The recent Wall Street Journal story quoting the findings of Canadian researcher Nadine Ijaz to the effect that, contrary to current regulator attitudes, raw milk is in fact an inherently low risk food, has prompted some backlash, notably on Doug Powell’s Barblog:
“The scientific fringe craves the credibility – the impateur — of the scientific mainstream. It fuels conspiracy theories, drains public health resources, and unnecessarily worries a lot of folks; it’s a recycled tactic often used in the politics of genetically engineered food, water fluoridation, and so on. Mainstream science can be wrong; but it’s better than astrology….” and so forth.
To reply to this critique about the science supporting the “raw milk is a low risk food” thesis, David E. Gumpert and Nadine Ijaz have each independently spoken to the issue in a new post on The Complete Patient blog:
David: “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has had no hesitancy about spending taxpayer dollars to promote its viewpoint that raw milk is a mortal danger. A couple years back, I called the FDA on its practice, after it spent nearly $2,500 with a press release service to put out single warning on a slow-news weekend about possible illnesses at a private food club from raw milk, long after any possible threat had passed. Continue reading