Posted: May 28th, 2012 - 10:25am
Source: Star Tribune

The Star Tribune, in its May 20 article "Raw milk, and raw emotion, go to court," does a disservice to public health in a flawed attempt to sound balanced.
The article states: "But restrictions on raw milk are based on longstanding beliefs among public health authorities."
The newspaper should review the difference between a fact and belief. A quick visit to the Centers for Disease Control's website will reveal the fact that raw milk is associated with dangerous foodborne illness outbreaks due to bacteria that otherwise would be killed by pasteurization.
Minnesota law allows people who wish to bear the risk of illness to drink raw milk, but the Star Tribune puts the public in danger when it implies that there is some question about the whether the risks associated with drinking raw milk are real.
Lisa Pannell, St. Louis Park