Dumb and dumber: the raw facts

The choices we make as adults are none of the government’s business ...

IT SEEMS astonishing that people choose to reject the very science that can save their lives, especially when it is to such tragic effect as the recent death of a toddler from consuming unpasteurised cow’s milk.

This must surely qualify as a classic illustration of evolution in action, as - without wishing to sound callous - the tragedy has clearly had an adverse effect on the reproductive effects of the poor child’s parents.

With the advent of new regulations in Victoria following this incident, the key question which now arises for regulators is: to what extent should people who make such poor choices be protected from themselves?

“Consuming raw milk comes near the top of the stupidity scale”

People holding the views which I expect are also held by the child’s parents are not unusual. Many are convinced, despite clear evidence to the contrary, that nature is benevolent and man’s intervention is inherently bad. They abhor modern agriculture with its pesticides, fertilisers and disinfectants. Technology like vaccines and fluoridation are viewed with suspicion, while organic food and remedies such as homeopathy are embraced.

Science obviously conflicts with such weak-mindedness. Pesticides save us from fungal, insect and nematode contamination of our food, which can make us sick. Together with fertilisers they also lower the cost of producing the food, so we are less likely to suffer illness due to nutritional deficiencies.

Relevant to the child who died is the fact that bacteria, which occur naturally just like arsenic, can be extremely dangerous. Controlling them through disinfection, whether by chemicals or pasteurisation, helps more of us to live longer. Indeed, there would be far fewer cases of food poisoning, which can be fatal, if organic food was abandoned and more food irradiated.

Consuming raw milk comes near the top of the stupidity scale as an example of ignoring evidence-based scientific processes. Organisms including campylobacter, leptospira, salmonella, cryptosporidia, E-coli and listeria - any one of which is capable of doing you in - are commonly present in milk despite tuberculosis and brucellosis no longer being a concern. Unless the milk is consumed the moment it leaves the cow, these bugs can multiply very quickly to create a veritable bacterial soup within a matter of hours.

Yet through either a lack of (readily available) information or a wilful decision to ignore it, some people still choose to flaunt science and tempt fate by drinking raw milk, eschewing vaccination and opting for ‘memory water’ over antibiotics.

But should we care if they do?

“The choices we make as adults are none of the government’s business so long as we don’t inflict the consequences on others”

The Darwin effect reigns in some countries, particularly France, and there are quite a few European countries as well as many states of America that allow the sale of raw milk products under certain conditions. The main demand is for the production of particular types of cheese, which advocates say tastes better than cheese made from pasteurised milk. But some drink it amid claims it has health benefits that are lacking in pasteurised milk. The US Food and Drug Administration disputes this.

Of course, those who reject science also tend to reject statistics. Thus when someone consumes raw milk over many years without adverse effects, this is used as proof that it is harmless. Even when someone dies under their nose, it is common for them to deny the cause.

I am among those who believe the choices we make as adults are none of the government’s business so long as we don’t inflict the consequences on others. That includes choices that, by objective standards, are unwise, such as smoking, playing dangerous sports, taking drugs and consuming raw milk.

There may be an argument for the government to warn us of the dangers, but in the end it should not seek to protect us from our poor choices. That is the role of our parents.

But what should the government do when the consequences of poor choices are inflicted on children? While we might agree that parents should be ultimately responsible for the welfare of their children, is it acceptable to allow children to die because their parents make ill-advised decisions? Fairly obviously, the answer is no, especially when government intervention does not seriously infringe other rights. An obvious option – which our regulators had already chosen – would be compelling those who sell raw milk to clearly label it as not suitable for human consumption, for example.

We do not need to allow children to die to be sure that the weak-minded shall not inherit the earth. But we also can’t regulate to enforce common sense – as Forrest Gump would say, stupid is as stupid does, and evolution will surely prevail.

