I don’t drink raw milk, although I might if it were more easily available. And I don’t care if others drink it. But I can say with adamantine-like certainty that a society that accepts as a given that it is the proper role of the state to tell people what kind of milk they can buy is a degenerate one indeed. To wit, this recent New York Times article:
NEW YORK — My neighborhood weekly newspaper, The Brooklyn Paper, ran a front-page story this week about a local mother who belongs to a group so secretive that, as the article put it, “she can’t even reveal its name.”
The accompanying picture showed the woman, Hannah Springer, holding a toddler in one arm and a glass of milk in the other. She doesn’t look like a drug dealer or a counterfeit DVD merchant, and indeed she isn’t. Still, the secret organization of which she is an enthusiastic member buys and distributes a product banned for retail sale in New York — raw milk, unprocessed and unpasteurized.
It just boggles the mind that this prohibition goes unquestioned by 90 percent of the population year after year, and the Oprah-watching, functionally-illiterate mass of voters out there thinks, “thank God I have the state to tell me what kind of milk to drink.”
The medical establishment is against raw milk of course:
“Raw milk is dangerous,” John Sheehan, the director of the F.D.A.’s Division of Plant and Food Safety, said in a telephone interview. “Avoid it all costs. Do not give it to your children.”
Of course, this is the same medical establishment that once thought that the icepick lobotomy was a valid medical treatment for children who did “anti-social” things like refuse to wear coats outside in cold weather. Clearly, raw milk is a menace.11:25 pm on March 30, 2010 Email Ryan McMaken