Raw Milk: Not Such a Good Thing?

By Angus Dawson

Should we be able to consume products that we know could harm us? This question is one of many raised by the prosecution of a dairy farmer in Ontario for selling raw (or non-pasteurized) milk.

It is hard to imagine a better symbol of pure and natural food than fresh milk.  

Milk from domesticated animals has been central to human diets for thousands of years. However, it has also long been known that it can carry risks to human health. For this reason, pasteurization was developed in the nineteenth century as a means of ‘cooking’ the milk. This process prevents the transmission of bovine tuberculosis and removes a number of contaminants, including listeria, e coli, salmonella, campylobacter and brucella. The risks to humans from these diseases vary, but in all cases they are real, and in some circumstances can result in hospitalization and even death. Some groups, such as children, pregnant women and those with weakened immune systems, are at greater risk than the general population. Although such risks are small, they are significant enough to have established pasteurization as a routine and legally enforced means of protecting the public from harm.

However, some people argue that they ought to be free to decide how much risk they are exposed to in the course of pursing their own lives. On this view, the important point is that it is their life and it demonstrates a lack of respect to make decisions on their behalf. Is it right for the state to intervene to stop citizens drinking raw milk if they wish to do so? I think it is for three main reasons.

First, whilst disagreement about risks will inevitably exist, any evaluation of such risks must be based on the best possible evidence, and as I’ve already suggested the evidence of potential infection from raw milk is clear. Whilst some people may discount such risks or believe that any risks are outweighed by what they see as positive factors (such as the claim that raw milk tastes better or has beneficial properties lacking in pasteurized milk), it is important to see that this does not change the published scientific evidence that drinking raw milk increases the risk of harm. In addition, it is relevant that pasteurization is already established as a routine practice, is an easy and effective means of reducing harm, and is risk-free.

Second, although freedom to choose is vitally important, not all choices are to be respected because other values are sometimes more important. If others can be harmed as a result of a choice, then there are good grounds to limit or remove such an option. Of course, we do allow other choices that increase the risk of harm (such as drinking alcohol and smoking), but they are highly regulated as a means of reducing risk, the harms themselves are not so direct and are not so easily removed, and the risks and benefits are more complex. A policy of allowing the sale of raw milk, with the provision of information about the risks, would provide insufficient protection to vulnerable populations. Not everyone would have access to, or would understand, the information about risks. For example, we have good reason to believe that those most vulnerable to these harms (such as children) would be the main consumers of raw milk. Whilst we generally allow parents the freedom to decide what is best for their children, in many circumstances we restrict parental choice to protect children from harm (e.g. enforcing the use of booster seats in cars and cycle helmets).

Third, the state has a duty to protect its citizens from harm, and in this case does so through the action of a democratic legislature. If we know that harm is possible, and we can do something in advance to remove it or reduce it, a failure to do so would, rightly, be judged negligent. This is the case with the purification of drinking water: it has become an expectation that the state protect its citizens by ensuring it is safe. It ought to be the same with milk. It is not hard to imagine the outcry if a child died from drinking e coli-infected milk because the state had decided not to uphold the law.

Whilst the actions of the state ought to be subject to criticism, and any public health policy that restricts freedom of choice ought to be regularly debated and reviewed, the sacrifice of fairly trivial liberties is worth the benefits of belonging to a society where we attempt to protect each other from harm. Not everyone will be happy with a policy of enforced pasteurization, but we are all better off living in a society where such protections exist.