I want to tell you about Bertha. Bertha
is a cow, and I own 1/50th of her. Every three weeks we visit. I wave
at Bertha from afar, she flicks her tail at me. Then I take home some
of her milk.
There is a dominant narrative about health in the United States. This narrative supports healing through technology. This narrative says technology helps us live better and longer. This narrative says old ways are backward, slow and dangerous. It asks that we please trust science.
Now, I like science. Many scientific advances truly serve the public good. But I do see a connection between science, politics and business. And because of this connection, it is crucial that we evaluate whether or not scientific and technological advances are actually used for the public interest.
Does USDA-approved Milk Serve the Public Interest?
By studying homogenization,
pasteurization, and dairy cow treatment, it is clear that modern milk
is a profitable industry. The more processed a food, the more
lucrative.1
The same is true for milk. Milk is homogenized, pasteurized,
transported, graded, packed, labeled, and stored before used. The
purpose of homogenization is to create a milk product where the cream
doesn't separate. The homogenization process involves separating out
the cream to make the desired amount of milk fat. Then pressure is
applied to break down the fat so the milk all looks the same. Milk
producers need a lot of complicated machinery 2
3
and often chemicals 4
to get the job done. Pasteurization, which involves heating milk to
kill pathogenic bacteria, also requires extensive machinery. 5
Companies discover, build, patent then sell these chemicals and
machines for a high profit.
The way cows are raised, fed and kept
healthy also generate a profit. As true in many industries, it is
possible to make more money with increased output. The dairy industry
discovered in 1994 how to get more with less. Scientists created a
new synthetic growth hormone, recombinant bovine growth hormone
(rBGH), which increases milk yields by 10-25%. 6
7
Monsanto makes around 300 million in annual sales for Posilac, the
companies version of rBGH, or 5% of the companies earnings. 8
The use of Posilac is lucrative for Monsanto. Unfortunately, the
growth hormones and living conditions predispose the cow to sickness.
Dairy cows have a 25% greater chance of developing clinical mastitis due to rBGH. 9
In response to this risk, dairy farmers give cows antibiotics. The
antibiotic industry was initially very profitable. However, since
antibiotic treatments tend to only last 10-14 days, many
pharmaceutical companies are closing anti-bacterial development
departments in favor of more lucrative medicines which treat chronic
illnesses, like heart disease. 10There are still around 7 major drug companies which produce
antibiotics. It can cost around $800 million and take over 15 years
to research, test and produce the drug.11
Perhaps because of the fact that the antibiotic industry is not as
profitable as chronic illness, drug producers continue to push the
use of antibiotics in dairy farms. Despite current profits, or lack
thereof, there are clear economic incentives for extensive processing
in favor of just drinking milk from the udder.
"Frankenfood": Why US Milk Banned in Europe
What I believe is that when it comes to
“food science,” we in the U.S. have created what Europe calls
“Frankenfood.”12
Countries around the world question the safety of milk produced in
the U.S. Europe and Canada ban milk from the United States.13
The U.N.'s main food safety body, the Codex Alimentarius Commission,
refused to endorse the safety of rBGH. Though the U.S. government
argues that dairy cattle health risks are “manageable,” 14
I have decided that I no longer want to just “manage” my health.
In my opinion, more healthful ways of drinking milk and eating in
general exist.
Dairy Laws: for Safety or Control?
Unfortunately, the federal government
doesn't believe I am smart enough to make that choice on my own.
Dr.
Richard Raymond, the former Undersecretary for Food Safety at the
USDA from 2005-2008, works currently as a food safety and public
health consultant. He writes that “laws are written for a reason,
usually to help keep us safe.” Because laws are written exclusively
to keep people safe, and the FDA and USDA are here to protect our
health, no parent should be allowed to feed their child raw milk.15I must admit, I am pretty dubious of anyone who says, without a trace
of irony, that laws are always written with only constituents' safety
in mind.
Criminalization of Raw Milk
Though many people find ways around
restrictive raw milk regulations, legal cow shares can still be
criminalized. When I first contacted the farm about raw milk early
this fall, it was the most intense conversation I have ever had about
milk. The farm owner, Deb, launched into a really long story about
Richard Hebron, the owner of a cow share operation in Michigan. His
constituents signed Cow Share contracts similar to mine. Partial
owners of fractional cows, these raw milk drinkers were well informed
about their choice. It seemed Hebron's business was within the
boundaries of the law. In 2006, however, a sting operation stopped
him on a Michigan highway. Undercover agricultural agents had
followed Hebron for a year, gathering evidence against him. Hebron
traveled with unlabeled bottles of milk, and this was the loophole
which undid his business. Apparently you can't transport liquid in
unlabeled bottles. That night in 2006 the sting operation confiscated
seven thousand dollars worth of raw dairy.1
Hebron's case, now before the court in Detroit, is considered a
“federal criminal investigation.” 16
Access to Alternatives: Inequity, and Food Justice
But here I am now with my cow share,
happily drinking coffee with raw milk and making raw milk ice cream
and sharing my raw milk with all my grad school friends. Aren't I
happy? Isn't this what I wanted?
