Despite a myriad of health warnings from the FDA and CDC, a considerable amount of Coloradans are embracing drinking raw milk for its supposed health benefits. The food freedom movement, which advocates for the elimination of food policies around raw milk sales amongst other food products, is gaining traction across the American Midwest. Organizations like the Raw Milk Association of Colorado offer outlets for residents to access raw milk despite its prohibited status in Colorado. The loophole, known as the cow share or herd share model, allows prospective raw milk drinkers to access raw milk so long as they purchase shares of the herd. The popularity of the food freedom movement, built on misinformation, highlights a degradation of the trust between the public and public institutions and the need for better healthcare access.
Proponents of raw milk consumption claim that the pasteurization process deprives raw milk of its nutritional richness. The Raw Milk Association of Colorado published a report claiming that unpasteurized milk is rich in vitamins, minerals and enzymes that are “destroyed by heat.” This claim, touted by supporters of the food freedom movement, has been repeatedly disproven by a large body of research comparing the nutritional value of raw milk to pasteurized milk with little difference between the two. In addition, the pasteurization process kills off harmful bacteria like E.coli, salmonella and listeria, outbreaks of which have been traced back to raw milk. Pasteurization has long been a life-saving and beneficial technology. So, why is the food freedom movement still thriving?
The nascent food freedom movement is emblematic of a deterioration in trust between public health agencies and the communities they serve. A Pew Research study finds that public trust in the government has been declining, reaching historic lows in the last decade. Public health institutes and the public who utilize their services suffer a mutual disadvantage when either end fails to uphold their end of the social contract. The public uses increasingly less reliable sources for their healthcare needs and public health institutes have to shift their framework of care away from preventative measures to address the latest fads in health and wellness. During the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation was abundant, which made clear that our public health institutions have lost control of the public’s faith in their mission.
The cause of this distrust is likely a culmination of many factors, but a significant factor is the lack of comprehensive healthcare in this country. A glaring amount of Americans lack access to adequate health care and an even more concerning amount do not have a regular doctor. In Colorado, nearly 9% of the population is uninsured, and parts of the state struggle to attract primary care physicians. These gaps in health care access make it difficult for the uninsured and underinsured to find adequate care for their needs, so it contends that they might look to alternative sources like the food freedom movement.
The lack of reliable healthcare accessibility is to blame for the growing distrust in public institutions. If the best available sources for physical care are barred from you by economic boundaries, then it would stand to reason that the lack of adequate care would lead to desperate and unfounded measures.
Why trust the expertise of an institution to which you have no access? This lack of access breeds resentment and distrust. A more comprehensive, accessible public healthcare system might put faith back into our public institutions. If we continue this path of allowing people to fall through the cracks without healthcare as a safety net, we are likely to see a rise in potentially more dangerous misinformation campaigns.
