The Country That Banned Milk

by Skyler Reidy on February 14, 2013 · 17 comments <span>Print this article</span> Print this article

in Articles,Culture, High & Low,Region & Place

cow portrait

What would we think of a government that banned milk? Would we think it over-reaching, even oppressive? Would we condemn it for rejecting a great gift from God? Would we assume its policy-makers and many of its citizens were deeply out of touch with nature? Would we judge it as foolhardy in the extreme? Or, would we fail to notice?

The fact of the matter is, the FDA has banned the interstate transport of milk, and nine states have banned its sale outright. Purchasing milk over the counter is only legal in ten states, while fifteen states allow citizens to buy milk only from a dairy. Milk sales exist in varying degrees of pseudo-legality in the remaining sixteen states.

The white liquid sold in jugs across America is not, in the truest and fullest sense of the term, milk. It is pasteurized milk, and often pasteurized milk that has been homogenized and adulterated with various chemicals; referring to it as real milk is an act of ontological promiscuity. This beverage is a dairy product, to be sure, and one that bears a striking resemblance to real milk, but it is quite different from the milk that nourished farmers around the world for millennia. Pasteurization breaks apart the enzyme lactase, which is crucial for the digestion of lactose. Pasteurized milk also lacks lacto-bacilli and other “good” bacteria that help preserve milk, slowly souring it and producing yogurt. These probiotic bacteria exist in harmonious ratios in milk from healthy cows. Because of the presence of lactase and probiotics, many have concluded that real milk is much healthier than pasteurized milk. However, I will not hold forth on the debate over milk’s healthfulness because, like the Senator from Florida, I’m not a scientist, man.

Whether or not real milk is objectively healthier than pasteurized milk, it is certainly more natural. Real milk comes to us exactly as God designed it, with all its enzymes intact. When we drink it, we are embracing the original design of the world, rather than reconfiguring creation with our own artifice. A man might prefer real milk to pasteurized milk for the same reason he prefers fresh strawberries to Skittles, or the lights of the night sky to the lights of the Las Vegas strip. Real milk, with its mix of lactose and lactase and its microbiome of bacteria, offers a path back to nature, back to the harmony of the creator’s vision. It’s the kind of well-ordered balance that is so rare in today’s world. Why then, is it illegal?

Pasteurization has become the norm for milk in this country because the same heat that breaks apart lactase kills harmful bacteria, such as tuberculosis, which can contaminate milk. Pasteurization, however, is not the only way to prevent deadly diseases from entering milk. There is one other alternative: care. Careful milking and storage practices can prevent any dangerous bacteria from ever entering milk, thus negating the need for pasteurization.

I work at a small raw milk dairy located on a Christian community in Texas. We take great pains to keep our milk pure. On a typical morning in the barn we might spend about four minutes prepping cows and cleaning for every one minute we spend milking. Every morning we clean our cows literally from head to tail. We milk the cows into stainless steel buckets, and strain the milk twice through cheesecloth. After milking, our milk is put directly on ice and kept cool until the moment it’s consumed. When customers come to our ranch we insist that they bring a cooler for us to fill with ice. Throughout the process we leave ourselves no room for error. Any milk that might be contaminated is left outside for the dogs or sprayed into our vegetable garden. This isn’t always fun. Mornings can be cold and dark, and nothing is more disheartening than hand-milking an entire gallon into a pail only to pour it out after seeing a speck of dirt land on the surface of the milk.

Milking at this level of cleanliness is certainly demanding, but it is also rewarding. Producing quality food by working intimately with a herd of happy milch-cows is a rare blessing. Andrew Lytle described milking work on a family farm at a time when it was nowhere near as rare as it is today. His essay “The Hind Tit,” which originally appeared in I’ll Take My Stand, includes this reflection on the work of milking: “The process has been long, to some extent tedious, but profitable, because insomuch as it has taken time and care and intelligence, by that much does it have meaning.” Lytle goes on to write that, “The buckets of milk did not move from cow to consumer as raw material moves through a factory.” Tragically, today much of our nation’s milk supply does move from cow to consumer exactly as raw material moves through a factory.

Today, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (or CAFO) dairies can house as many as 50,000 cows. These animals live in pools of their own filth and may be milked up to eight times a day. They live on a carefully monitored diet of grain, which always keeps them on the edge of “negative energy balance,” or consuming fewer calories of feed than they use. This tightly managed diet includes tons of corn and soybeans, which cows never were designed to eat. This can cause ruminal acidosis, a pH imbalance in the cow’s first stomach, which leads to dangerous secondary infections. To keep cows producing in these cramped and unhealthy conditions, they also are given tremendous doses of antibiotics and synthetic hormones. In CAFOs, many dairy cows die after only five or six years, a quarter of the lifespan of pasture raised cattle. These pseudo-farms are only possible because the Department of Agriculture has heavily subsidized the raising of corn and soybeans for industrial scale feeding operations.