Page:
1
FarmOnline
David Leyonhjelm

David Leyonhjelm

has worked in agribusiness for 30 years and is a Senator for NSW representing the Liberal Democrats.
Date: Newest first | Oldest first

READER COMMENTS

Hydatid
12/01/2015 11:23:36 AM

Harry....for hundreds of years we had a life expectancy of less than 60....5 out of 10 children born would not have seen their 18th birthday and childbirth was the greatest cause of mortality amongst women....keep dreaming of the good old days, old son!
Qlander
12/01/2015 12:07:36 PM

Raw milk has the 'potential' to be dangerous, nothing more, nothing less.
Mike Logan
12/01/2015 6:25:29 PM

My problem with the raw milk was not so much the milk itself. Many writers have testified to drinking farm fresh raw milk for all of their lives. My problem is the distribution and handling. If it is to be kept at 4 degrees through a process of distribution that is not a professional system then there is a high chance the milk went off during its travels. If it is not pasteurised then it goes off more quickly anyway. If it is kept in a fridge in a health food store that is possibly not maintaining 4 degrees for a few days, then the risk is sky rocketing.
Peter Williams
13/01/2015 6:18:42 AM

You have finally lost me David. This one will sink you. I was raised on raw milk and oddly enough am still kicking. In the case of the child , it had another serious underlying illness which you should be aware of if you do more than scratch the surface of the news reporting. Let people choose their own poisons , Live and let live.
hayseed
13/01/2015 7:18:49 AM

There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with drinking FRESH Raw Milk... However the milk that is causing all this debate, is FAR from fresh by the Time it reachs any retail outlet. Hence the Need the need for regulation to help the people incapable of helping themselves..
Archibald
13/01/2015 8:38:54 AM

Education about food handling and storage is the key; goodness me are we to have legislation and regulation about all facets of life. This is not possible or achievable. My family must be at the top of the stupidity scale, we for decades consumed fresh, clean raw milk (our own), none of us ever got "sick" from raw milk!!
Adrian
13/01/2015 9:29:51 PM

Is this joker really being given a forum to call Aussie Farmers Dumb and Dumber? Those same farmers who drink their own raw milk and whose ancestors drank it for thousands of years? Never mind that he's a Senator. God help the place when such blatant ignorance is coupled with even more blatant arrogance. Did people actually vote for this bloke?
Mabel Peyton Smyth
14/01/2015 6:08:11 AM

Yes I raised a family on milk direct from the bulk vat and thankfully no problems. We are not talking about consumption we are talking about the sale of raw milk that has been regulated over time because there have been problems. Yes, protecting people from themselves. Bacteria in milk is hard to detect unlike meat or vegetables which smells and looks bad. Yes you can kill a chook in the backyard but would you buy a four day old one from a passing vendor? I despise regulation but thank God we have to drive on one side of the road and stop at red lights.
Deregul8
14/01/2015 6:31:19 AM

It's the sugar in today's cigarettes that cause cancer. Tobacco was smoked for thousands of years before cancer was invented for profits. Just like cannabis was. Bushie, you can't claim to be a thinker if you let your opinions be shaped by populist opinion otherwise you are no different to the RARAs you at times challenge.
Bushie Bill
14/01/2015 8:02:13 AM

Thank you Mabel for bringing some intelligence and common sense to the notice of the "what my daddy and my granddaddy did is absolutely ok-look how I turned out" brigade. May we be protected from them and their Neanderthal and uniformed ignorance. Always with RARAs, it is not the ignorant that is the problem, it is the deliberately ignorant and proud that bring them down and keep reinforcing with the wider community the view that they are bunch of hillbilly rednecks, incapable of being part of an informed and progressive society.
< previous |  1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  |  next >
Agribuzz with David LeyonhjelmCommentary, news and analysis with agribusiness consultant David Leyonhjelm. Email David at reclaimfreedom@gmail.com

COMMENTS

light grey arrow
I'm one of the people who want marijuana to be legalized, some city have been approved it but
light grey arrow
#blueysmegacarshowandcruise2019 10 years on Daniels Ute will be apart of another massive cause.
light grey arrow
Australia's live animal trade is nothing but a blood stained industry that suits those who