics (as opposed to “allowable” amounts), that it’s only hours old when I get it, that it supports local agriculture, and that I can make cheese and other products from it much more readily than I can from high-heat pasteurized milk.

-I don’t feed it to the world. Thadd and I drink it. I do make my own cheese, and some of those cheeses can only be made with raw milk or, in some cases, low-heat pasteurized milk. Unfortunately, the latter is not available literally anywhere near me, so the former is my best choice, even if I didn’t want to drink it. These products, and the raw milk itself, are used for only ourselves. We have no children, and typically when we have guests over, we’re drinking local wine, cider, beer, or freshly-made lemonade, not big glasses of milk.

-You can know the risks, and still elect to take them. Simply because someone chooses to do something someone else views as “risky” does not mean the chooser isn’t aware of the risks. People who climb Mt. Everest are doing something I would personally never do, but I am pretty sure they’re aware of what they’re getting into. People have many different reasons for choosing what they choose to do, and can look at the same information, and come to a different decision. For some people, any germ associated with food is abhorrent. For me, food without germs is abhorrent. I think, overall, that germ theory has led us in the wrong direction, and is one reason we’re so sick as a nation. (I don’t use hand sanitizer, but I do wash my hands thoroughly. I don’t use bleach to clean my house, but I do clean well with soap and water.)  Of course, germs are not the same as pathogens, and while I realize that pathogens can be present in raw milk, appropriate practices keeps the risk of that very small. Small enough, in fact, that I choose to take it because for me, it’s a smaller risk than the long-term effects of what is in much commercial milk.

-Not all of us believe that raw milk should flow freely like a river down a mountain, unhindered and unregulated. I certainly don’t. I would love it if our government could take a step back from lobbyists who contribute heavily to their campaign funds, and draft real, reasonable regulation that would help ensure the safety of a raw milk supply and the products thereof. It’s not impossible. Other countries have done it well (some so well it can actually be gotten at vending machines, and the instances of illness are reported to be the same as pasteurized). Europe is famous for its fresh, raw milk cheeses. People are not hospitalized or dying in droves from fresh ricotta or aged Roquefort (the latter of which is required, by law, to be made from fresh, raw sheep’s milk). Unfortunately, our government, and many people who seem to speak on either side of this issue, seem to see no middle: it’s either a free-for-all, or a felony.  When really, it should be more along the lines of: here are solid regulations for husbandry, milking, testing, storage, and transport. Follow them, or you will be liable, just like other food companies (oh, wait…other food companies get people sick and hospitalize them all the time with no real consequences). So, until and unless those who do the regulation can get their collective heads out of their collective arses,  it leaves those of us in the middle with a lot of vetting to do on our farms.

Raw milk is not for everyone. There are plenty of instances when pasteurized milk is the better choice. But, there’s no good reason why the choice can’t be offered in a safe way.

Related Articles

• Why Hide Serious Government Data on Raw Milk Drinkers? (via Food Freedom) (healthisahabit.wordpress.com)
• Real Raw Milk Facts

The School Lunch Nanny State Rant

Image via Wikipedia

Let’s just say it like it is, and stop pussyfooting around, shall we?

This whole “Oh, no, the government setting up better nutrition standards for my kid’s lunches is a Nanny State!”  is complete crap. You want to know what a Nanny State is? It’s one where our schools provide any food to kids. Actually, it’s having public schools at all. Our schools spend 8 hours a day being nannies to our nation’s children: they teach them, they discipline them, they socialize them, and yes, they feed them. That is pretty much the definition of “nanny,” folks. (If you want to argue everyone should therefore home school, get your own blog and do it there.) Our country agreed to a “Nanny State” in this regard a long time ago, for the social good of having an educated populace. Our society also agreed that the schools would provide food to the children they were educating, for the same reason.

You can argue that our schools shouldn’t be providing food for kids at all. There’s an argument to be made for that (not one I necessarily agree with, but one that can at least can be logically made–just don’t make it here, that’s a whole different issue).  But, if you believe that it’s a public school’s job to provide children with food during the school day, you therefore cannot be against them “controlling” what your child can eat. Why not? Follow me here, because it can’t be any clearer:

THEY ALREADY DO THAT!

And they have to do that. There’s literally no way to not do it.  How do those people screaming that their rights as parents are being taken away because their kid no longer gets chocolate milk in the lunch line suppose food gets into those cafeterias? Someone, somewhere, in some form of public, governmental office, decides what company gets the food contracts and what the menus for schools will be. Ergo, that person or persons (or policies set by them) are controlling what’s in the cafeteria, and therefore what children are eating. This isn’t rocket science. Food has to be purchased, and someone has to decide what gets purchased. Anything not purchased is, by definition, excluded. Someone not the child’s parent is making that decision already.

So, following through, the government already controls what your kid is getting at school and “violating parent’s rights.” Somehow, offering chocolate milk and pizza makes this less of a violation? Does it really make sense that this control should be used to teach kids bad eating habits, to feed them food that is provably unhealthy and that puts them at risk for poorer learning and future disease? Really? A parent could just as easily yell and berate the system as a “Nanny State” that is violating their rights because the school doesn’t provide organic, dye-free, free-range scrambled eggs. Or not offering gluten-free or vegan meals.

As a society, we’ve also agreed that we have a responsibility to protect and nurture children, even if their parents do not, or cannot, do so. Again, there’s an argument to be made against this, but unless you’re also arguing against Social Services, police intervention in child abuse, etc., you’re cherry picking (and if you are arguing against all those things, it’s way outside the scope of this blog, so move along).  Doesn’t it follow that, since we believe (and have legislated as such) that the government does have a role in protecting and nurturing children, that it has the responsibility to make decisions about those children with their best interest in mind? It’s hard to find a reasonable argument that chocolate milk, processed,  and sugar-laden foods are in anyone’s best interest, especially children’s.

Let’s recap, just for those who haven’t gotten it yet:

1. School lunches are already government controlled.

2. Schools, meaning government, decides what food goes into those cafeterias for kids to eat simply be deciding what food will be purchased and what food will not.

3. There IS NO CHOICE for the government to provide food without proving control.Your choices are for schools to provide healthier options with higher nutrition value, lower sugar, and less processing, or unhealthy options low in nutrients and high in known problem substances like sugar.

Here’s the truth: either you fight against school lunches being provided at all because you believe governmental interference is violating parent’s rights by dictating what food is available to children, or you fight for better quality food. Fighting for the government to limit your child’s food options to junk is just irresponsible.

 

Side note: I read a comment recently that said “vote with your dollars! If you stop buying school lunches, then they’ll have to change them.” People are so very out of touch with reality.  Children who receive free or discounted lunches can’t exactly stop buying lunches and pack their own. They’re poor, which is why they’re getting the free or discounted lunches. They don’t have the money, and often don’t have the parental involvement, to pack their own lunches. A 7-year-old can’t go to the store with his mom’s food stamps and get healthy options to pack in his lunch, even if he understand what those might be. So, effectively, this commenter believes that wealthier kids should have good food available for the government, but if you’re too poor to protest financially, you’re screwed. Nice.

Related Articles

• Berkeley School Lunch Program: How to Improve School Lunches (ecochildsplay.com)