Pasteurization fits neatly into the logic of the CAFO. If cows are never treated like cows, why should their milk be treated like milk? Furthermore, pasteurization guarantees that any milk leaving the CAFO can be homogenous and clean, just as uniform as the rations the cows are fed. Because the cows in a CAFO are kept in such confined spaces, and their milk is mixed together in huge vats after it is milked, contamination can spread rapidly.

These CAFOs, like their ancestors, the filthy urban “distiller-dairy,” make apt targets for mandatory pasteurization laws. Industrial dairies are mechanized to a point that makes the care shown by small farmers practically impossible. They generate tremendous quantities of milk that are shipped around the country, giving them the potential to scatter pathogens far and wide. Frankly, I’m glad someone is making sure they pasteurize their milk. As Wendell Berry writes in his essay, “The Whole Horse,” “the power to do large-scale damage, which is gladly assumed by every large-scale industrial enterprise, calls naturally and logically for government regulation.”

The Leviathan state, and its ban on real milk, cannot be separated from an agriculture that defies the human scale. Monstrously large farms and the supply lines that emanate from them pose real threats to the common good, and regulators have stepped in to try to safeguard it. To their industrially trained minds, contaminated milk poses a technical problem. They, in turn, opt for a technical solution in mandatory pasteurization.

This means that in many of these United States, a farmer cannot legally sell his neighbor a gallon of milk. After the milk leaves the cow, but before any money changes hands, the milk needs to be flash-heated. If the law is not followed to the letter, the farmer risks heavy fines. This level of government intrusion may fit into a CAFO, but seems jarringly out of place on a family farm. Doesn’t a man have a God-given right to the milk his herd produces? Shouldn’t he be able to sell that milk to his neighbor without any interference? Isn’t a government that would interfere with this right stepping beyond its natural limits?

Yes, there are natural limits to the state, and no government respecting those boundaries would stop a farmer from selling real milk. However, there is also a natural limit on agriculture. The physiology of the cow, the carrying capacity of a pasture, and the chemical make-up of milk demarcate boundaries for responsible farming. No farm respecting those boundaries would crowd thousands of cattle into a warehouse, feed them an unnatural diet, pump them full of antibiotics and synthetic hormones, and milk them so frequently and intensively that they die at the age of five. A farm that operated within the limits of nature would allow its cattle to graze freely on natural grass, milk them humanely and cleanly, and prioritize the long-term health of the herd. A farm that operated within these limits would not need to pasteurize its milk.

It would be reductionist to insist that industrial scale farming forced government regulators to attack real milk, just as it would be reductionist to argue that subsidized corn and soy forced farmers to adopt the methodology of the CAFO. Instead, we must see the market and the state as parts of a larger political economy. When one segment of the political economy abandons the natural order, the entirety is mutated. This mutation is visible in factory farms and in invasive and exacting regulations.

Americans’ right to purchase real milk exists only in a created order that dictates certain responsibilities. The laws of nature and of nature’s God provide for a space in which human flourishing is possible. The traditional farmer and his customers can enjoy clean, healthy, natural milk, and can do it all without the intervention of the state. This was the truth that Virgil pointed to in his second Georgic. He describes the rustic farmer, “Him nor the rods of public power can bend, / Nor kingly purple, nor fierce feud that drives / Brother to turn on brother, nor descent of Dacian from the Danube’s leagued flood, / Nor Rome’s great state, nor kingdoms like to die.” The world of politics need not intrude on the farmer because he lives by the sweat of his own brow, working closely with his animals and following the patterns of nature. Thus, “His chaste house keeps its purity; his kine / Drop milky udders, and on the lush green grass / Fat kids are striving, horn to butting horn.” It goes without saying that when his kine dropped milky udders, it was after a day of grazing on open pasture.

Alas, we have strayed from these ways like lost sheep. An unnatural order in our politics and an unnatural order in our agriculture coexist, reinforcing and requiring one another. Even farmers who wish to live simply must obey a network of regulations that have developed alongside our industrial agriculture system, and even citizens who wish to live simply are forbidden from buying real milk.

So, what do we think of a country that banned milk?

Skyler Reidy is a recent graduate of the College of William & Mary who lives and works at Everything Jesus Ranch, outside of Seguin, Texas.

