By John Q. Hosedrinker 
New Mexico health officials are urging the public to avoid raw dairy products following the tragic death of a newborn from a listeria infection, likely contracted by the mother through consumption of unpasteurized milk during pregnancy. This incident highlights the significant risks raw milk poses, particularly to pregnant women, young children, the elderly, and immunocompromised individuals, as it can harbor dangerous pathogens. Pasteurization, a process that heats milk to kill germs, is the recommended method to prevent serious illnesses and fatalities. While raw milk sales across state lines are federally banned, its popularity has grown, with some advocates hoping for policy changes despite federal warnings.
Read the original article here
New Mexico is issuing a stern warning against the consumption of raw milk, a message that has become tragically urgent following the death of a newborn infant from a Listeria infection. While health officials couldn’t definitively pinpoint the exact cause of the baby’s demise, they strongly suspect it was linked to the mother’s ingestion of raw milk during her pregnancy. This unfortunate event serves as a stark reminder of the significant risks associated with unpasteurized dairy, risks that many seem to conveniently overlook or actively dismiss.
The arguments put forth by raw milk advocates often baffle those who understand the science behind food safety. Some of the more “sane-ish” proponents, as they’re sometimes described, claim they boil their milk before drinking it. This practice, however, completely negates any perceived benefit of raw milk and highlights a fundamental misunderstanding, or perhaps a willful ignorance, of what pasteurization aims to achieve. It makes one wonder if the internet, intended to spread knowledge and foster intelligence, is instead becoming a breeding ground for misinformation, prompting a serious reconsideration of its impact.
Pasteurization, a process that has been around for a considerable time, is a true modern marvel that we often take for granted. Much like vaccines, it has been instrumental in saving an untold number of lives by eradicating dangerous pathogens. The fact that our grandparents and their predecessors survived childhood in a world without widespread access to these public health advancements is a testament to the faith placed in robust public health programs. Sadly, many of these vital programs are now being dismantled, leading to a dangerous regression in our collective health security.
The unwavering devotion to raw milk, especially among those who have likely never been close to a dairy cow, is particularly perplexing. A closer look at the realities of a dairy farm, and the sheer amount of potential contaminants on a cow’s teats, might give even the most ardent raw milk enthusiast pause. It often appears that these individuals are driven by a desire to reverse societal progress, clinging to outdated or dangerous notions. The thought that such ignorance could lead to the death of an innocent child is utterly devastating and frankly, infuriating.
It’s a disturbing paradox that some advocate for the avoidance of proven safety measures like Tylenol during pregnancy, while simultaneously promoting the consumption of a product that poses such dire risks. The narrative of “killing your baby to own the libs” seems to capture a particular, albeit twisted, ideology that prioritizes political agendas over the well-being of the most vulnerable. When public health officials and scientists, many of whom align with Democratic perspectives, caution against raw milk, it seems to inadvertently galvanize certain groups into advocating for it even more fervently, along with other potentially harmful practices.
This segment of the population, comprising a significant portion of the electorate and an even larger group of indifferent non-voters, seems to operate on a different plane of reality. It’s a world where anecdotal evidence and unsubstantiated claims trump scientific consensus, a world where the pronouncements of certain public figures, like RFK Jr., are taken as gospel, even when they contradict established medical and scientific understanding. If only there were a simple solution to remove the bacteria that cause such devastating illnesses, a solution that has existed for over a century!
The continued ignorance of germ theory in the 21st century is frankly mind-boggling. Humanity fought a protracted battle against disease for centuries, finally achieving a significant understanding of how infections spread and how to prevent them. To witness tragedies like this, where a preventable illness claims a life, is a stark reminder that natural selection, while always at play, is often being outmaneuvered by sheer human folly. One can only imagine the impact if those who champion raw milk, and perhaps even prominent figures who promote it, were to exclusively consume it themselves.
The idea that a mother could unknowingly, or perhaps knowingly, expose her child to such a deadly pathogen through her diet is a horrifying thought. It begs the question of where we draw the line; should we also issue warnings against drinking gasoline? The presence of individuals selling raw milk in places like New Mexico is a concerning reality, raising questions about the scope of this unregulated market and the potential for further harm. The year is 2026, and the notion of people willingly consuming raw milk is, to put it mildly, astounding.
In a society where a woman can face legal consequences for her reproductive choices, it seems a gross oversight that individuals who knowingly endanger their children through such practices are not held to account. Those who lived through the era before pasteurization, the era of widespread iron lungs and devastating childhood illnesses, would surely not be advocating for this dangerous regression. It’s often those who have not experienced the direct consequences of these preventable diseases, who haven’t lived through the stark reality of infant mortality rates before modern public health interventions, who propagate these dangerous myths.
