I've been drinking raw milk on and off since 1975 and I fed it to my children while they were growing up. I've worked on dairy farms, both conventional and organic, and I noted that all the farmers involved also drank their milk raw.

Never in all this time have I known of a single case of milk induced illness. I do however, know many people who've stopped drinking milk – now we're talking store-bought pasteurized homogenized milk – because of a variety of acute or chronic reactions, which are generally labeled “milk allergy” or “lactose intolerance”. What's more, I know of some individuals who got these labels and over time found that they could not only tolerate but enjoy raw milk. I guess that means they were not so much allergic to the milk as they were to the processing.

I've been involved with Michael Schmidt's community of cowshare holders since the beginning and I've had nothing but admiration for the way in which Michael continues to work selflessly at gaining public acceptance for raw milk in Ontario. This is his second time through the court system. When I first heard about the raid on his farm in 2006, my immediate reaction was, “What are they thinking?”. As in, “Have they not learned their history lessons from 1994? -- that by harassing Michael, they're only going to be giving massive positive publicity to the cause of raw milk.”.

Finally, the only way I could really make sense of it was to imagine that out there in the public there was this massive “need to know about raw milk and a need to have access to it.” And that “will” precipitated in the raid on Michael's farm, with all the publicity that the story brought to the entire raw milk issue. And those people – those members of the public -- are counting on the dairy farmers of Ontario and the regulators of the province to act as responsible public servants by sitting down with Michael and coming up with a plan so that raw milk access can be a reality for many more families in this great province of ours.

I've had raw milk and found it much more satisfying than processed milk. I believe that as long as people know what they're drinking they should have access to raw milk.

I completely agree that people should be able to choose to drink raw milk. I also believe, however, that this should nullify their free public health care! If you want to drink unpateurized milk and ignore health officials' warnings - go for it. But if you become ill from said raw milk consumption, pay up.....the health care system is overburdened enough!

Such a controversy over such a simple thing.
Raw milk has been with us for centuries and for a short period of time there were some health problems, associated with "dirty milk" and dirty practices caused by industrialization rather than old farming practices. The DAIRY association has far too much power over what we can drink. Milk is over processed and technically has been turned into lactose pop with added vitamins.

Stop feeding dairy cattle "garbage" ie GMO garbage grains, and overloading them with grains and suppliments, and allow the cows pasture and eat their natural food, and the milk will be healthy. It is not the milk that is the problem, it is the dairy industry. Not the dairy farmer, but the dairy industry that is now dictating to the farmer.

Small dairy famrs are being put out of business with regulations and requirements. Get with it Canada, and realize that your food is YOUR food and you have a right to good quality dairy products, raw, fresh, and healthy. If someone doesn't want it raw they can always pasteurize it themselves. An easy task and at home it does a lot less damage than the industry does to a wonderful product milk. Fortunately I personally own a Jersey cow and have never ever become ill on my milk. Nor have my children or grandchildren.

We will learn the hard way that processing food is destroying food!

I would sincerely like to thank Mr. Schmidt for standing up for all Canadians with the will to think for themselves. I am a fervent believer in living a less processed lifestyle and, thankfully, that includes my thoughts not being preprocessed by the government inspectors. I choose raw milk. I may be wrong, but that is my choice.
Thank you, again Mr.Schmidt. You, and your milk, are always welcome at my table.

As a person who was hospitalized twice as a child for being fed unpasteurized milk I remain concerned about opening this option up.

As a child my parents purchased raw milk from a neighbouring dairy farm for a number of years. After two separate occurences where vomiting and diahrea issues led to hospitalization of myself, our family doctor finally aksed if I was being fed unpasteurized milk. This violation of the law was not reported and my parents agreed to stop using the unpasteurized milk.

If adults want to risk their own health so be it, but how do you open this door without risking those whose immune system cannot handle the bacteria that are in raw milk. I realize that it is only a very small percentage of the population that will likely be affected, but I have to refer back to Pasteur who figured it out years ago.

Isn't human breast milk considered 'raw milk'?
Are babies dying in droves? I had the good fortune of growing up on a farm in Vegreville where we had butter, cream and milk. I think my immune system is healthier for it. This all just smacks of another 'marketing board' scam.
Geez, they have more power than Homeland Security here in Canada.

I just watched the CBC documentary. It was upsetting on many different levels. Obviously the government of this nation is not doing a good job protecting our food. I, for one, have been growing more of what I consume. I am not a milk drinker, yet would try this product just because of how the government has vilified this human being for doing what he, and others love.

This is not about milk being good or not good for you. It's about human rights and the ability to choose and take responsibility for your own actions.

We are becoming a society who will not have to think for ourselves soon. Wear this, drink that, take this when you hurt.

In time, if we continue to let government decide our life values for us, we will wake up one day and ask, "where was that point in time when we just gave in and let government, greed and large corporations take over." They have been moving in slowly already, anticipating and hoping that our busy lives get in the way too much for us to notice the intrusions.

We are noticing. And we will have a limit.

I have had both. Never liked iether. Can't tolerate iether. Love cheese but I take lactaid and that clears upthe gas etc...I worked/ summered on the family farm when I was a under 16 and drank daily a glass of raw milk. Tastes just as awful as pasteurized. Like liquid fat. Makes for a lot of mucous. My dairy farming family never drank it. All of them are lactose intolerant of course. Can't say I ever liked milk and resent how it was forced on me by my family influenced as they were by government propaganda. That being said I know lots of people who love milk and tolerate it quite well. First and formost it is a food and must be regulated because consumers cannot make an informed decision since all experts (farmers to scientists) are eventually proven wrong. THat is the history of progress. So it seems prudent to put the boil before food freedom given milk is just another choice and not the perfect food (or am I and my entire family just sub standard?)

