Cennamology Chief Editor
As a person who has had E. coli in the past, and spent a week in Johns Hopkins Hospital because of it, I can attest that food that has been haphazardly inspected by the producers can lead to increased costs in public health. Therefore, it would be a wise decision to pursue the measures necessary to prevent children and adults from contracting the disease, and to reject any suggestions that may exacerbate that risk. One policy proposal that may put the public at a greater risk of getting E. coli, and is gaining serious political clout in recent years, is a relaxation of the regulations of raw (unpasteurized) milk.
What is troubling about those who support the ease of access to raw milk is that they are unabashedly embracing of bacteria that could harm the public at large. Producers and consumers of raw milk do not seem to be fazed by the fact that there are nearly 150 times more likely of being infected with a disease than those who steer clear of raw milk. Despite this, the bacteria embracing crowd appears to be growing, as are their political efforts. In fact, the issue of raw milk has been a hotly debated topic in the Maryland legislature for the past few years, and will most likely return to Annapolis for the upcoming session.
Those who sell raw milk claim that it is healthier and safer than pasteurized milk. They are skeptical of pasteurization because they think that the radiation and chemical treatment makes the milk dangerous to consume. The health benefits of raw milk that are touted by activists include strengthening the immune and digestive systems, dental benefits, epidermal benefits, and (as claimed by more extreme proponents) the ability to cure cancer, autism, and diabetes. However, these claims have not been supported by science.