Readers set John Doyle straight on what’s what with raw milk

John Doyle’s flippant dismissal of raw milk in his Globe and Mail column yesterday got a lot of readers backs up. Two of them posted extensive rebuttals in the comment section of yesterday’s post on the Bovine in which they challenge his assumptions and dismantle his “arguments”. I know some people have also written to John Doyle directly to express their displeasure with his public misrepresentation of the raw milk issue. If you’d like to add your voice, his email is jdoyle at globeandmail dot com. But please also post your reply as a comment on the bovine. We like comments. We like them a lot!

Talking about comments I might have expected there to be more of them on the CBC site. As of this morning there are only two, and one of those is mine.

There were a few comments posted on John Doyle’s column as it appeared on globeandmail.com

Two of the most insightful comments come from what looks like “the real” James McLaren:

James McLaren from Ottawa, Canada writes: Hey John, why don’t you do an editorial on the hypocritical and discriminatory way that raw milk is singled out for derision when our society permits everyone to poison themselves, if they so wish, with alcohol, tobacco and fast food? Why doesn’t the government step in and ban these too?

It’s because of MONEY. These other items make a lot of money for a lot of people, the government included. But raw milk? There’s no money in it.

Furthermore, the existing dairy quota system is a monopoly that makes a lot money for a lot of groups and the consumer pays for this unnecessary overhead. These monopolists don’t want regulated raw milk because it threatens them economically. But they use health arguments to justify their position. And you’ve been suckered in by their bait and switch manoeuver.

If raw milk were properly regulated then it would be just as safe as drinking pasteurized milk. But the monopolists won’t even talk about it.”

James McLaren from Ottawa, Canada writes: Hey R G – I’ve got news for you. Raw milk that is regulated for raw consumption meets the same health standards as any other food. It’s just as safe as eating say Maple Leaf cold cuts which ARE, or at least were, marketed to children as being a high quality, healthy product.

Up until a year ago, the Queen herself sold raw milk to the public from her royal farmshop and raw drinking milk has never been banned in England. If the English know how to properly regulate raw drinking milk, why can’t we?”

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under News

3 responses to “Readers set John Doyle straight on what’s what with raw milk

  1. Alina S.

    I have posted a message in the morning at http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/discussion/2008/10/raw_milk_crusader.html#more, but it was not accepted. Maybe same thing happened with others comments. That’s why there are only 2. I just said my opinion about the documentary. The authorities comments made me laughed.
    Best Regards

  2. thebovine

    Comments are closed now on John Doyle’s Globe and Mail column. Guess he’s heard enough.

  3. Pingback: Two readers takes John Doyle to task « The Bovine

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s