A naysayer writes to the Toronto Star

Here’s an excerpt from a recent letter to the editor in the Star, from a doctor, who seems to differ from the views expressed to CTV by Dr. Perry Kendall in B.C.:

Video below — shades of the raw milk battle — is that “Ni” or “Nay”?

Re:Activist foodies hail raw-milk triumph, Jan. 22

Although the court decision is seen by some as a victory for human rights, it is in my view a retrogressive step potentially taking us back to a pre Louis Pasteur era when milk products were responsible for many deaths and illnesses due to contamination by a variety of deadly pathogens: Salmonella, Listeria, E. coli, Streptococcus, Staphylococcus, Tuberculosis and Brucellosis.

Despite claims that drinking raw milk has well-defined health benefits, this has never been established. But even if true, the risks clearly outweigh any potential benefits…”

“….Your editorial on the same date correctly pointed out that drinking untreated milk puts consumers at increased risk of exposure to deadly pathogens. It is one thing for milk producers to drink their own milk – they do so knowingly at their own risk. However to legally provide raw, potentially contaminated milk for consumption by the public is a matter of great concern.

As you say, the issue is too important to leave to a lower court and the province should appeal.”

Ian Harrington, MD, Don Mills

Read the whole letter here.


Filed under News

4 responses to “A naysayer writes to the Toronto Star

  1. Just maybe the person who wrote this is a Socialist. And just maybe, he does not understand all the medical and natural history of raw milk or any pure foods for that matter. Does this person undersand Carlo Petrini at Slow Foods? Does this person understand what Micahel Pollan has written? Can he or did he read and understand these publications? “IN DEFENSE OF FOOD – AN EATER’S MANIFESTO” by Michael Pollan. “THE OMNIVORE’S DILEMMA” – by Michael Pollan.

  2. thebovine

    Maybe not, but he’s a doctor!!!!!

  3. theovine

    Dr. Harrington has his credentials and a valid argument – perhaps Milkmen USA should enlighten us as to his. If reading a couple of books is enough to make one an expert, it’s no wonder there are so many misinformed people out there.

    Having read one of Pollan’s books, I found that there was nothing terribly earth shattering there (certainly not a novel concept). Raw milk, slow food, organic food, and the 100 mile diet are all more about philosophy than science. There is nothing wrong with that, but you have to call a spade a spade. And your philosophy does not qualify you to criticize someone else’s science-based views.

  4. miguel

    Of course 30 years of zero illnesses of cow share owners on Michael Schmidt’s farm cannot stand against the opinion of someone with the letters M.D. after their name.My own scientific research tells me that pasteurized milk makes me sick and that 64 years drinking milk raw has never made me sick.Of course this is meaningless because I am not an M.D. ,only a dairy farmer.I wonder if Dr. Harrington has ever tried high quality raw milk?I have researched the science on both sides of this argument.Pasteurization does not claim to eliminate 100% of pathogens.That is why when pasteurized milk spoils, it stinks.The smell is a clear warning that the bacteria in it are dangerous to your health.Those are the bacteria that survive pasteurization and live to reproduce in the milk.Apparently when raw milk sours these same stink producing bacteria do not survive,because the sour milk does not have an unpleasant smell and is safe to drink.

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 )

Connecting to %s