Letters to the Editor: We’ve long known about the dangers of raw milk, yet some still reject the science
-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
- More than three dozen bills supporting raw milk are advancing through state legislatures despite scientific evidence of serious health risks from unpasteurized milk.
- A 1937 account chronicles how unpasteurized milk exposed families to typhoid and other dangerous pathogens, a public health crisis that led to widespread pasteurization.
- Before the 1930s, families routinely lost children to diseases transmitted through contaminated food — a historical reality that modern raw milk advocates appear to overlook.
To the editor: The recent article on raw milk reminded me of a 1937 letter my grandmother wrote to her sister about a trip she took from Los Angeles up to eastern Oregon, where her family had lived from 1898 to 1908 (“More than three dozen bills supporting raw milk are in state legislatures,” May 3). Here is an excerpt:
“After miles of desolate sage desert, having a weird beauty all its own, we stopped at Tom’s Camp for lunch, [run by] a cantankerous old fellow who didn’t know the Civil War was over and who still sold milk by dishing out each [serving] from a large container with a pitcher. Had I been the one who went in, I wouldn’t have bought any for fear of typhoid. However, [my husband] Ray did not know how prevalent it used to be in that part of the country and didn’t tell me how the milk was handled until we had used it (luckily no one had any bad effects).”
I find it extremely sad that people today are rejecting science. In my years of genealogy study, I have seen that before the 1930s, almost every family lost at least one child or young adult to diseases or infections.
Alex Magdaleno, Camarillo
