Washington Post (Letter to the Editor)
Wednesday, October 18, 2006; Page A20
I hope that Post readers will not disregard, as author Thomas Bartlett apparently did, the body of scientific evidence and the advice of public health experts at the Food and Drug Administration regarding the hazards associated with the consumption of raw milk ["The Raw Deal," Magazine, Oct. 1].
In the article, advocates cited belief in this or that benefit of raw milk without offering much data to support those beliefs. But the public health experts at the FDA cited many scientific studies, including epidemiological investigations, that tie the consumption of raw milk to human illness. It almost seems as if the raw milk advocates believe the FDA is lying about the hazards.
I wonder about accountability and consequences if something bad happens as result of people following the advice of these advocates. Even if they were not found to be legally liable for encouraging people to consume raw milk, they will have to answer to their consciences for any illnesses or deaths that result.
JACK MOWBRAYWest Friendship
Note: In the book The Milk Imperative evidence is provided showing why raw milk has no redeeming features at all. For more information go to www.milkimperative.com.