There is a provocative debate-discussion going on following my Dec. 29 post about Regulator (who seems to have thrown his/her grenade, and departed to watch the explosions).

The discussion, I think, is about the nature of warning labels and signs that raw milk might incorporate, allowing for as many of the unknowns and vagaries as possible. (I’m sure I haven’t fully captured it, but that’s a quick-and-dirty encapsulation.)

It’s a great discussion of the sort that could be a model for how regulators and consumers might work through the best approaches to making raw milk legally and safely available…and perhaps even serve as the basis for handling warnings associated with truly dangerous conventional foods (Coke, cold cuts, ground beef, etc.).

But that’s not the tack that’s being taken in the latest hotbed of debate over raw milk regulations, now occurring in Connecticut. There, 14 people became ill last summer, allegedly from E.coli 0157:H7 in raw milk (seven cases were confirmed, and seven implied). I discussed it in a post last summer.

Now regulators are considering a number of tacks to supposedly improve safety, but which in actuality would have the effect of reducing milk availability and slamming small farms financially.

Connecticut has become an important outlet for raw milk, since it is one of only three states in the East (along with Maine and Pennsylvania) that allow at least some retail raw milk sales. Because of its central location—bordered by Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island—it attracts consumers from huge population centers where raw milk is otherwise available only from farms. Estimates have it that there are at least 15 and possibly as many as 25 Connecticut dairies feeding the raw milk demand.

Because of the June-July outbreak, Connecticut’s Milk Regulation Board has been tossing around a number of proposals to significantly reduce availability of raw milk. In new legislation growing out of its deliverations and going to the legislature next week, two important restrictions would be established:

  1. A ban on retail sales, limiting sales to those directly from farms; this could devastate the state’s raw milk dairies, by wiping out more than half of all sales in the state.
  2. More pathogen testing, which sounds fine, except that not only would the frequency increase, but the cost would be shifted from the state to dairy farmers; a dairy with 10 cows could be paying more than $4,000 a year for such tests.

(For details on the debate, including links to the regulatory discussions and proposed legislation, take a look at this posting on a site that has been established to counter the state’s move.)

Pete Kennedy, the director of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, says that regulators are “taking this one incident (of illnesses) involving an unusual dairy, and using it to make it as difficult to sell raw milk as they can…It’s a transparent attempt to create a de facto ban.”

It’s interesting that when jalepeno peppers or salami or hamburger…or pasteurized milk… are found to have sickened or even killed people (as occurred in neighboring Massachusetts a year ago), there’s never any talk about restricting their sale.

But let a few people become ill from raw milk and the noose tightens very quickly, and very snugly.