Farmer On Hunger Strike Over Raw Milk Arrest

Michael Schmidt, who runs Glencolton Farms in Durham, has been on a hunger strike for the past week ever since being arrested for selling unpasteurized milk.

In last week’s raid, which involved two provincial ministries and the Ontario Provincial Police and was the culmination of an 18-month investigation, Schmidt’s equipment was taken away and the farmer was charged with operating an unlicensed dairy.

On Wednesday, Schmidt vowed to continue selling raw milk.

“There are clear studies that E. coli and pathogen developments in milk are clearly related to how the cow is being fed,” he contends. “As well, in the big feed lots where E. coli was unknown for a long time and then it emerged because of the way the cows were being fed with grain.”

But a strongly worded statement from the Ministry of Health warns bacteria like salmonella, E. coli and listeria can be found in raw milk and have caused serious illnesses in the past.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty says he sees no reason to change the laws governing dairy safety procedures and sales.

“If you want to engage in the mass distribution of milk to millions of children and Ontario families on a daily basis, the very best and safest way to do that is to ensure that it’s pasteurized,” he argued. “That’s been the best advice we’ve received for a long time and I would see no reason why we would move away from that.”

Not everyone in his cabinet agrees – Finance Minister Greg Sorbara and his wife even own a share in a raw milk cow.

“I have long been a proponent for a safe, effective, highly regulated system of distributing raw milk,” he said.

Schmidt promises to continue his hunger strike until his seized equipment is returned. He also wants an end to further legal action against him until the issue is addressed in the courts or at Queen’s Park.

“People should have a choice. I think there are areas where you have no choice because there are no dairy farmers so they’ll drink that,” he said. “And I think milk should also be pasteurized sometimes because of the way it’s produced. I think everybody is trying to do the best job, but I think what’s important is to understand it is a choice issue for people.”

Despite the history of pasteurization, Schmidt’s supporters claim it simply isn’t necessary, as long as the rules are followed. “Under hygienic conditions, there is no danger,” contends Marty Lemieux.

“It’s not about milk,” adds Joanna Rizoiu. “It’s about my right to choose what I want to eat in such a democratic country like ours.”

That attitude is foolish maintains Dr. David Williams, Toronto’s Associate Chief Medical Officer of Health. “You only need a small amount of bacteria in the milk and you see rapidly a few bacteria can become quite a cocktail of infection.”

A private members bill to study the issue will be tabled at Queen’s Park next month.

Raw Milk: The Debate

For most of us, the decision is easy: pick up a quart of milk on the way home, stick it in the fridge and drink it whenever we’re thirsty.

But for those who love the taste or purported health benefits of raw milk, it’s not quite that easy.

Here’s a look at the pros and cons of drinking it right from the ‘tap’.

THOSE IN FAVOUR

Better Taste: Proponents of raw milk believe it tastes better than liquid that has been pasteurized.

Better health: Raw milk fans contend the pasteurization process kills microorganisms and can cause stomach upset or other problems in many people. They also believe the ‘good’ bacteria in the untreated process outweighs anything bad that might be in it.

Longer lasting: Those who support untreated cow or goat juice insist the treated product goes bad faster in your fridge.

Better for dairy farmers: Advocates maintain it’s cheaper for already over burdened dairy farmers to raise cows that produce milk that doesn’t have to be treated.

No lactose intolerance: Raw milk fans claim that their product doesn’t produce stomach upset in those who are lactose intolerant.

THOSE OPPOSED

Bacteria: The most obvious reason is first and foremost. Health officials say pathogens present in raw milk are dangerous for humans and can lead to serious illness if it’s contaminated and consumed.

Lasts longer: Unlike their opponents, those who favour pasteurization claim the milk actually has a longer shelf life, because there are fewer organisms that can cause spoilage.

Sanitary conditions: Health experts agree raw milk needs to be very carefully handled if it’s going to be safe to drink. Many don’t believe farmers or producers can guarantee those standards, putting the public at risk.

Other health concerns: Those with compromised immune systems who drink raw milk may not be able to fend off the illnesses it can produce.

Raw Milk Myths

Raw milk advocates aren’t likely to agree with these facts and myths about their product, which are provided by the B.C. Ministry of Health.

Is raw milk better for you?
No. There’s no evidence that raw milk is better for you than pasteurized milk.

Does pasteurized milk contain additives or preservatives?
By law, vitamins A and D must be added to pasteurized milk. Nothing else can be added to milk. (Vitamin A helps you see better in dim light, and to tell colours apart. Vitamin D helps your body take up calcium, and reduces the risk of osteoporosis.)

Does raw milk help keep you from getting sick?
No. There’s no evidence that raw milk makes you more resistant to disease.

Does raw milk help develop teeth better than pasteurized milk?
No. There’s no evidence that raw milk helps your teeth develop any better than pasteurized milk.

Myths courtesy: B.C. Ministry of Health