{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }

avatar David Smith February 14, 2013 at 11:13 am

It would be one thing if those who wished to remain in the Big Ag industrialized system did so and left the rest of us alone; but that’s not enough! They demand that we all participate. At every level, from the war on raw milk to the violence done by Monsanto to neighboring farmers who don’t wish to have their thug GMO soybeans, the assault on natural rights is “beyond the Beyond.” And all for our good, of course!

avatar conrad February 14, 2013 at 11:31 am

And vice versa, Mr. Smith.

avatar James B February 14, 2013 at 12:16 pm

I agree that there she be very little government or corporate meddling in agriculture and that there should be a renewal of agrarian life. However, some standard needs to be kept. Perhaps there should be local guilds that ensure craft-standards that members agree are essential to the quality and dignity of the diary farmer.

avatar David Smith February 14, 2013 at 4:37 pm

James B said, “. . . some standard needs to be kept. Perhaps there should be local guilds that ensure craft-standards that members agree are essential to the quality and dignity of the diary farmer.”

Perhaps. But I know my family here in rural Tennessee, along with many friends and neighbors, ate quite well without the necessity of any government oversight. Period. the system was self-regulating, since selling dirty or tainted foodstuffs to those who lived around you would not only be morally reprehensible, but would be detrimental to any future business dealings.

I will at least agree that whatever standards may need establishing, must be determined at the LOCAL level, with no overarching DOA or political/business influence from Big Ag.

avatar Thomas McCullough February 15, 2013 at 7:57 am

Mr. Reidy, I wish I had the opportunity to purchase your milk. Where such an operation is allowed what do you find you must charge for a gallon?

avatar Chris Travers February 16, 2013 at 11:09 pm

I think the problem goes way beyond what’s stated here. From the technocracy perspective cows are milk-making machines and consumers are milk-consuming machines. Thus the question is how do we tweak everything to provide milk in the most efficient way possible. Never mind that the product made is impossible to use for any purpose other than drinking (and sometimes not even that). You can’t make cheese with ultra-pasteurized milk, at least without adding a lot of additional chemicals to it (at least a lot of calcium chloride) and I don’t know anyone who has succeeded.

But that’s good from their perspective since we have to buy our processed foods from them too.

What an inhuman and inhumane system.

avatar robert m. peters February 17, 2013 at 11:37 pm

Once in the not too distant past, within my lifetime up into my late teenage years, we had here in Louisiana a commons in and on which feral cows and feral pigs ran. Most of them belonged to someone. They were banded or marked in the spring and rounded up and taken to market in the fall. In our little commonwealth there was a local meat market and a regional meat market; both bought, killed, butchered and sold the meat locally and regionally. Then, in the early 1970′s the state constitution was revised and the laws were changed: there was no more commons. Then big packing corporations in collusion with the federal government and the state government put the little packing companies out of business. It is now illegal to sell the meat of feral cows and pigs.

My great aunt used to make butter and sell it. The regulators shut her down.

Louisiana Baptists, like many denominations, have a state children’s home. Several times a year, churches would have drives for home-canned food to take to the home. Most folks whom I knew canned. Most canned in pint jars; however, almost every family put up some quart jars of each item – beans, peas, etc. – a larger quantity – to send to the children’s home. Government regulation shut down the use of home-canned food. Now, if we participate, we simply “buy” our charity in the form of “safe” cans of food produced by the corporations.

We live in evil times!

avatar Chris Travers February 18, 2013 at 4:02 am

“Government regulation shut down the use of home-canned food. Now, if we participate, we simply “buy” our charity in the form of “safe” cans of food produced by the corporations.”

If I may suggest a simple and attractively subversive way to protest this, I have taken to donating bags of dried beans to food drives. While they are unfortunately also a product of industrial agriculture they are further removed and they require actual human effort to make ready for consumption.

avatar D.W. Sabin February 22, 2013 at 2:27 pm

The abuse of animals within the industrial system leaves a taint which should be swallowed by the consumer. Increasing dietary dysfunction seems to be on the rise and so this taint would seem to be exacting its pay back, despite the great volume produced and hunger allayed.

As usual, the competing interests demonize one another, providing a kind of base theatre of the absurd which distracts long enough between commercial interruptions.

In the end, there is just nothing quite so satisfying as a quaff of un-pasteurized milk produced by a Jersey or Swiss Brown, happy in her field, enjoying the company of her fellow cows as well as some free range chickens pecking about.

Humanity produced industrialization as a good, remembering privation and squalor.
Good did see itself derived. Unfortunately, industrialization tends to be voracious and we humans in thrall to it are altogether uncritical of the ultimate toll. Moneyed interests find themselves at a great remove from their produce and so developing dysfunction is both ignored and denied. One would think that at this juncture, there is enough information before us so that we might make a judicious decision regarding how we as humans wish to feed ourselves and treat our charges. However, the great OZ of our vicarious agora bellows away and angst seems to be the prevailing outcome….angst against a backdrop of a roughening culture.

