By Laci Williams | Commentary, Rocky Mountain Voice
Do you remember when the stereotype of a “crunchy granola liberal” was an insult so partisan that no conservative dared even to step into a health food store?
Well, it doesn’t seem that long ago, but with the rise of the Make America Healthy Again movement — or MAHA, as it has been coined — this insult has not only dropped its partisan label, but the label itself has shifted into something positive, a cause that both the left and the right can support.
The more I research the “crunchy” movement, the more Google searches and X stalking sessions I do, the more I see that a key issue for the MAHA crowd is consuming raw milk.
What Is raw milk?
So, what is raw milk? It is unpasteurized milk that has not gone through the process of “heating it” to kill harmful bacteria, known as pasteurization. But, if that is the case, then why is there an entire group of people joining together saying that, if done safely, raw milk is better for you?
I have not made up my mind on this issue, but I do have a healthy distrust for anything my government says not to do. Let’s be honest, the FDA and CDC pretty much killed their credibility in 2020, because of the massive cover-up of the origins of COVID-19 and how to ensure the safety of people from the disease, not to mention the incredible hoax of a vaccine that was peddled in this country.
But, I digress. Why should we trust the government telling us anything is to keep us safe? For me, that goes all the way down to how we should want to ingest our food.
The anti-raw milk argument
The history of pasteurization goes back to the early industrial revolution in America.
Think about it. We bring cows into the city, let them eat whatever we can find nearby, and standards for sanitation have barely been set. These same cows were milked by individuals who, without washing their hands, lacked proper hygiene practices. It potentially led to the introduction of bacteria in milk.
How do you get rid of bacteria without throwing out the milk or reducing costs? You add heat, and this makes it more cost-effective.
The entire purpose of pasteurization is to get rid of bacteria that could be introduced into the milk, according to the FDA. Such bacteria include Escherichia coli, Listeria, Salmonella, Brucella, Campylobacter, and Cryptosporidium.
Pasteurization advocates claim there is no significant decrease in vitamins and minerals, only a slight reduction in vitamin C. Adding heat to remove bacteria also lowers the sanitation requirements for dairy farms, making milk production cheaper and reducing costs for big business. This approach allows milk to stay on shelves longer, increasing profits for both small businesses and large corporations.
The pro-raw milk argument
The raw milk movement, although regaining popularity, used to just be how everyone drank milk prior to the 19th century. Proponents argue that raw milk retains more nutritional value, without pasteurization. Raw milk is rich in calcium, phosphorus, vitamin D, and protein, along with being a good source of vitamins A, iron, and C.
Rick Anglin, an Arizona dairy farmer, explains on the Culture Apothecary podcast with Alex Clark, “When pasteurization occurs, all bacteria is removed — both the good and the bad. So you lose good probiotics, which can help with the lining of your stomach.”
This loss of beneficial bacteria is a core argument among pro-raw milk advocates. Additionally, unpasteurized milk naturally contains both lactase and lactose, enzymes that function together to aid digestion. Lactase helps digest lactose, reducing lactose-related digestive issues. Without lactase, pasteurized milk may lead to discomfort for lactose-intolerant individuals.
What you put in is what you get out
When it comes to raw milk, it’s not just about the milk itself, but everything that goes into producing it. As is often said, what you put into the cow is what you get out.
This means that the quality of raw milk depends heavily on how the cows are fed and their care. Grass-fed cows with plenty of pasture and adequate space to roam produce richer, healthier milk. Feeding cows a natural, nutrient-rich diet and allowing them access to fresh air, even in winter (rather than confining them indoors), all contribute to milk quality.
Another important factor is the type of casein protein found in the milk: A1 or A2. A1 casein is common in larger, conventional breeds, but A2 casein — found in Brown Swiss and other European cows — is often touted for better digestibility and animal health. Even the butterfat percentage tells a story; while government-regulated grocery store milk is capped at 3.5% butterfat, Brown Swiss raw milk naturally offers around 4.5%, enhancing its creamy texture.
In the world of raw milk, colder is better — chilling milk below 40 degrees quickly prevents bacterial growth, ensuring freshness and safety. For many, the government’s regulations on milk seem to have less to do with protecting health and more with maintaining control over production and market access. Legalizing raw milk would not only let consumers access these benefits directly, but also allow small farmers to operate without unnecessary oversight in the ‘cookie jar’ of big dairy.
Raw milk in Colorado law
Before deciding if you’re pro- or anti-raw milk, it is important to understand the legal landscape in Colorado. Selling raw milk is illegal in Colorado.
However, cow-sharing programs offer a legal workaround. For example, four people may collectively buy and maintain a cow at a local dairy, with each person receiving one to two gallons of milk per week. It’s essentially like buying stock in a cow.
While cow-sharing allows people to access raw milk, it requires considerable research and commitment. According to realmilk.com, there are only 92 such programs statewide, compared to the hundreds of dairies and supermarkets that offer conventional milk. This makes raw milk less accessible unless you’re willing to dig for the information and make an investment.
Make Raw Milk Readily Available Again?
Why isn’t raw milk readily available? Is it really to “keep us safe,” or is it more about control over the dairy industry? Does the state fear losing control over the dairy market, or is it concerned about regulatory costs? The government has no problem spending on other issues, so why block access to raw milk, which could potentially lead to healthier lives?
I want the option. I find myself inching toward becoming a libertarian raw milk enthusiast — something I never expected. In a free society, shouldn’t we have the agency to make our own choices? Why does the government need to regulate what we can drink, especially when it comes to raw milk? This isn’t just about milk; it’s about the right to choose.
To all the crunchies of Colorado – left, right, and center – let’s work together to demand more freedom in our food choices. Legalizing raw milk would allow citizens to make informed decisions about their health, without unnecessary bureaucratic restrictions. Let’s make raw milk an option and let Coloradans decide for themselves
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.