I believe that raw milk should be legal in Canada. Canadians should have the opportunity to make their own health choices and not the government. I have never believed that the processing of food makes it healthier. Food industry is processing our food in an attempt to make more money not an attempt to offer healthy food.

Shouldn't we all be questioning the relationship between big industry and government? Can we really trust an industry whose main goal is to make money?

The Canadian Government has a history of criminalizing "food" for the protection of the commercial interests of marketing boards. The manufacture and sale of margarine was banned in Canada from 1886 until 1948 and in Quebec until 1961 to protect the commercial interests of dairy farmers.

In terms of the rights of the public to choose which foods they buy and serve their families, I find it disturbing when the government officials interviewed for this documentary say they do not mind if adults choose to drink raw milk but oppose those same individuals giving raw milk to their children. In effect what they are saying is that parents are less capable than governments in deciding what is and is not in the best interests of their own children. And one must marvel at where the government draws the line. There is no one to prevent me from feeding my children a steady diet of twinkies, cheez whiz, hot dogs and diet Coke, but my children need to be prevented from having access to farm fresh milk. Where's Rod Serling?

Who can we trust in the government? It seems that anyone who works for the government is wont to give any criticism of the agency by whom they are employed for fear of being terminated. So much for professional intergrity.

Furthermore, it seems the only obstacle to making raw milk safe is the governments refusal to provide adequate inspection of the product. And,God forbid a few more well paying, environmentally friendly jobs could be created by a responsible government.

Shame on those who put big business ahead
of the needs of the public who are in search of healthy food sources.

Thank you CBC for bringing the unfair treatment
of this very brave dairy farmer, Michael Schmidt to attention and hopefully affording him the support he deserves in his uphill battle for justice in Canada where the "glorious & free" part of our national anthem seems to be a joke.

Fifteen years ago I lost my job, waited for my child support to arrive, and spent my small aount of savings. The goverment was not there for my since I owned my home. I live in what would be considered a rural area. The farmers in my area started dropping off vegetables, fruit, and yes raw illegal milk for my family. There was never a word said to me it would just show-up on my front porch. Thank god for these lovely people. My four children ate and drank four litres of milk a day. The children seemed to get sick less often with common ailments back then. Now raw milk is a very rare occasion now and so is child support.

I was very suprised that the documentary never touched on why the goverment basically forces milk farmers to DUMP milk that is over there quota. With so many canadian children doing without this to me is criminal. Not to mention the harm this could do to the enviroment

Most discussions of raw milk in the media fail to make clear three important points about raw milk. This show was no different.

First, almost all discussions of raw milk assume that all raw milk is the same. Of course public health officials and scientists are correct that conventional raw milk should not be consumed. It's produced to be pasteurized so few precautions are taken to keep it clean. But in most jurisdictions that allow raw milk, it has a completely separate supply chain and regulatory regime.

Second, there are two ways to produce safe drinking milk: Either pasteurize it or make sure it is never contaminated in the first place! The end product is the same. In fact this dual track system existed side by side for decades across the US and Canada and still does in any jurisdiction that regulate raw milk, including Quebec which just restarted a dual track system for raw milk production.

Third, the risk of regulated raw milk needs to be put into proper perspective. Of course raw milk makes people sick in jurisdictions where it's allowed and regulated. But so do cold cuts and spinach! Cold cuts and raw fruits and vegetables are 20 to 30 times more dangerous than all dairy according to CDC statistics. So properly regulated raw milk is about as dangerous as a salad and no one is scared to give a salad to their kids.

Raw Milk? Pasturized Milk?

What this boils down to really is Choice. Taking responsibility of one's self ultimately leads to Choice. These times we've come up against is all about a person taking response-ability for themselves first and foremost. Lack of knowledge tends to be the reason for one's lack of "response"-"ability".

If people are educated on what the differences in the two types of milk are and the impact of each on our health, most may choose differently. Fear wouldn't even have a say in the matter. Mind you, its important to note here that not everyone would choose differently, not everyone takes responsibility for themselves at the same time.

Allowing Michael his freedom and the people he serves isn't a threat. The transition would be like the colours of the rainbow. You can't tell when the new colour emerges, it just does.

Tonight's show didn't even talk about the Nutrition of both types of Milk. I think people deserve to know. Most people don't even know what happens to the milk when its homogenized or pasturized and how that impacts the body. Lack of education keeps us from the truth. Too much technology keeps us from having the time to educate ourselves. Hence we have a government that rules against the people. The saying "The truth shall set us free" is becoming more and more truthful.

I could tell you some interesting things I've learned about milk but that would make you choose differentlly, I did. Lack of responsibility and disease runs rampant in our society today. Don't you think that they may be related? We are .... "the people". The government and its laws belong to us, right? What do I know? The best I can do is educate the people so that they can be FREE to make a better choice, if they choose, that is.

Nature is simple really... kill it and die or nuture it and Live. Raw milk is a choice. Pasturized milk is a choice. Educate yourself first before you choose, don't choose based on someone elses ideas on Milk. In the end its your body you have to live with, literally. Its time to trust in Nature again..... if she'll have us. :-( She'll have Me, I'm healthy, vital, and strong. I take response - ability for myself and my life.. Government or no government. I do the best I can. I am an example of true health. Are you?

Peace out...

Josette Curry

Toronto Certified Personal Trainer, Spinning instructor and
Chek Holistic Lifestlye Coach Level 1

How many people get very sick or even dying from raw milk? How many people die every day from heard attack and stroke from eating junk food and fast food? What are the benefits of raw milk? What are the benefits of junk food and fast food? How much science do we need?
One of our first stop when we visit Switzerland is always a milch vending machine on a dairy farm. You bring your own bottle, trow in some coins, and fresh cold raw milk comes out. It is better than Champagne.