The promotion of raw milk by certain mommy bloggers and health enthusiasts, especially when the dangers are so well-documented, is not just irresponsible; it borders on criminal negligence. To continue encouraging such practices in the face of overwhelming evidence is inexcusable. The stark contrast between the visual and olfactory reality of a dairy farm and the romanticized notion of “farm-fresh” raw milk is often lost on its proponents. This persistent contrariness, this refusal to accept established scientific facts, is a disheartening aspect of public discourse.
The headline itself feels like it could have been ripped from a century-old newspaper, a testament to how some dangerous ideas refuse to die. It’s always the innocent children who bear the brunt of their parents’ misguided beliefs and dangerous decisions. The fact that officials can only state that the death was “likely” linked to the mother’s raw milk consumption underscores the insidious nature of Listeria; it’s a bacterium that can cause severe illness, particularly in pregnant women and their fetuses.
Listening to pediatricians and obstetricians, rather than unsubstantiated claims on social media or from questionable public figures, is paramount. Pregnant women and parents should carefully weigh the perceived benefits of raw milk against the very real and potentially catastrophic risks. For pregnant women, the bacterial load required to cause illness is significantly lower, and Listeria can have devastating consequences, including miscarriages and severe fetal deformities. This is because Listeria can infect epithelial cells, including those of the placenta, directly impacting fetal development.
Listeria is a naturally occurring bacterium found in soil, and cows can ingest contaminated soil, leading to its presence in raw milk. This is also why pregnant women are advised to avoid unpasteurized soft cheeses, which are made from raw milk. The vulnerability extends beyond dairy; deli meats can also become contaminated if exposed to standing water or other sources of Listeria. Therefore, a comprehensive approach to food safety includes washing vegetables thoroughly and cooking food to the appropriate temperatures, and for dairy, unequivocally choosing pasteurized products.
The notion that certain public health officials might be promoting harmful substances is a concerning, and often politically charged, accusation. However, the scientific consensus on the safety of pasteurized milk is overwhelming. The raw milk movement, in its fervent rejection of scientifically proven safety measures, often seems to mirror a broader societal trend of distrust in established institutions and expertise. The podcast “This Podcast Will Kill You” is often cited for its insightful explanations of why pasteurization is so crucial and the science behind the raw milk movement. It highlights how much infant mortality was tragically linked to contaminated milk in the past.
This tragedy, unlike some unavoidable misfortunes, was entirely preventable. The proponents of “woke” pasteurized milk, ironically, are the very ones contributing to these preventable deaths. The sheer ignorance displayed, a refusal to acknowledge basic biology learned in middle school, is disheartening. It points to a systemic failure, perhaps a deliberate erosion of public education and critical thinking, that leaves individuals vulnerable to dangerous misinformation, particularly when it aligns with pre-existing ideological biases.
The observation that certain political ideologies seem to thrive on policies that prioritize perceived superiority over public good is a recurring theme. This desire to “blow their own leg off” simply to feel better than someone else is a deeply ingrained, and damaging, aspect of human psychology. The author’s childhood memories of adults espousing hateful rhetoric while simultaneously condemning it in others illustrate a profound cognitive dissonance that seems to fuel many of these dangerous belief systems. It’s a willingness to embrace hypocrisy as long as it serves a perceived ideological purpose.
The people who believe raw milk is beneficial are often the same individuals who place their trust in figures like Trump and RFK Jr., individuals who consistently disregard scientific consensus and expert advice. Their behavior is characterized by a profound inability or unwillingness to listen or read beyond their echo chambers. Anyone who has witnessed the reality of a dairy farm, even a clean one, understands that contamination is an inevitable concern unless rigorous cleaning protocols are strictly adhered to at every stage of milking.
While the urge to let adults who embrace such dangerous ideas consume all the raw milk they desire is understandable, the concern for children who are exposed to these risks through their parents’ choices is paramount. There’s also a broader conversation about dairy consumption in general. Many adults, particularly those over twelve, may find their health improves by reducing or eliminating dairy altogether, opting for a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and lean proteins. However, for those who choose to consume dairy, opting for safely pasteurized kefir and yogurt from reputable sources is a far safer alternative. The promotion of dangerous practices by those in positions of influence, whether in government or public discourse, needs to be directly challenged with factual information and a clear emphasis on public safety.