"For the Sake of the Children" Is a Tough Media Barrier to Overcome
We all need to become more savvy not only about the food we eat and where we obtain it, but about interpreting all the related media messages that are created—spin, as the politicians like to call it.
We like to think that our country has a free press, and it’s other countries like China and Saudi Arabia that put out propaganda. But as a number of people commenting on my previous post point out, we are subject to all kinds of propaganda about food and health (not to mention politics and culture)—it’s just sometimes a little more slick and subtle than in other countries.
An important public relations battle is being fought under the radar, as it were, over these issues. Whether it’s about raw milk or the spread of disease or the labeling of food products, it happens. The good news is that more of us are becoming sensitive to it. I think that Steve Bemis makes an excellent suggestion in advising that we try to counter it with letters to the editor and every other such way.
The bad news is it’s going to be a long and tedious fight, because the germ fighters have used fear so successfully. I had that point driven home recently in a note forwarded to me involving a correspondence with a well-established science-health writer who’s been known to be open-minded. I don’t feel it’s appropriate to share the person’s name, since the note is a private email between a raw milk farmer and the media person. But here is a key paragraph:
“I embrace the good bugs, but not at the risk of exposing young children to the bad. It sounds like you have an excellent record--probably due to the fact… that your cows are on green pasture and, I presume, not in crowded conditions. But I've also seen the studies finding highly drug resistant disease-causing bacteria in raw milk on organic farms. How big is the risk? Maybe small. But I wouldn't risk exposing a young child, for all the benefits of the good bugs in raw milk.”
I should point out that this isn't the first time I've seen this argument from media people. It's one of the reasons the subject of raw milk hasn't received anything approaching fair coverage. Even for those “open-minded” individuals, a great fallback position is “for the sake of the children.” It’s going to take some effort to change their views on life.
P.S. I’ll be traveling for much of the next week, and not in a position to do much posting, so please excuse me. Back the week after.
The Complete Patient
in Complementary Health
|
23 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (23)
When my son was about 4-5 yrs old, he had told me that we "needed" to buy some of that "brush your breath gum". It was Dentine (sp) gum. I sat down and told him about what I believed advertising was and the reasons for it... Companies had a product and they wanted to sell it so they tried to make you want or think you NEEDED things. At his young age he seemed to understand that. I also told him if he kept his teeth brushed, he wouldn't have bad breath.
Most times I ignore the ads on TV, to me, most seem insultingly stupid.
"For the sake of the children". Wow, it is bad to give them raw milk yet ok to fill thier growing bodies with chemical infused processed/junk foods? There is something wrong with that picture.
Safe travels to you.
The episodes, made between 1969 and 1974, have been released in the US with the caution: "These early Sesame Street episodes are intended for grown-ups and may not suit the needs of today's preschool child."
I suppose the above, is "for the sake of the children" too.
There are many out here that are doing raw milk just FOR this reason….FOR the sake of the children. Being blessed with living food from an early age, building a body and spirit from wholesome, nutrient dense food, is a gift far too few kids are getting today. Many even feel that the processed, dead food supply of today’s world is hindering the full expression of human evolution. (while proving this might be difficult, it lends itself to an interesting debate).
There is nothing greater than seeing a child grow on your milk. There is nothing quite like seeing the pasture in their smile, and recognizing that calcium in their bones could’ve been spread on your north 40 years ago, or fed in the mineral lick last month. “I want milky” is music to many ears, and only rivaled by “I want REAL milky”. Having a personal stake in the children that you feed is much better than just shipping it off to the coop. How dare the shallow and uninformed twist this higher motivation down to the gutter-ness and evil of fear. Shame.
Raw milk, done right, is safe….even for children. If your farmer feeds it to his kids, why wouldn’t you feed it to yours….and if he doesn’t, why would you?
Seems to me like it’s smarter to get to know your farmer (and their kids!)
So what's the problem with raw milk???
If the majority of consumers want raw milk, then the factory farms would have to change the way they "produce" dairy products. And we all know that would be big $$$ and on the small pacels of land, it would be impossible. The slander and propaganda against organic appears to worry the factory herbicide/pesticide/GM etc, farms, as they would also have to change how they do business also.
Those who want organic and "natural" foods are growing in numbers. When they become the majority, and I do believe that eventually they will be the majority, the factory farms will become obsolete or at least endangered. Thus they will fight with all they have to prevent this movement.
In the Central Valley of California, it is easy to eat locally and eat in season. I would expect in other parts of the contry, it can be done. The only constant is change.
http://jds.fass.org/cgi/content/full/87/9/2822?gca=87%2F9%2F2822&sendit=Get+All+Checked+Abstract%28s%29&
Not all raw milk is created equal, as many of us know well.
Cows producing organic milk, fed organic corn would have the same or nearly the same likelihood of carrying infectious e-coli as nonorganic milk. They're still being grained.
How is it that most food editors writing about pathogens always miss this nice little fact about grass? It makes me feel like putting up billboards across the U.S. saying "Grass fed cows don't spread infectious e-coli!" or "Corn = e-coli."
Michael Pollan suggested in his book, "The Omnivore's Dilemma," that midwestern farmers slowly replace cornfields with grass-grazed animals.
With the advent of biofuels, replacing corn with grass now seems even less likely. But such seemingly impossible battles have been won, and we've only started this one.
Gwen
http://www.dailyyonder.com/speak-your-piece-lets-toss-green-leafy-laws
I've often said that while non-violent civil disobediance on the part of sustainable agriculture farmers is a necessary part of our war for raw milk and other nutrient dense foods. I really believe that which is why I was willing to (as attorney Pete Kennedy said), "Put a target on ky back."
Equally important though is that our customers, the consumer, keep the pressure on the regulators to do away with rules and regs that keep us from those same nutrient dense foods.
Gwen said, "It makes me feel like putting up billboards across the U.S. saying "Grass fed cows don't spread infectious e-coli!" or "Corn = e-coli."."
Well, billboards are pretty pricey, but for those of us that live close to a small town newspaper, especially weeklies, small ads are cheap. If there is a regular occasional ad, combined with an ongoing letter to the editor campaign, along with constant communication with regulators and legeslators, we can let the powers that be know that we are a force that is not going away and that they will have to deal with if they want to keep their jobs. Government employees and elected officials are, after all, our employees...sometimes they just need reminding of that fact <g>.
Constant, unrelenting pressure is the key...CONSTANT unrelenting pressure.
Bob
I don't drink milk from OP, but from a PA farmer's supply at a local cooperative. I love that stuff and if any of it goes away, I'll be very unhappy, to say the least.
Scroll down to part II, #2: Should the Federal government regulate food more closely? and see what the most food literate people have to say. OVERWHELMING majority say yes.