I grew up in the city of Zurich and we had a milk man that brought raw milk from house to house. There are also some cheese stores that selling fresh raw milk. I had then self for ten years a dairy farm on P.E.I., and the hole family enjoyed the milk; often fresh, warm, directly from the cow to the cup. I sold and bought raw milk in Canada.

Let's work on the real health problems and I am looking forward till I can buy legal some fresh raw milk in Canada

I liked seeing the healthy cows, the healthy children, the healthy adults with healthy minds and hearts and healthy choices.

Compared to the rosy cheeked raw milkers, the opposition seemed awfully sterile.

I have been drinking raw milk for a couple of years ever since I discovered it available across the US border in Washington State.

There is no substitute for clean, raw milk as a food, so far as children are concerned. Science has not yet succeeded in providing, in the pasteurized variety, those essential qualities that are the only real foundation for a healthy child.

Unfortunately, many grossly distorted statements are current regarding our milk supply. If we are to believe the protagonists of the Pasteurization-of-all-milk-at-all costs Party, raw milk is as good, or rather as bad, as rat poison--although as the Minister of Agriculture recently stated, "the human race existed long before Pasteur was heard of."

The process of pasteurization was debated in the House of Commons and the suggestion made that no raw milk should be sold for human consumption. This would mean installation of expensive machinery by every supplier, and if it should become compulsory there is little doubt that many small firms would shut down and the business pass in the hands of a few big dealers.

If we are to be compelled to drink pasteurized milk, we should at least understand what pasteurization means. It set out to accomplish two things: Destruction of certain disease-carrying germs and the prevention of souring milk. These results are obtained by keeping the milk at a temperature of 145 degrees to 150 degrees F for half an hour, at least, and then reducing the temperature to not more than 55 degrees F.

It is undoubtedly beneficial to destroy dangerous germs, but pasteurization does more than this--it kills off harmless and useful germs alike, and by subjecting the milk to high temperatures, destroys some nutritious constituents.

With regards to the prevention of souring, sour raw milk is very widely used. It is given to invalids, being easily digested, laxative in its properties, and not unpleasant to take. But, after pasteurization, the lactic acid bacilli are killed. The milk, in consequence, cannot become sour and quickly decomposes, while undesirable germs multiply very quickly.

Pasteurization's great claim to popularity is the widespread belief, fostered by its supporters that tuberculosis in children is caused by the harmful germs found in raw milk. Scientists have examined and tested thousands of milk samples, and experiments have been carried out on hundreds of animals in regard to this problem of disease-carrying by milk. But the one vital fact that seems to have been completely missed is that it is CLEAN, raw milk that is wanted. If this can be guaranteed, no other form of food for children can, or should, be allowed to take its place.

Dirty milk, of course, is like any other form of impure food--a definite menace. But Certified Grade A Milk, produced under Government supervision and guaranteed absolutely clean, is available practically all over the country and is the dairy farmer's answer to the pasteurization zealots.

Recent figures published regarding the spread of tuberculosis by milk show, among other facts, that over a period of five years, during which time 70 children belonging to a special organization received a pint of raw milk daily, only one case of the disease occurred. During a similar period when pasteurized milk had been given, 14 cases were reported.

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 offence 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 the 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.

I think it's amazing that Health Canada and the Canadian government can be so quick to dismiss the benefits of raw milk. People have been drinking raw milk a lot longer than they have pasteurized.

What will be next, making tomato's or pepper illegal because there have been cases of e.coli popping up. I think the requirement of pasteurization is a ploy to allow big business to create a monopoly in the market and take away the individual rights of the people they serve.

I reserve the right to choose what products I consume and I find it appalling that the Canadian government will put small farmesr out of business that are standing up for every Canadians right to choose.

I've never had raw milk, so I can't speak to its benefits from experience. However, I do believe that Canadians should have the right to choose to drink raw milk. In the documentary, the government or regulatory agencies make it sound like the second its legalized that there will be a massive rush to drink raw milk and that outbreak of illness of epidemic proportions will spontaneously occur. I would think that just because raw milk became legalized does not mean that sales and demand will go through the roof. People will simply have a LEGAL choice.

What struck me more than anything during this documentary was that though many of the worst case scenarios with listeriosis or some other pathogen, they did not give any definative proof of any kind that that any of the (rare) cases of potentially related illnesses had any connection to the consumption of raw dairy.

Needless to say, an circumstantial assertions without facts to back them up appear to be more like smear campaigning and fear mongering than actually providing empirical evidence.

Excellent documentary! I consume illegal raw milk on a daily basis and would much rather have access to legal raw milk.The fact that many countries around the world provide access to raw milk without any illness to the consumers negates the position of the officials in the documentary who state that it is just too dangerous.

And what about all those people who drink their own milk? Or should we be prohibited from buying any foods fresh and raw because they are dangerous? Lets pasteurize lettuce and tomatoes!!! Some parents might feed those to their unsuspecting children, who are too young to choose the pasteurized produce for themselves!? Ludicrous. And if raw milk is so deadly, I wish to see all the bodies of those who were poisoned! Oh, wait, there aren't any.

I find it interesting that with food safety such a timely issue that there should be any pushback to regulations ensuring that milk is pasturized before it is sold to the public.

I have enjoyed raw milk myself but I would feel more confidant feeding pasturized milk to my family

We have a system that works very well to protect our health, raw milk sale should continue to be prohibitted

It is commendable that the Health Dept has stopped Canadian cows from getting growth hormone shots. So our government has been right about this and makes Canada a safer place.

