Raw milk symposium today in Guelph

Today is the day for “Raw Milk — Science to Policy” symposium at the University of Guelph. Although Michael Schmidt has been invited to be among the speakers at this event, he has been given only 10 or 15 minutes of the all-day programme in which to share his views.

Michael said that he was required to submit the text of his presentation in advance. Would that be so that refutations could be prepared?

Although one could see it as a positive that raw milk is finally being given the time of day by Ontario’s foremost agricultural university, it remains to be seen how unbiased the proceedings will be.

In any case, the Guelph symposium is unlikely to bear much resemblance to the 2009 raw milk symposium at O.I.S.E. Click link to read the Bovine’s coverage of that symposium


1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

One response to “Raw milk symposium today in Guelph

  1. Overall, it seemed quite encouraging. The actual science presented makes it quite clear that raw milk carries no more risk then other foods, in fact the data suggests less risk. That there is no risk free food and that a risk mitigation approach is the best approach to ensure that what really happens in the field, of people and production, is in fact as safe as can be.
    Of course, we also learned of the gaps in the science and where more research may be helpful.

    Not sure what happened with the schedule, but Mr Jeff Farber’s presentation was moved by his request. I think many of the people present were quite encouraged when the official from Health Canada took the microphone and presented a long comment. Where he seemed to show an openness to develop working relationships, now that the science and popular support is clear. I was quite confused when his presentation, however, presented a different tone.

    There seems to be two different approaches to science. One is of authority, that presents information from a position of authority but does not have any direct references (or otherwise) to show where they got their data yet has strong conclusions. The other presents their findings with specific references, possible variations, gaps in data, so on and so forth, and actually contributes to the understanding and development of the body of knowledge. In this conference there were clearly two presentors that stood from a position of authority that made not reference to any study or science specifically yet made definate conclusions. Both were governement representatives. very disappointing, as it directly relates to public trust.

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