Bibliography
1 The Domestic Foodscapes of Young Low-Income
Women in Montreal: Cooking Practices in the Context of an
Increasingly Processed Food Supply Health Educ Behav April 2010
37: 211-226, first published on August 18, 2009 doi:
10.1177/1090198109339453
2 Homogenizer Systems, GEA Process Engineering,
Inc., accessed December 15, 2012,
http://www.niroinc.com/gea_liquid_processing/homogenizer_systems.asp
3 GEA Niro Soravi, accesed December 16, 2012,
http://www.niro-soavi.com/applications/dairy.html
4 Pieter Walstra, Jan T. M. Wouters, Tom J.
Geurts, Dairy Science and Technology, Taylor and Francis
Group, LLC (2006): 290, accessed December 15, 2012 on google books:
http://books.google.com/books?id=qxdmN8JoW
4C&pg=PA290&lpg=PA290&dq=surfactants+homogenized+milk&source=bl&ots=b_n7CDmRT_&sig=2zoVK71ENk5DGoAWsNcuc5I5Bg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gjHPUL7BDIWm9gS_2YHwDw&ved=0CEAQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=surfactants%20homogenized%20milk&f=false
5 Pasteurization Systems, GEA Process
Engineering, Inc., accessed December 15, 2012,
http://www.niroinc.com/gea_liquid_processing/pasteurization.asp
6 Alex Pulaski, “Hormone fuels a fight in
Tillamook,” Oregonian, February 27, 2005, accessed December 16,
2012.
7 M. Boutinaud, C. Rouseau, DH Keisler, H Jammes,
“Growth hormone and milking frequency act differently on goat
mammary gland in late lactation,” Journal of Dairy Science [2003,
86 (2): 509-520], PMID:12647957
http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/12647957/reload=0;jsessionid=ok8rIxhZSjAUYNnOSfWr.10
8 Thomas Klink, “rBGH and the (mis)Use of
Science,” Macalester College (2008)
http://www.macalester.edu/academics/environmentalstudies/students/projects/citizenscience2008/rbgh/ActorMotivations.html
9 Kate Huffling, “The Effects of Environmental
Contaminants in Food on Women's Health,” Journal of Midwifery
and Women's Health, v. 1, issue
1, (2006): 19-25, DOI:10.1016/j.jmwh.2005.08.019
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/doi/10.1016/j.jmwh.2005.08.019/full
10 Deborah Gouge, “Big Pharma Abandons
Antibiotics: An Opening for Small Biotech,” Seeking Alpha,
May 13, 2012, accessed December 15, 2012,
http://seekingalpha.com/article/584871-big-pharma-abandons-antibiotics-an-opening-for-small-biotech
13 Deborah Gouge, “Big Pharma Abandons
Antibiotics: An Opening for Small Biotech,” Seeking Alpha,
May 13, 2012, accessed December 15, 2012,
http://seekingalpha.com/article/584871-big-pharma-abandons-antibiotics-an-opening-for-small-biotech
12 Jeremy
Stahl, “Death of 'Frankenfood': Is the GMO debate growing up in
Europe just as it devolves in the United States?,” Slate,
June 14, 2012, accessed December 14, 2012,
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/06/frankenfood_debate_over_gmos_in_europe_and_the_united_states_.html
13 Samuel
S. Epstein, M.D., “Milk: America's Health Problem,” Cancer
Prevention Coalition, accessed December 14, 2012,
http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/general/milk.htm
14 "U.S.
And Europe Agree to Disagree on Safety of Dairy Hormone: Action by
U.N. Food Body Means Disputes About Safety of Hormone in Milk Will
Linger," Consumers Union, June 30, 1999, accessed December 14,
2012, http://www.consumersunion.org/food/bghny899.htm
15 Wendy
Cole, “Got Raw Milk? Be Very Quiet,” Time Magazine, March
13, 2007, accessed December 14, 2012,
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1598525,00.html
16 David Gumpert, “Obama Administration Continues Attacks on Small Raw Milk Dairy Farmers,” Health Impact News, accessed December 14, 2012, http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/obama-administration-continues-attacks-on-small-raw-milk-dairy-farmers/
16 David Gumpert, “Obama Administration Continues Attacks on Small Raw Milk Dairy Farmers,” Health Impact News, accessed December 14, 2012, http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/obama-administration-continues-attacks-on-small-raw-milk-dairy-farmers/