However there is more to be done. Our government should act responsibly and control raw milk the same way they test and control pasturized milk. This would make digestable milk available to those children and some of the elderly who cannot digest pasteurized milk. And would give those already convinced of the value of raw milk, the opportunity to get on with their more creative work instead of waging a wasteful battle with a bureaucracy.

Who ever ordered the raid on Michael Schmidt's farm is one example of authority in the wrong hands. A terrible transgression of human justice against a good man who is doing his best to change an unjust law and make this a healthier country.

With the rising cost of health care one would think that the Government department of health might get quite enthusiastic about raw milk, once they are informed enough to be convinced of its benefits. I'm sure they must have some intelligent people we haven't yet heard from, who could follow the logic and change the law to make raw milk safe and legal, instead of the obfuscation some of its employees are doing to stop this needed change..

When things don't go the way that any thinking person expects I always wonder who benefits from keeping things the same.? Civil Service inertia? or what? We do pay them so far, and jobs are getting scarce.

Excellent comments above.

The disturbing thing to me is that one of the raw milk opposition seems unwilling to admit that the evidence for pasteurization over a century ago falls horrifically below standards for evidence today.

Because milk is pasteurized as a rule its impossible to study the long term risks and effects of both milk handling policies. That aside, the claims that lactose intolerant people can drink raw milk if verifiable should be phenomenal evidence that the procedure is not necessarily desirable. Making the only kind of cows milk some people can drink illegal would pass for discriminatory in todays legal system.

I'm more than a bit bias as I've never been exposed to or had any danger in my life of getting the measles, but I still almost died at two from getting a vaccine. I oft wonder if we can consider the long term later in life effects of standard vaccines sufficiently tested.

Like raw milk or not, the issue of freedom of choice is a crucial one here. It isn't even like smoking, no one will get second hand raw milk related diseases. I don't think allowing the government control of such a small, mundane choice in life is a safe for freedom in the long term.

i grew up on a farm in a large farming community.the hazelmere and clover valleys in south surrey,BC. everywhere there were dairy opperations and small family run farms. we raised processed almost very thing that was put on the table.

all the farmers drank raw milk and so did their children. i was never aware of any illness or negative repercussions due to contaminated food, milk or meat. i am now an organic grower on the sunshine coast,BC. now we are told that we cannot sell out of the gate any meat or even eggs,they say the meat must be processed by a regulated slaughter facility.

we cann ot sell our eggs or our produce? this latest turn by the regulatory mill is preposterous. it smacks as power mongering and is nothing if not heavy handed governing by mean spirited politicians. to make illegal something that this country was founded on.what of the e-coli in the government regulated meat business.the salmonella in bagged spinach.the maple leaf poisoning fiasco.

how does the government fare?theys eem to be untouchable.think of the expansion of executive power.driven by dark neocon elitists.think of their disdain for intellectuals and pro choice advoctes. think of them criminalizing the working class,the hardest working people on earth.....the farmer. think corporate earnings versus the working class farmer. think corruption and cronyism. are we actually in need of milk police? wake up people our democracy is in danger. dont sit back and let these dictators have their way.stand for something...........or fall for everything.

When I was 12 years old and my brother was just two years old our folks moved to a semi rural area of South East British Columbia.

Over a period of four years we got raw milk from an immediate neighbor who had a Jersey cow. The milk was NOT pasteurized and no one in our immediate family or our visiting relatives ever got sick.

If all the dairies practiced good hygiene that would be something. With pasteurization we end up with the lowest common denominator in milk quality. The milk can only be as good as that supplied by the least clean dairy.

I'm amazed at the obtuse attitude of the public health when confronted with fact - yet they refuse to supply documentation to support their claim they have current evidence of harm
Show us the bodies.

After 60 years neither my brother nor I can tolerate pasteurized milk.

To me it is simply a question of freedom, and the growing lack of it in Canada.

I was born and raised on an Ontario Dairy Farm. Access to raw milk was not an issue. Being silly enough to drink it without being pasteurized wasn't. For that I have to thank my mother and father.

If others wish to drink raw milk ...... well I can't stand or would not stand in their way.

If you or anyone else can get around the current Milk Marketing Board and it's Quota program .. then knock yourself out.

It was good that the movie had both parts talking about raw milk. What I didn't like is that they use the scare technique. They showed those people affected by e.coli or listeria from some cheese, but it was mentioned that it was not from raw milk. Than again about a child, but it wasn't raw milk. The lady describing the pasteurization process said that it is pure milk, they just pasteurize it. Yeah, maybe she is right about this process. Then how come my organic milk has vitamin D3 in it? How can it be pure milk in this case? What about homogenization? Lucky me I found non-homogenized milk at least.

And as many people said, this is not just about raw milk, it is about freedom to choose what we eat. If the lady from the Health is so concern about our health, please take out from the store all that junk food. Do you think that's healthy? She said that the Canadians are one of the most healthiest people. I laughed. They just announced yesterday at the radio that the number of people with heart diseases is growing. And this is because they take care of us, I think.

Thank you for reading!

I feel that raw milk should be legal here in Ontario/Canada. There are many countries that allow for it's sale, and their Governments have worked with the farmers. The result is a safe industry, as shown by the statistics. As Canadians, we should have a choice. We do live in a Democracy. Right? I support Michael. I feel the Government has been very unfair to him, and should listen to the people who voted them in.

