If you missed the live internet broadcast of this raw milk debate hosted by the Harvard Law Society, you can watch the recording.
Sally Fallon Morell of the Weston A. Price Foundation, author of Nourishing Traditions, and David Gumpert, author of The Raw Milk Revolution and The Complete Patient blog debate personal injury lawyer, Fred Pritzker of PritzkerOlsen law firm and Dr. Heidi Kassenborg, Director of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.
Watch the Video
Share Your Thoughts
What did you think about the debate? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Photo credit: RAW MILK Freedom to Choose by andres musta, on Flickr
Disclosure: cmp.ly/4 and cmp.ly/5
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
Thank you so much for posting. I think it’s fairly obvious that the pro raw milk side of this debate showed themselves to have the scientific, data-based arguments that Fred was looking for. I was slightly bummed at some of the presentation aspect, honestly. Us raw milk supporters look like fruitcakes to the first world as it is, and that being said, we need all the help we can get to provide absolute clarity and good, plain communication in public forums like this. I thought everyone with the exception of the lawyer could have been more well-spoken and more objective and confident-sounding in their arguments. A lot of mumbling and “uh”-ing and speaking before clarifying what the point really was. Maybe that’s nitpicking, but it’s important in a public debate where everyone needs to understand what’s happening. Overall though it was a lot of good information getting said out loud. Go raw milk!
I think you’re right about the communication, Cait. I was wincing at some parts. At these events you need to make your points succinct and clear, because you only have a short time to make a lasting impression on the public, who typically have short attention spans as it is. Mr. David Gumpert was especially guilty of “uh”-ing and starting 3 sentences before finishing one.
I’ve thought this before, too. Maybe it’s not fair or ideal, but presentation matters. It’s not PC, but the best thing the raw milk movement could have is a chic, articulate, well-presented man or woman as a spokesperson.
Great point, I totally agree. I, too, was wincing during some parts.
I thought the most telling moment was when a questioner from the audience asked the gal from the USDA why there was a disproportionate amount of regulation of/enforcement against raw milk given that it is responsible for such a small percentage of food-related illness vs. other foods that are much more linked to food poisoning outbreaks but have little or no regulation/enforcement; her response was to blow him off as a government conspiracy kook. He interrupted her to insist that his question mentioned nothing about conspiracy and he just wanted her to elaborate on the decision making process regarding the allocation of resources and she AGAIN answered by insisting there is no conspiracy in government. #1 She simply COULD NOT ANSWER his question b/c there is no justifiable reason for the tyranny (and methinks she doth protest too much about the conspiracy thing. . .though, I would say it is a clear AGENDA and no secret conspiracy) and #2 her assumption is that citizens are TOO STINKIN’ STUPID to choose their own foods, or to ask an intelligent question, that we must just be blown off as conspiracy nuts instead. Her whole demeanor was, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help. You have rights if I say so.”
If the right to life does not include the right to choose that which the cells of our very bodies are made of, then we have NO FREEDOM at all. . . This is tyranny pure and simple.
AMEN!!!!
I loved the back and forth debate between the presenters and also loved the good questions.
It was interesting to me to hear both sided of the raw milk issue which I feel are compelling.
I kind of like the summary a person from the audience stated, that basically raw milk is a personal choice and it is more of a political issue than a safety issue.
It seems to me, that in this presentation, Lawyer Fred would be ok with raw milk legalization with safety precautions which I felt was a plus for raw milk argument.
I live in Greece where raw milk is not available. If you even IMPLY you would like to drink your milk raw people look at you like there is something very wrong with you. I am currently living on an island and have found a source of milk which we choose to drink raw. There is no testing of the milk or any other means of ensuring its safety. Strangely enough I have some friends here who grew up in Russia. They have gorgeous facial structure, good postures and dense bones. They were all raised on raw milk. I asked them what was done before the milking and they told me that only the udders were wiped down with warm water and a clean rag.I need to add here that all the cows of the village were taken to pasture early in the morning, returned for milking at noon, taken to pasture again and returned to the owners in the evening That’s it. My opinion is that people should have a choice to drink their milk however they like but also that said milk should come from animals eating what nature intended and not what profits dictate.
Scientific database arguments? It is very unfortunate that the public does not have the right tools to judge “scientific” studies. Epidemiology is the key discipline here and it is not represented well. Yes even people that produce pasteurized milk get sick, but how many consume this milk? Billions! On the other hand the number of raw milk consumers is much lower. Epidemiologicaly or statistically if you want people that consume raw milk are more likely to get sick than people that consume pasteurized milk. Period. This is what science shows! Not all people that smoke get cancer, but people that smoke are more likely to have it than non-smokers! This part is not presented at all, and it is a shame!
{ 1 trackback }