Should U.S. Follow Canada's Lead and Ban the Sale of Raw Milk?
Last week I was invited to Vancouver, British Columbia to speak to a group of Environmental Health Officers from the Fraser Health Authority. They were interested in how we select and prove foodborne illness cases (and how their work as sanitarians impacts on what we do).
As often happens in such presentations, the conversation turned to raw milk. Under Canadian law, it is apparently illegal to sell or purvey raw milk in any fashion (unlike in the US where many states allow some commercial raw milk sales). One of the officers of the Department raised an interesting question about raw milk in the context of personal freedom vs. governmental regulation of a potentially dangerous commodity. He asked me whether it is appropriate to regulate a commodity like raw milk if a consumer, knowledgeable about its risks and dangers, nevertheless chooses to drink it. In other words, treat it like “informed consent” in the context of a medical procedure: there is utility with attendant risk. If the risks are fully explained and the consumer/patient judges there to be sufficient utility to justify the risk, why should the government intrude?
So let’s assume a consumer goes to a dairy intending to purchase raw milk and is handed a form that fully and fairly sets out all the risks associated with raw milk. The consumer reads the form, signs the waiver and purchases raw milk. If s/he later gets sick, no one can complain (and no lawyer can sue on their behalf) because the consumer made an intelligent choice and is now fully responsible for the harms and losses that occurred.
Okay. But like most anti-government conceptual bullshit, the execution of the concept and the real-world implications of it are something else altogether.
So what happens, for example, when the bottle of raw milk that was “intelligently and knowingly” purchased ends up in the consumer’s refrigerator and is then poured on two bowls of corn flakes, one eaten by the 10-year-old child of the purchaser and the other by his neighbor/friend who was at the house on a sleep-over and later developed Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome and has life-long medical problems as a result(these facts are virtually the same as a real case, by the way)? Or what about another raw milk proponent who is sickened despite his knowing and intelligent waiver and then proceeds to incur over $1 Million in medical expenses (which we as a society end up paying directly or indirectly)?
Here’s my take: Until we can guarantee no innocent party will ever be harmed by raw milk and no one other than the person who chooses to drink it will have to subsidize the harm resulting from it, we should follow the wisdom of our friends north of the border and not allow anyone to buy it.