I'm a dairy farmer and drink raw milk, however at my wife's insistance she and kids don't. I don't really have a problem with this because I don't believe in any health benefits of raw over pasteurized. I simply don't like selling something for 1$ and then buying it back for 2$.The milk I use is always fresh never more than 36 hours in the fridge. That being said,I would never advise anyone to drink raw milk. When we have a good safe system in place,why mess around with it.

The use of governments as a tool by corporate interests to further their private advantage undermines what's left of citizen respect for the moral stature of government.

In a comment on a recent CBC forum, a commenter who Michael Schmidt recognized as spouting the standard DFO (Dairy Farmers of Ontario) line about the dangers of raw milk made the fascinating statement that it was the DFO who was "prosecuting" Schmidt "and the other raw milk nuts".

Clearly, the role of government in a civilized world is to stand up for the public interest in the face of corporate bullying.

As others have pointed out, there is no end of other products that are worse for your health than raw milk. And as long as the standards of production are equivalent to what Schmidt is doing, any short term health hazards are pretty minimal. And the long term health benefits are very significant.

Reader interested in following developments in the Michael Schmidt raw milk case might like to check out this recent raw milk blog:
http://thebovine.wordpress.com

I am constantly amazed at the depth and breadth of ignorance and narrow mindedness of bureaucrats' denial of any changes to either the effect refrigeration in all homes now as compared even to 1955, when many parents with young children still had no fridge or even a cold box in their flat.

Hygienic standards on small farms are much higher than early factory farms, green pastures and truly contented cows, combine to produce a superior product.

Forget about the government making any policy changes that will affect the profits of the big agrobusiness, from whom they take their orders. The government will never give you more choice and it uses fear to keep you all in line.

Pasturization has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with protecting the bacteria breeding factory farming practices and its profits at you and your childrens' expense.

My children and I have all been drinking raw milk for years. None of us have ever been sick from its consumption.

By choice I purchase local organic and biodynamic veggies and grains. Over ten plus years these choices have really become part of our way of life. I simply could not imagine the ability to choose the food I prepare for my family being removed.

I am counting on the government to look further into the standards and regulations in those many countries where the sale and distribution of raw milk is legal.

I have a deep respect and admiration for Michael and his commitment to providing healthy food. I have been a supporter of Glencolton farms for many years now and will continue to do so.

I think the raw milk debate is fascinating because it reveals our need to examine the existing systems and structures of mass food production. For instance, pasteurization has become a quick fix for dairy farms who do not provide healthy environments for their animals nor do they provide adequate food sources (mostly grain and silage) to their animals. Health officials are very right when they say that drinking non-pasteurized milk from large dairy farms is dangerous. I agree, anything coming from these cows should be placed into question. But should we support a system that produces dangerous milk until the point at which it gets pasteurized? Is this not a band-aid solution to the real problem?

Raw milk farmers allow people to enjoy an alternative, where they not only enjoy the health benefits of raw milk but also the privilege to support farmers who have decided to farm with more sustainable and ethical farming practices. Let's give choice to families who wish to support farms that align with their values. Why wouldn't government officials wish to support and embrace families who are taking a proactive approach to their nutrition, health, and community?

My choice to consume raw milk was more to do with the health concerns related to the pasteurization and homogenization process. It is sad that those in authority that appeared on the show, are totally ignorant of the very real downside of processed milk. It all depends on the farm. If the cattle are living in dirty conditions and being fed unatural food, then yes, the raw milk is not fit for human consumption. If the cattle are living in fields and eating grass, that is a totally different matter. When I told a friend from Poland about the so called dangers of raw milk, she burst out laughing. that is all they ever had and no-one ever got sick from it. A very informative website is www.raw-milk-facts.com/raw_milk_safety.html

It may be true that allergies and compromised immune systems may be as a result of living in to clean an environment. Many people are saying that they've consumed raw milk for years with no ill effects to them or their family and neighbors.

Years ago families tended to be larger and you could expect to lose family members prematurely to one thing or another,food borne illness being one of those things.we've come to a point where we can't have people dying from preventable things.

If you drink raw milk you probably will never suffer any ill effects and if you believe in health benefits, you may even think you feel better. But I wonder if we could feel the same about eating in a restaurant where the food is not stored or prepared properly and the staff do not wash their hands after using the toilet.

My family has been consuming raw milk for over a year and can attest to the taste and health beneifts we have personally experienced. We had stopped drinking pasteurized milk years ago for several health and ethical reasons and were thrilled to be able to source raw milk under a cow share program. Raw milk, when collected and distributed correctly, from cows who have been treated lovingly and humanely, will never cause disease by contamination or impurities. We all need to stop and think about this carefully. Raw milk is as pure as breast milk and the dairy industry has performed atrosities both to the cows and the public in the name of profit The fear that has been instilled in the general public regarding the consumption of raw milk is outdated, ill formed and manipulated by the huge conglomerate that is the milk industry. Do yourself a favor and educate yourselves. Not by reading pamphlets prepared by Health Canada or the Dairy Foundation but by the science and studies that have proven countless times that consuming raw milk is not only tastier and healthier but actually prevents - NOT causes disease. Look to Europe and the Unitied States for proof. Plenty exists. Lastly, I will continue to demand that I have access to natural, organic, pure whole food and will stop at nothing to ensure that I am able to obtain it by any means. I applaud Michael for this courageous pioneering battle that he has taken on.

I believe strongly in the positive benifits of raw milk. They outweigh the personal status of the saftey issue as my everyday health has improved greatly.

There is little I can add that has not already been said here. But the issue to me is freedom to choose a product of benefit, and responsiblity for individual choice to drink and recommend pure raw milk to people of all ages with needs for milk It can. reduce lactose intolerance, reduction in skin afflictions (ie. excema) reduction in bronchitus occurence and earaches clearly caused from drinking commercial milk. These are just some benieits which can be experienced.