How can we expect a species that treats its very own so shoddily to care a whit about the lower organisms that constitute the treasure of this life.

avatar David Smith February 24, 2013 at 8:16 am

Mr. Sabin: “Humanity produced industrialization as a good, remembering privation and squalor.
Good did see itself derived. Unfortunately, industrialization tends to be voracious and we humans in thrall to it are altogether uncritical of the ultimate toll.”

And it might be alright if we had a choice, but Industrialism as an extension of the State, will brook no rivals: it must have it ALL (I’m going to have to read Thomas Hobbes, I guess!). If private property and individual and community rights/responsibilities were truly respected, I could continue to tend my own piece of ground and voluntarily buy and sell such things as raw milk without being molested by the nannies constantly looking out for my “safety”.

avatar Chris Travers February 24, 2013 at 9:21 pm

‘If private property and individual and community rights/responsibilities were truly respected, I could continue to tend my own piece of ground and voluntarily buy and sell such things as raw milk without being molested by the nannies constantly looking out for my “safety”.’

This is an interesting point I have occasionally found when arguing with liberals (not necessarily the same as the political left). Liberals (namely those espousing liberal capitalism) tend to see large, well-regulated corporations as a key to ordered liberty. It is far easier to say one has ordered the oligopolies than the millions of self-employed, although the oligopolies never seem to be ordered in terms hostile to their interests. Thus, big business very often is seen as an extension of the state and laws which force people to buy from big businesses are seen as good things, whether it is the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, the Food Safety Modernization Act, or the PPACA.

The problem goes way beyond milk, given that nationally it is essentially illegal to sell hand-made children’s toys…..

avatar Siarlys Jenkins February 24, 2013 at 11:42 pm

But then there was tuberculosis, brucellosis…

…Old time small scale production wasn’t so clean as the reported standards at Everything Jesus Ranch. Pasteur developed the flash heating process before the industrialization and centralization of milk production got underway. Regional dairies (and I mean regions within a state) picking up from small family farms were not consistently or reliably safe from fatal pathogens.

Its true that when people choose to produce artisanal milk by a very labor-intensive process, they can keep raw milk clean and safe, and those with the disposable income to purchase it may well enjoy and benefit from the product. But the big industrial combines LOVE to use such cute examples as poster children for NO REGULATION AT ALL.

The principle should be (and currently isn’t), the longer the supply chain, the more rigid and intrusive the regulation and inspection. Any state CAN permit raw milk sales within its boundaries. If it were up to me, any state would do so, and would restrict it to on-site sales, direct from the producer, with posted warnings about the potential dangers.

Given that most of us can’t afford the more expensive, labor-intensive product, perhaps we should focus on efficient ways to clean up the industrial production line, although I would still want its product sterilized before I eat it.

avatar Eric Chaffee February 26, 2013 at 7:27 pm

Those who’ve never tasted real milk think it scary. I wonder: do they boil their salad before eating it? Hey, it grew in the dirt. (And we all know that dirt is just sh¡t spelled in a polite way.) ~eric.

avatar David Montague February 27, 2013 at 10:39 am

You wrote: “Careful milking and storage practices can prevent any dangerous bacteria from ever entering milk, thus negating the need for pasteurization.
“I work at a small raw milk dairy located on a Christian community in Texas. We take great pains to keep our milk pure.”
I am sure you have high integrity and work very hard to keep your milk clean. But if you believe the first sentence above, you need a course in basic science, because it is impossible to keep ALL bacteria–including dangerous ones–from entering a product that is exposed to an animal, either human or bovine. One reason states regulate milk is because of the possibility–however remote–of tuberculosis–and I’m not willing to take that chance.
The comments quickly become attacks on life in the 21st century…. I may not be excited about modern life, but I don’t see any realistic way of returning to the 18th century. Thank God I live in Vermont!

avatar James Kenney February 27, 2013 at 4:16 pm

Two cow-human diseases were a reason for pasteurization laws–tuberculosis and brucellosis “milk sick”. There is cheap testing for cattle for these conditions. I have no access to natural milk where my wife and I live, but a son and daughter-in-law do. The dairy lobby is as crooked as ever the Teamster’s Union was under Hoffa. Excellent article!

avatar Tom Nesler March 1, 2013 at 3:10 pm

One wonders how selling sushi is still allowed? Perhaps some day we can go to “Raw Milk resaurants”?

OTOH, milk is for baby cows and was never intended for human consumption. Maybe we should just cross it off our list of acceptable foods like veal and goose liver pate…:-)

avatar Brian Douglass March 5, 2013 at 5:36 pm

@Tom Nesler,

Yeah, ain’t that funny? Same with raw oysters? (And those actually do kill a few people a year.)

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: