17 votes

Why Does The Government Restrict Raw Milk?

{Note: This is an installment in a series of articles attempting to address the 32 questions posed by Ron Paul in his recent farewell speech given in front of Congress}

Raw Milk, and the consumer/citizen’s right to drink it has been a hotly debated topic in recent years. Across the country, Raw Milk (and other raw dairy products) have various degrees of legality, stemming from a 1987 decree, damning raw milk by the FDA. The color-coded map embedded provided a good snapshot and breakdown of exactly where raw milk is available and what restrictions are placed upon it. There are various health concerns and also health benefits that the two sides bring to the table in the debate over raw milk, but insofar as we’re concerned they are immaterial, as this boils down to a bigger concern: the government telling its citizens what they can or can’t eat.

To provide some background on raw milk, I’ll quote my own previous story:

Proponents of fresh or “raw” milk cite that the milk provides improved nutrients for the immune system, stronger bones and teeth, etc, and feel that pasteurized milk removes some of the health benefits. While the pasteurization process removes the risk of infection, the debate rages on as to whether it also removes these other benefits along with it. Long story short, the government should not be able to prohibit the sale of raw milk to those who prefer it because they feel that their version is “safer,” when grown adults who know the risks and (presumably) rewards and have made their own decision. Especially in a time when globally, humanity is in danger of running out of effective antibiotics, the choice to provide ones children with milk from cows that haven’t been treated with hormones or antibiotics, with milk that is unpasteurized could be a boon.

So why does the government restrict the sale of raw milk?

Continue Reading

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


ever notice how healthy farmers and their families look?
How sound their minds seem to be and how hard they can work- dawn to dusk?

Thats why.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

because it wants us and the cows



Be brave, be brave, the Myan pilot needs no aeroplane.

Man is the only animal that cooks food... Or needs to.

Man's compulsive behavior includes processing food until it is surely dead... Devoid of all life. Really dead... Preserved. Entombed. Sealed.

"Pasteurization" is heating to the point harmful life dies (nutrition is also diminished; milk no longer spoils, it rots)... Extends shelf life (to a dead package).

"Preservative" in food, is oft poison that kills... Extends shelf life (to a dead package).

    Man is the only animal that blushes... Or needs to." - Mark Twain

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Remember milk homogenization

Remember milk homogenization too.

Homogeneous: same.

Milk homogenization: Crushing milk's butter fat (read: the cream, the stuff that rises to the top) into minute particles so that they lose their ability to rise to the top but, rather, spread throughout the milk and stay spread perpetually. I losing this ability, butter fat's biology is destroyed, rendering it absent health giving properties and maybe detrimental to health.

Milk from clean cows produces healthful milk and cream. Because the cream is healthful, rather than it generating bacteria that sour and petrify milk, the cream undergoes transformation which changes the milk, leaving it bitter -- and more beneficial to health. This transformation is the bacteria in the cream multiplying tremendously and evolving into a species of bacteria more healthful than they were. Once enough of this transformation has occurred, the milk is called clabbered milk.

Milk's double doozy: Pasteurization and homogenization. To make matters worse is the former process is because of how the livestock were raised, poorly. It's not as though clean milk is being Pasteurized. Pasteurization happens to milk because that milk has bad bacteria, and bad bacteria comes from sick cows. Pasteurization is a process that does two things.

One, Pasteurization attempts to eliminate the bad bacteria, but it doesn't, it kills some bad bacteria and the ones that survive end up with reduced potency. For a while. Two, it kills off all the nutrients and good bacteria. This simultaneous activity -- but especially because of the death of all nutrients and good bacteria (because their presence in clean milk outnumbers bad bacteria overwhelmingly or are the only bacteria present and engulf, disarm and destroy bad bacteria if they get into the milk) -- is why milk putrefies, decays. This decadence is the bad bacteria, whose life was low immediately after Pasteurization, doing what the good bacteria do, as mentioned above: multiply, the evidence that not only do some bad bacteria continue living after Pasteurization, they regain their vibrancy. What aids the bad bacterias' resuscitation is their reaction to the dead (read: killed off) bad and good bacteria in the milk.

So, in a way, the double doozy is a triple whammy.

Pasteurization: kills much bad stuff and kills all good stuff (thus the added vitamins), thereby sets environment for putrefaction and illness if milk is consumed, a far cry from what would occur naturally if the milk was clean, that it remain consumable and maintain and even improve its health benefits.

Homogenization: crushes life giving stuff, rendering it textural filler at best and a health detriment at worse.

Again, triple whammy.

The answer to the milk question is simple. Let freedom ring. Be natural.

Healthy livestock vs. sick livestock and/or the combination of milk from two or more dairies.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

Milk Cartelization

Here is Murray Rothbard's historic explanation of the cartelization of the milk industry. Starts at 54:00.

Cyril's picture

Because they're parasitic control freaks who can't produce

Because they're parasitic control freaks who can't produce anything else but new regulations to own our lives, beyond stealing our money.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

2. Why does the federal government restrict the drinking of raw

2. Why does the federal government restrict the drinking of raw milk?

The FDA is a huge Government program that extracts wealth from the American people under the illusion that a small group of “regulators” can guarantee all food and drugs will be safe when they enter the marketplace. There are no legitimate independent studies supporting the Government position that allowing dairy farmers to forgo pasteurization and sell “unregulated milk” would cause an increase in dairy related illness and/or disease. In fact there is growing evidence that drinking raw milk from smaller, local dairy farms provides many nutritional benefits and a decreased risk of consuming milk that contains steroids and other undesired substances. Most raw milk is currently sold by small, local, independent farms (which specifically because of their independence and smaller size) offer a far superior environment for the cows and a much more sanitary environment for the collection of milk than what is available from the assembly line “profit first” dairy farms that are managed by large corporations. Selling fear is constantly used by the State for controlling the population under the illusion of protecting them from themselves. Offering raw milk from smaller independent farms would cut into the profits of the Corporate-Government Monopoly of large dairy conglomerates. Millions of dollars in sales would be shifted from large corporate controlled dairy firms to local/regional raw food co-ops. The dangers of drinking milk which are put forward by the FDA and enforced by State using the threat of incarceration increases the power of the Federal Government. Since consuming raw milk would not increase dairy related illness and/or disease, people would begin to question the need for the FDA in general and it would shine a light on one of the largest Government programs that extracts wealth from the American people under the illusion of protecting them from themselves.


To quote one of my old professors

"Listeria" was the reason she gave to prohibit raw milk when asked about its consumption. But I suppose we should stop eating vegetables because of e.coli, or eggs due to salmonella.

Personally, I don't see the need for milk in our diets at all. To each their own, however.

Hello, my name is Andrew Ryan and I'm here to ask you a question: is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

But there is a need for

But there is a need for fermented food and beverage, and raw milk can be a healthy way to fill that need. Americans suffer from a horrible pH imbalance due in part to overuse of antibiotics and lack of fermented food and beverage. Hey, if it isn't in the food pyramid it must not be necessary, eh? Blame the medical industrial complex.

No Brainer imo

Gotta be mostly to subsidies all those mega dairy farms out there and the milk plants and all affiliated industries along with parts of the FDA.


They want to control everyone

Even when they take a dump.

1938. "Raw Milk vs Pasteurized Milk," Armchair Science

Published by "Armchair Science," British Medical Journal, London - April 1938

"Besides destroying part of the vitamin C contained in raw milk and encouraging growth of harmful bacteria, pasteurization turns the sugar of milk, known as lactose, into beta-lactose — which is far more soluble and therefore more rapidly absorbed in the system, with the result that the child soon becomes hungry again.

Probably pasteurization's worst offense is that it makes insoluble the major part of the calcium contained in raw milk. This frequently leads to rickets, bad teeth, and nervous troubles, for sufficient calcium content is vital to children; and with the loss of phosphorus also associated with calcium, bone and brain formation suffer serious setbacks.

Pasteurization also destroys 20 percent of the iodine present in raw milk, causes constipation and generally takes from the milk its most vital qualities.

In face of these facts-which are undeniable-what has the Pasteurization Party to say? Instead of compelling dealers to set up expensive machinery for turning raw milk into something that is definitely not what it sets out to be — a nutritious, health giving food — let them pass legislation making the dairy-farmers produce clean, raw milk — that is milk pure to drink with all its constituents unaltered."

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

What is with this trend of citing 80 year old research?

Every time there is a post about nutrition, someone inevitably posts something from Weston Price or another article that is 80-100 years old and claims that it is "indispituble."

Do people think that our understanding of nutrition and biochemistry ceased 80 years ago? Is all of the research that contradicts the "natural" lifestyle invalid?

By the way, this claim about the anomers isn't even correct. Alpha and beta lactose are in equilibrium with each other and constantly shit back and forth, and HIGHER TEMPERATURES FAVOR THE ALPHA FORM. Plus, the different anomers have the same nutritional properties.

I am familiar with many persons 80 -100 years old.

Some living. Most dead. I know of Weston Price & have read some of his writings. Yes, I am familiar with these people having faults. That I write about what is familiar to me should come as no surprise.

  1. What is with this trend of citing 80 year old research?
    Submitted by Delysid on Wed, 11/21/2012

    I don't know.

  2. Every time there is a post about nutrition, someone inevitably posts something from Weston Price or another article that is 80-100 years old and claims that it is "indisputable."

    I doubt it.

  3. Do people think that our understanding of nutrition and
    biochemistry ceased 80 years ago?

    No. I know of no such folk.

  4. Is all of the research that contradicts the "natural" lifestyle invalid?


The raw milk article I cited & linked was published in a medical journal, England, 1938. Weston Price Foundation (chartered 1999) posted it for reference.

Please continue informing about what you know to be healthy.


Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Thanks for the comments

I personally like to see the history. I actually thought this was a new debate. Its interesting to learn what our ancestors thought about some issues. Weather their science is still valid or not, is up to current science. It seems there is some current science that supports their reasoning that raw milk is good. It also seems that there was government intrusion into personal choice in 1938 too (hardly surprising).

Those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it

Just open the box and see

Man is the only species that cooks its food... Or needs to.

Yes, indeed. Milk, set out in the open air sours: yogurt; butter milk; Cheese. Man found milk nutritious for thousands of years before Louis Pasteur heated vats of beer to kill yeast. Along came some rascals w/ the profitable idea to heat milk to approximately the same temperature as Pasteur's beer study & call it something impressive... Say, "Pasteurization." Behold! Dead milk. Package it. Seal it. Extend shelf life. Pasteurized milk rots soon after the seal is broken.

Cooking food certainly kills microbes that may harm us. It also kills or destroys things that will nourish us. Those advocating processing food before selling it, generally have a mind to make a profit. Extending "shelf life" is a big benefit of processing... mostly dead... food.

Locally grown with minimal processing seems the most nutritious to me.

    Man is the only animal that blushes... Or needs to." - Mark Twain

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Perhaps more importantly why does it need guns to control it?

Raw milk and illegal drugs. Right up there with domestic terrorism.

Be brave, be brave, the Myan pilot needs no aeroplane.

OK - done guessing? Here is why.

Pasteurized milk has been linked to diabetes. Diabetes is VERY profitable!

Raw milk CURES a variety of problems - there is NO PROFIT in cures - that is why the FDA will hunt you down like a rabid dog if you claim to cure someone of anything.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Raw Milk

The simple answer is to add a label to all FDA approved products. It's not rocket surgery. It's political. The problem is that the FDA approval means nothing to the consumer anymore. Many of us would rather buy our groceries from local sources who have nothing to do with the government. As with all government agencies the FDA has become a burden on the people not an asset. As a burden they must use force to justify their existence. They cannot allow the public to choose.
As a raw milk producer I get to witness first hand the effect that an overreaching government has on our local economy. I should be employing 20 people but instead keep my business at a level just large enough to feed my family. As with many farmers today, I will rely on tourism to grow instead of milk production.

I have started to call family and friends. I am asking them to donate $25 for my Christmas gift. If we can all do this we will raise a bunch more money.

Amen, brother....

And it is especially BS that the FDA fast-tracks a bunch of, in essence, nearly poisonous products for us to "consume" from the corporate biggies.

Mither Fackers!

What would the Founders do?

Squashing competition?

It is the cartels pushing through legislation that eliminates competition according to Murray. I heard him ranting about it last night during my insomniacical audio sessions.

This is one part in a lecture series recorded by Hans Hoppe in 1986. I am really hooked. It might not be for the less insomniatic of folks though.


I only drink

Breast milk straight from the source. yummy ;-)


... sick, but funny....

What would the Founders do?

This stems from fear from a another time.

There was an outbreak of diseases from milk at one time but the culprit was the swill fed to cows and less about the conditions and hygiene of the cows that produced the milk, although it was a factor.

To "protect" the nation from further disease and I suppose to the delight of the idiots that fed trash food to cows.. Pasteurization was born.

Same shit we see with pot and every others nanny state move.. It's bullshit.

Raw milk is completely safe to drink as long as the producers are careful as they "have" to be with regular milk.. Just keep the cows sanitary..

I had the same revelation with raw milk as I had with grass-fed meats and farm fresh eggs. Holy shit are they worlds apart in taste and quality.

Edit: One more thing.. I actually ate more meat when it was quality but instead of gaining weight.. I lost weight and felt great while I actually enjoyed my meals for a change.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

I hate milk

Both raw and pasteurized...by gosh darnit I'll defend to the death the right of anyone to drink whatever kinda of milk they want!

*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*


Do you know you hate raw milk? Have your tried it?