At least, the milk marketing industry should be encouraged to re-address the necessary temperatures of pasteurization to retain more of the original content of milk today. A more strigent look at how milk cows are being fed and raised could only benefit the commercial industry itself.
There is less evidence of disease being caused by clean raw milk than there is of disease being caused by commercial milk and milk products.

Its not right that any individual who desires to drink raw milk, not be allowed to purchase it, while only those living and working on farms have access to it.

Dear John Doyle

Raw Milk Crusader: Michael Schmidt (Newsworld's The Lens, 10 p.m.) is about the Ontario farmer who has made the distribution and consumption of unpasteurized milk into an evangelical cause. It's a fascinating documentary with many passionate declarations on whether farmers should be allowed to sell raw milk and the public should be allowed to consume it. It's rich in irony.

It's also an enraging program, largely because the real issue is the existence of the urban bourgeoisie's delusion of invincibility, ignorance about science and tendency to posture in order to justify selfishness.

You must realize that science today is much different from the past, naturally. In some cases today, scientific studies and investigations may be about progress, and improvements. However unfortunately, science today is also about money (and sometimes so are articles written like the one you have written here – I hope that this not the case). It is not difficult to pay someone to present partial or completely invalid results in order to profit. Decisions made today by some government officials and managers of certain agencies are sometimes made not for progress or improvement but for money – even at the sacrifice of progress or improvements, or even at the sacrifice of people’s health in general. It is very sad sir, but this is a fact.

You have made a grave mistake by assuming that the people who believe they are healthier and better off drinking raw milk, have made that decision because they are ignorant about science, or because they are selfish. Do you really think such a large group of people who have been drinking raw milk for so many years have come together to fight for the right to drink raw milk for no other reason than the simple fact that they have experienced only positive results? You must ask yourself why so many people have developed such strong supportive feelings toward raw milk – especially if there is so many so called consequences for consuming it? Maybe in reality, scientists or government officials of the past, whether because of money, or because of ignorance at the time of decisions made, were wrong in their decision to begin pasteurizing raw milk? What if new facts are being presented today that show that raw milk is extremely healthy? Do you remember a time when “scientists” told the general population to avoid eating egg yolks because they contain cholesterol? At that time there was hard evidence and the major scientific community agreed that the consumption of egg yolks was unhealthy. But now you see the opposite opinion is held by the scientific community because further investigations and research has uncovered more information about both cholesterol and eggs. Is this example not enough to at least open your mind to the possibility that these “nitwits” that claim raw milk improves their lives may be on to something?

Schmidt himself is a fascinating character, self-mythologizing relentlessly and shrewdly. He's always in a hat or cap and presents himself as an artist. No doubt his little farm is clean and well-run, but when Schmidt and his cabal of celebrity-chef supporters appear together and prattle on about taste and claim to be against "big business," they're just nitwits.

Although you are a good writer, it is unfortunate that you have to resort to simply being offensive. Nothing said here is worth any comment by me other than the fact that it is simply adolescent.

They posit a farming world of green pastures, cute cows and earnest farmers dutifully engaged, at every step, in protecting the health of those who consume their products. Well, if only it were so. A little model farm such as Schmidt's is not representative. It's a fantasy version of reality.

You were very accurate in your statement here. This is exactly why we have to get away from the impersonal, faceless relationship between farmers and their consumers. MOST IMPORTANTLY we must get away from the current reality of farming so that we can avoid unaccountability of the quality of food produced. You’re exactly right – farmers should have a personal relationship with their consumers directly. That way the quality of their food produced will be obvious. In Mr. Schmidt’s case he has obviouslyl done an exceptional job in regards to producing healthy food, by the fact that he has so many supporters – many of which have consumed his milk for years and years on end – both young and old.

Instead of having animals cooped up in small areas where they are deprived of sunlight fresh air, and healthy movement, we should be raising animals outside in green pastures. Your exactly right again when you say that cows are not cute when they are half covered in their own feces because they have to live on top of it. Here is a simple fact you may have not considered. Everyone has accepted the belief that when you don’t get enough sunlight you can become deficient in Vitamin D. Let me ask you a question: if an animal has little or no exposure to sunlight, will that animals body (which we consume) have very much vitamin D in it to offer us? Would an animal exposed to more sunlight than another have more vitamin D to offer you if you consume it? Of course.

I would guess that there is more potential for having disease in a cow that lives in a pile of its own feces than that of a cow who is free range and walks in fresh green grass, breathes fresh air, and enjoys the sun.

Schmidt himself says in the doc, "It is an issue of the freedom to farm and freedom of choice for every consumer in this province and country. Bureaucracy and government is governing us as if we cannot think."
What utter twaddle. The pasteurization of milk is about the prevention of milk-borne Mycobacterium bovis (that is, non-pulmonary tuberculosis), as well as typhoid and salmonella, that are commonly found to be present in raw milk. Pasteurization was a major landmark in the struggle to keep children and the elderly safe from a variety of disease. It made the world a better place. It's not some cockamamie notion invented to stop the urban middle class from having a more piquant taste in their milk or cheese. La-di-da.

You think that this is not about freedom? Let us take alcohol for example. Alcohol kills hundreds of thousands of people each year either directly or indirectly from alcohol poisoning, liver disease and drinking and driving. Not to mention the consequences associated with fights and abuse that are a result of excess drinking. Yet this liquid is legal. Even if it were true that in a rare case raw milk has made a person sick (which it is not true – hence all the support Schmidt has) it is far far less dangerous than alcohol. This alone makes the regulation over raw milk ridiculous.

