In the just concluded legislative session there were several good pieces of legislation passed by both houses that were vetoed by the governor. The Republicans are in control of both houses and Governor Tomblin, of course, is a Democrat. I feel fairly confident that if the situation were reversed - that is if the Democrats were in control of the legislature with a Republican governor that the Democrats would be throwing around the “obstructionist” label. Just saying.

One of the bills that the governor vetoed was SB30, also known as the “raw milk bill”. According to an article in Food Safety News it passed in the Senate by a vote of 18 to 16 and breezed through the House 81-19. Legiscan deemed the bill to be “bipartisan”, however only one lonely Republican voted no in each house. Locally, only Delegate Stephen Skinner (D-67) voted against it. Interestingly, the Organic Consumers Association, certainly not a conservative group, urged its members to in turn urge the governor to sign the bill.

The article goes on to say that “in his veto letter to West Virginia Secretary of State Natalie Tennant, Tomblin didn’t waffle about why he gave the legislation a definitive thumbs-down”. Quoting the governor, “Signing this bill into law would pose a serious risk to public health”. Really. Not only is the governor an obstructionist, he is uninformed. Further, government involvement in what he calls “public health” undermines that very notion.

There are 12 states that allow retail sales of raw milk - where consumers can buy it in a store. An additional 17 states allow “on farm sales” of raw milk. An additional 4 states allow herd sharing - where if you want raw milk you can buy a share of the cow and get it that way. West Virginia is one of 17 states that do not allow for the sale of raw milk. SB 30 would have allowed herd sharing.

The Center for Disease Control and Food and Drug Administration are two government regulators that chime in on raw milk. The CDC recommends staying away, while the FDA has sent armed swat teams to farms it suspects have sold raw milk across state lines. On its website, the CDC maintains that pasteurized milk is safer than raw milk and that it is nutritionally equivalent.

There is considerable disagreement on both points. Some contend that the high heat involved in pasteurization destroys a significant portion of the nutritional value of the milk. Further, there are those that say that the concerns about raw milk are outmoded and outdated. According to an article by Mackenna Goodman that appeared in the Huffington Post, “Pasteurization was instituted in the 1920s to combat…diseases caused by poor animal nutrition and dirty production methods. But modern stainless steel tanks, milking machines, refrigerated trucks, and inspection are enough of a precaution, and pasteurization has become irrelevant”.

Regarding safety, according to an article published earlier this month in Health Impact News, “Current estimates number raw milk drinkers in the U.S. at between 9 and 15 million”. The article uses the CDC’s own data against its argument against raw milk. Citing the CDC as the source, in the last 15 years there hasn’t been one reported fatality attributable to raw milk - amazingly that is something that cannot be said for pasteurized milk. By comparison, also citing CDC data, for the 10 year period from 1998 to 2008 fatalities from tainted produce totaled 3,330, poultry 2,780, pork 820, fish 710, beef 550. We wouldn’t and shouldn’t consider banning those foods. And for the 10 year period leading up to 1998 there were more than 1 million fatalities arising from the use of legal pharmaceuticals with the article citing the Journal of the American Medical Association as the source. Wow.

And yet, the CDC reports unequivocally that pasteurized milk is safer than raw milk. So much for the government version of “settled science”. Going back to the Huffington Post article consider this quote, “Inspection of dairy herds for disease is not required for pasteurized milk [emphasis hers]. This means, pasteurization is used as a nifty way to wash away all forms of bad bacteria that are allowed to flourish freely before the process. Imagine that for a second”. Of course. Do you think that maybe this gives factory farms an advantage over small family farms?

So Governor Tomblin vetoed the raw milk because of his stated concerns for public health risks. This is why the very notion of “public health” is problematic at best, dangerous at worst. It defeats the concept of liberty and personal responsibility and confers tremendous power to, well, the government. If we give the governor the benefit of the doubt and allow that his concerns are sincere, we are still left with an uninformed politician dictating to us what we are allowed or not allowed to eat. It’s my body dammit - keep your grubby paws off.

And next time you go to the polls, remember that it was a Democrat that decided that you do not have dominion over your own body.