Why won’t they respect the science?

David E. Gumpert, who lawyer Bill Marler likes to cast as “the pope of raw milk”, has posted a fascinating think piece on the seeming impossibility of convincing organizational opponents of raw milk of the benefits of said raw milk, through scientific studies. No doubt these opponents feel the same way about us advocates of raw milk. Why don’t we just accept what seems to them like a scientific consensus, that raw milk is just not worth the risk?

“Once upon a time, I naively expected that if there were new credible scientific evidence that raw milk showed health benefits over pasteurized milk, the health and regulatory communities might relax their negative attitudes.

But a couple years ago, when I gave a talk at Rutgers University in New Jersey and expressed my hopes for a meeting of the minds between opponents and proponents of raw dairy, a psychiatrist warned me about holding such expectations. The psychiatrist, Richard Schwartzman, explained the regulatory opposition this way:  

“One might expect that honorable  people with good intentions, on both sides of the table, could somehow resolve the raw milk issue without battling in court…I contend no matter how much proof of safety is presented or what  additional information is provided, the government authorities will  never relent in their efforts to end sales of unpasteurized milk.”

Why such heavy resistance? “In their minds they must stop ‘dangerous’ activities and behaviors, never realizing their prohibitive actions are not really for the good of  others but rather to make themselves feel better by putting an end to the behavior that makes them intensely anxious.”

I thought about his observations as I was reviewing an assessment from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration side about recent raw milk research. It came from the nearly invisible head of the FDA’s dairy division, John Sheehan, who only rarely treats us to his pearls of wisdom. But as part of his support of the Maine Department of Agriculture’s anti-food-sovereignty campaign launched last year, Sheehan submitted testimony to oppose state legislation that would have allowed small farms to sell raw milk from their farm sites without a license, and it showed up in the nearly 700 pages of info obtained by lawyers for Maine farmer Dan Brown.  …”

Read more on The Complete Patient blog.

7 Comments

Filed under News

7 responses to “Why won’t they respect the science?

  1. Royce Hamer

    The political will has already been started but not with the present parties. Please go to https://www.facebook.com/cacleague and http://www.canadiananticorruptionleague.org and make a commitment if you have a conscience. This is being promoted around the world but I started it in Canada recently. All we need is some support, the numbers will make the difference. The root cause of almost all our problems is corruption in one form or another. Just think about it for a moment then act.

  2. nedlud

    There is a fervent, fanatical belief in ‘science as salvation’. But this particular science, MUST revolve around ever greater amounts of complex, highly sophisticated technology and -uhh- the maintenance of data and information that supports this technology at every turn. This ‘data’ includes WRONGLY, but as core part of the ‘belief structure’, that there MUST be a centralized government of elite-type entities (sometimes called people, but better termed, psychopaths) with the greatest access and control over the most sophisticated and omnipresent (God-like) forms of technology. There is also the belief (or paranoid fear) that there can be no going back, that doing anything in the manner of or returning to a practice of, the ignorant ‘dark past’ (such as raw milk), because this past supposedly was so wretched and undeveloped (lacking in high technology), is to be forbidden. Also often included is the overwhelming fear of physical death, by the adherents of this belief system, who are incapable of noting the other types of death that do exist and that they tend to inflict, even on their own being.

    Note too, for example,how persistently ‘leaders’ like Obama always use the term; ‘moving forward’. Everything and everybody of this ilk, this techno-philosophy is taught to ‘think forward’/’look ahead’; and it is all also maintained and kept organized by the salaried system of ‘experts’. Experts are experts because they are highly educatied in (ie., the most indoctrinated into) this philosophy of technological supremacy and they MUST echo it constantly, or else lose their jobs. It becomes an integral part of their day-to-day performance.The words of Upton Sinclair come strongly to mind: ‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.’

    Even Michael Schmidt and others of the raw milk vein, have a bias or hidden prejudice that carries along much of the above notion and belief, along with their pacifist nature. The pacifist nature of people in general supports techno-aggression, when it (the aggression) is subtle enough and can be hailed as ‘progress’ (being linked with technology) and they are not aware.

    But this technological zeal and expecially, the centralization of command aspect of it, is DEADLY to life. It is the antithesis (with a deeply Satanic implication) of organic, universal, spiritual and an awakened understanding…..

    Waiting for the drones to strike.

    nedlud

    • Joseph Heckman

      Although published in 1950and written by a scientist, it is just as relevant today:
      Science is a Sacred Cow
      by Anthony Standen

      • nedlud

        Thanks, I looked it up.

        The elitism and really, the out and out bigotry that modern science and technology has spawned is incredibly evil.

        It’s been a long time since I read it, but I was very impressed at the time with Technopoly, by Neil Postman.

        nedlud

  3. I see that RAWMI has published their standards and that the top says in alliance with the mission of Cow Share Canada. It would be REALLY helpful if Cow Share Canada would publish that in Canada as well and not just to members or those who pay to join the group. I find that the biggest stumbling block to getting people (consumers and producers) to consider that Cow Share Canada has an excellent program is that the information on what the group wants is nowhere to be seen on the internet or even available to someone inquiring. When I’ve referred people they have been told they must join the group to even find out what the standards are. I’m glad to see that RAWMI has gone public with this. Now we have to in Canada as well.

  4. BC Food Security

    Margo: Why keep beating a long dead horse (or should I say COW) ? If you want to see RAWMI’s standards published in Canada then please go ahead and publish it on http://www.rawconsumer.ca . Has RAWMI been made aware of the “Canadian Consumer Raw Milk” initiative as yet ? If not then what are we waiting for ?

    • I haven’t contacted RAWMI but you are right, I should. I guess I didn’t think they would be interested in what we are doing in Canada. I will post the RAWMI standards on the website later today. I am thinking that maybe we should include their list of standards with our information package for government as well. I’m going to ask permission to use it that way once I’ve checked with the other working group members to make sure they are okay with the idea. I think this kind of document shows a responsible and professional way of providing safe milk that I think would be an asset to our efforts. Thanks for the kick in the pants! :0)

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