Did you know that doctors and scientists use to use blood letting to cure an illness? Nowadays we know that we were wrong about certain theories of the past. Could it be true that the current belief that raw milk is so dangerous is wrong?

Alcohol is legal despite all the hard accepted facts about the dangers associated with it. Raw milk is illegal despite all the people demanding they have access to it. It is law right now that farmers can drink their own milk and they do all the time, and yet so many people are against consumption of raw milk. The farmers that are producing the milk drink it themselves – if raw milk was so dangerous to consume, then we’d have no pasteurized milk at all since all of the farmers providing raw milk for pasteurization would be sick or dead! Not to mention all of Europe and half the United States.

Sure, there are, as the doc points out, places in the world where raw milk is produced and sold. In the European instances, the farms producing raw milk are very heavily regulated - usually at a high cost partly carried by the farm itself - and in the United States (as is also pointed out in the program) the allowing of raw milk has led to an increased level of children being infected by E. coli. Little wonder that some of the scientists and food regulation officials interviewed for the program roll their eyes in frustration.

I have spoken directly to many people that have moved to Ontario from both the US and Europe who have been consuming raw milk from birth. Upon coming to Ontario the story is always similar “ As soon as I stopped drinking raw milk I didn’t feel as good, and noticed that I was getting sick more often”.

With all due respect sir, the fact remains that there are entire nations that are consuming raw milk today and there are few, if any sick or dying from it. To my knowledge there are no cases of tuberculosis caused by raw milk in these nations – and if I have overlooked any occurrences, they are very few indeed – far less than the number of people that DIE say, from consuming a food that has gone bad because it sat on the truck or the shelf too long – another fact that can be almost entirely eliminated by direct farmer to consumer relationships.

The vulnerability of children is a key issue. Sure, adults are entitled to choice - but allowed the choice of giving unpasteurized milk to children, who have no choice? Call me peculiar, but the safety of children has nothing to do with the "nanny state" interfering in some alleged gourmand's taste for dangerous foods. One reason the nanny state exists is to protect the young, the elderly and the vulnerable.

It is the responsibility of the parents to choose what is good or bad for their children. Parents are legally allowed to feed their children fast food which has been shown to cause heart disease and hyperactivity in children and adults. Fast food has also resulted in food poisoning and death in hundreds of thousands of people all over the world. Parents have the right to feed their children fast food but not the right to feed them raw milk? Have you looked up statistics on how many people die each year from raw milk consumption in Europe or the US or the farmers of Canada who are legally allowed to drink it? From my personal research I can’t find any statistics on any deaths at all. Does this not raise an eyebrow and make you wonder if Mr. Schmidt may in fact be fully intelligent and justified in his actions? Does it not make you wonder if “big business” really does have something to do with the ban of raw milk? Another point to consider is that the few cases of sickness associated from drinking raw milk might be misleading. For example, was the raw milk that was consumed in these instances still fresh? Was it taken from a cow that was raised poorly or not well taken care of? Don’t’ forget about how many people get themselves sick from buying meat and leaving it in the fridge for 1-2 weeks before consuming it and then ending up with food poisoning. Could the extremely small amount of cases of illness from raw milk be related to any of this? Of course it could. Can you then say that noone should be allowed to consume raw milk – absolutely not! That’s like saying people shouldn’t be allowed to purchase meat that isn’t already cooked, because there is the possibility of food poisoning.

Me, I grew up where the dairy industry was everything. I can still hear the clatter of milk churns being collected and taken away for pasteurization. Nobody thought it was unnecessary government regulation. We were all kinda glad that we were free of the diseases and infections that shortened the lives of our ancestors.

This must be around the same time that the government fully supported and legalized smoking tobacco? Remember the times when everyone thought it was perfectly healthy to smoke a cigarette throughout the day? Remember how everyone was kinda glad that they could indulge in that great feeling offered from a cigarette? Look at the present number of lung cancer patients, asthma sufferers born to parents who smoked, and deaths related to cigarettes. I only point this out to show you that it is not always wise to believe that the government knows best. Remember that people can be paid off, and also that the knowledge about health is ever changing, and thus the government could simply be wrong sometimes – as they have been numerous times. The important point to realize here is that people should be able to make their own choice.

Maybe when you were a kid some farmers had started using poor husbandry techniques that raised production but sacrificed cleanliness – thus leading to poor quality milk or milk that was infected. The government may have mistaken this for a problem with raw milk, when really the problem was the new techniques used to produce it. Maybe Schmidt knows how to produce healthy raw milk that has powerful benefits to its consumers?

I hope some of what I have said has helped you realize that things aren’t always as they seem. Just because you read something or hear something all over the media doesn’t mean that it is true – you should know this writing for a large newspaper. For every study that “proves” this, another study “proves” that. Maybe instead of forcing the current (but ever-changing) accepted idea of what do to and what not to do, maybe we should, in some instances, make the decision up to the consumer themselves. If raw milk were made legal and people chose to drink it and then became sick – I don’t think it would take much convincing to get them to stop consuming it. If raw milk were made legal and it made them healthy, I don’t’ think it would be long before many more and eventually all peole began drinking raw milk. Maybe this is what “big business” might be trying to prevent from happening?

And now consider the current situation – we have many many people who have consumed raw milk for years on end and wish to continue doing so because of the positive benefits they have received. How could anyone turn them down?

I urge you John Doyle, to research this more fully, listen to the arguments the people that want raw milk have – read about the benefits raw milk has to offer. Maybe one day you’ll be able to drink raw milk yourself and you might enjoy a better quality of life.

Of all the arguments I have presented here, consider my one last argument the best I have to offer – Both me and my wife drink raw milk and benefit from it greatly. So much so, that our goal is to move to a hobby farm in the future where we can drink it fresh every day, along with having access to fresh eggs, and fresh meat and vegetables. You can be sure Sir, that we will have green pastures.

Good afternoon;
I am immpressed with response the show has produced well done!!. I was born and raised on a dairy farm in South Auckland New Zealand and always drank "fresh milk" not raw!!. I find it a little strange that the sale of fresh milk is illegal as when I was in Kensington market buying New Zealand cheese ( I know not good for my carbon footprint!)
I was offered a cream cheese from Quebec made from raw milk. Yes I did ask if the man meant fresh milk.

Also with regard to food safety I was surprised the the outbreak of lysteria in maple leaf products that killed 20 people is not more of a concern. Call me cynical but maybe if Mr shmitt paid for a milk quota and the brought more cows to supply is fresh milk customers it may not be a big issue.

For too long we have accepted more and more chemicals being poured into our food which is unacceptible. It is clearly obvious that food regulations in canada are influenced by agribussness and not the consumer. It seems to be worse under nafta. as the regulations are harmonized with the USA. Fortunatly we do have options.
keep up the good work regards don

Thank you for showing such a well balanced and thoughtful documentary. There is an elephant in the room and no one is talking about him. Michael Schmidt wants to sell his heatlhy milk to a select group. Okay, the reason that they are coming down so hard on him is that if he can sell raw milk then the typical dairy farmer can and THE AVERAGE DAIRY COW IS VERY ILL.

We must pasturize this milk because of the harmful bactiria in it. Just think of the backlash that would occur if people realy knew the truth about their food. The point is that just because milk is raw does not make it dangerous. AND just because milk is pasturized and inspected does not make it healthy or safe.

The same goverment that regulates the sale of tobacco tells us that raw milk is dangerous. The same group of typical farming methods that brought us bse tells us that raw milk is dangerous. We are the public and we can decide for ourselves what is healthy. This is a matter of freedom of choice. Perhaps a warning label should be included.

The other G7 countries have a form of Raw Milk that is legal for sale why not Canada? The excessive power of Milk marketing boards and the government insure a plentiful and cheap source of unhealthy milk. Some of us do not agree with the status quo and some of us will fight these regulations. If the 20th century is any guide we must be fearful of people who just go allong without thinking. Think for yourself and then drink for yourself.

Casey Hayes

I guess it really boils down to are there really health benefits to drinking raw milk?

There must be some bonafied unbiased studies that would put all debate to rest.Anectdotal or subjective evidence really doesn't hold much water in the lab. How we think we feel can be influenced by many things. We all have rules and laws to follow,trades people need their cards,bars and restaurants their licences etc...

As a small dairy family farm I try to play by the rules such as investing in environmentally friendly manure storage and handling,keeping the cattle and facilities as clean as possible animal health is always my 1st priority. I pasture my animals in the summer and buy milk quota.

I don't think mr schmidt should be above the law and he should be treated the same as anyone who is caught breaking the law.

Anyone could tell me what's going to happen if your family drank the milk contaminated by a dead rat?
We recently found a dead rat inside the milk pouch we bought from the nearby supermarket.

I thought that the story was great. I do feel very bad for the farmer.

I think that it is very sad that raw milk is illegal in many areas. I first heard about raw milk on the
mercola.com website. Later, I gathered quite a bit of interesting info about raw milk from The Weston A Price Foundation. I would strongly encourage everyone to do their own research.

Fortunately, in my state of Massachusetts, it is perfectly legal to buy raw milk as long as it is purchased directly from the farm. There are, however, special rules for farmers who sell raw milk which include regular state inspections.

Not living anywhere near the farm that we chose to be our raw milk supplier, my husband and I actually actually bought a full-sized freezer and 3 huge coolers which can hold a combined total of 32 gallons of milk (the milk freezes very well and tastes great). We make the journey every couple of months to a farm in central Massachusetts that is 2 1/2 hours away.

Not realizing that I could purchase raw milk in Massachusetts, I had originally ordered it mail order (it was legal because it was considered a dietary supplement due to the colostrum content). While the company told me that it would freeze well, after the 3000 mile journey it made to reach me, it must have thawed and then froze again several times. In any event, it began to sour within 2 days after I defrosted it.
Since I had spent $150.00 in shipping fees plus another $70.00 for the ten half gallons of colostrum, I had no intention of letting it go bad.

Determined to get my money's worth before that milk soured, I gave up breakfast and lunch and replaced it with the milk (I couldn't eat breakfast and lunch plus the two large glasses of milk because the calorie content would be too much).

After about a month, things started to change.
Suddenly, my hair which had gotten very greasy over the last few years, was clean and not at all greasy. My husband noticed that my face had changed. Rosacea had made my face look bright red. It was now only a light pink and covered a smaller area of my face. My asthma improved, too.

When I had used up my shipment of colostrum, I happened to read a newspaper article that informed me that raw milk can be sold legally in my state. The article included an interview with a farmer who was licensed to sell it. I called the farm and requested 10 gallons (I chose the farm because their 3 year transition to organic would be complete by 2009 and because the cows were grass fed on pasture and NOT fed grains).

As I absolutely love the changes that I have experienced since trying to use up that original shipment of milk (colostrum), I continue to have 16 oz of raw milk in place of breakfast and 16 oz in place of lunch.

Incidentally, I happened to pick up a copy of the Northeast Organic Farmers Association (NOFA) brochure last summer at the farm which included an article on raw milk. The health benefits it listed were very surprising.

Raw milk may not be for everyone. I would just suggest that you research both sides before you make your decision.