Dear Delegate Perdue,

I am writing in regards to House Bill 4273, which would legalize herd shares in West Virginia. I understand your concerns about this bill are largely based on the health aspects of consuming raw milk, and I hope you will allow me a few moments of your time to address those concerns.

I understand you have talked to several health department physician heads and heard testimony from the state Public Health agency and have been heavily influenced by these sources. Let me ask you, do any of these people have a special knowledge of raw milk? Have they personally researched its illness record and the studies regarding its nutrition and health benefits? Or are they repeating what they have read in reports from the FDA and CDC? I understand the tendency to innately trust such major government sources. But if you'll keep reading, there is empirical evidence out there contrary to what the FDA and CDC are reporting, including evidence derived from these agencies' own data!

There are many web pages and organizations which dispute the findings of the CDC and FDA. I could give you dozens of links to article after article discussing the health benefits and relative safety of raw milk. But by far the very best articles I have found are linked below. They are well researched, well documented (links to the underlying studies and research are included in the articles), and reasonably present both sides of this debate. They are written in layman's terms and reading them will only take a few moments of your time. They analyze and summarize the available data on raw milk far better than I ever could. If you are truly serious about being willing to listen to both sides of this debate, please, please dedicate a few minutes to reading these articles.

The first article takes a critical look at the number of illnesses caused by both raw and pasteurized milk, both from the CDC and from several other more comprehensive sources (linked in the article):

"Raw Milk Reality: Is Raw Milk Really Dangerous?" by Chris Kresser
http://chriskresser.com/raw-milk-reality-is-raw-milk-dangerous

A brief summary of a few statistics from the above article:
1 in 94,000 chance of becoming ill from drinking raw milk
1 in 888,000 chance of becoming ill from drinking pasteurized milk
1 in 6 million odds of being HOSPITALIZED [not dying] from drinking raw milk
1 in 8,000 odds of DYING in a car crash
1 in 2 million odds of DYING in a plane crash (3 times more likely than becoming hospitalized [not dying] from raw milk)

The risk of illness from consuming raw milk is small - much smaller than hundreds of activities we perform every day or many other foods we eat. While this risk is small, it is admittedly higher than pasteurized milk (although in my opinion insignificantly so, when you compare the risk of illness as 0.001% for raw milk vs 0.0001% for pasteurized).. Which leads to the second article I hope you will take a few moments to read: 

"Raw Milk Reality: Benefits of Raw Milk" by Chris Kresser
http://chriskresser.com/raw-milk-reality-benefits-of-raw-milk

Again, just a few of the raw milk benefits listed (and backed up with linked research) in the article above:
Raw milk contains (over pasteurized milk)
higher levels of CLA and essential fatty acids
increased manganese, copper, and iron
increased vitamins C and B6 (even the FDA admits this)
increased proteins to help vitamin A absorbtion 
overall superior vitamin and mineral content
Easier digestibility (this is not yet scientifically proven, but anecdotal evidence (my own experience included!) and informal surveys show it true)
Protection against asthma and allergies (per a scientific study performed in Europe)
Flavor - it just tastes better! 

In short, a close examination of available evidence from multiple sources reveals that the CDC and FDA's own data show they greatly overstate the risk of consuming raw milk in their conclusions. The increased nutrition and health benefits of raw milk are only just being explored, but the initial results are there. There IS a nutritional difference (the FDA will deny this at the same time they admit heating milk reduces the content of certain vitamins and minerals) and there ARE scientifically researched health benefits, even if they are not yet fully understood. The risk assumed by consumers in order to access these benefits is MINIMAL. 

Although I personally feel raw milk sales should be legal, there are many reasons herd shares are an excellent compromise for those who oppose raw milk sales. Perhaps the biggest reason is that milk obtained via herd shares must be picked up at the farm where it is produced. Consumers buying milk from a grocery don't get to see the process. They don't have any idea what the facilities are like, what the health of the cows is, or what the true standards are in how that milk is collected and stored. In that case, they are forced to rely on government regulations to ensure their safety, because they have no avenue by which to do so themselves. Herd shares are entirely different. By traveling to the location where their cows are kept, members of herd shares get to personally view all these things for themselves. Armed with that knowledge, they can decide if those conditions meet their own standards. If they don't, they can choose not to participate in the herdshare. In this way, participating in a herd share is not really different from a person owning their own cow. Not everyone is blessed with the ability to keep a cow at their home. Those that do can legally consume their own milk, from their own cow. Passing the herdshare bill would allow everyone the same freedom. 

By banning raw milk consumption, West Virginia is losing out on dollars that would support local farms and the WV economy. Raw milk consumers are a dedicated group of people. They are willing to travel quite a distance if needed to obtain their milk. Of the 5 states surrounding West Virginia, 4 of them allow raw milk consumption. PA allows retail sales of raw milk, while OH, KY, and VA all allow herd shares. Only MD offers neither herd shares nor retail sales, although its legislature is currently considering HB 3 which would legalize herd shares. I know a group of consumers living in Morgantown who currently travel all the way to Chambersburg, PA. They drive 160 miles one way in order to purchase organic, raw milk for their families (purchased from www.yourfamilycow.com). Continuing to ban raw milk in WV does little to restrict these people's access to it, given its availability in the surrounding states. It just funnels economic dollars to our neighbors instead of keeping them in the state where they belong. The trend across the country has been increased legalization of access to raw milk. Those who live close enough to the borders of the state will continue to enjoy access to raw milk by traveling across state lines. Why should these people be allowed the freedom to choose raw milk when it is denied to those who live toward the center of the state? All West Virginians should have the legal choice to obtain raw milk without having to travel to another state to do so.

I consider myself a typical West Virginian. I love my state, and am proud to be citizen of it. At the same time, it upsets me greatly that the government of this state has taken away the decision of whether or not many people can consume raw milk. I am one of the lucky ones: I have enough land to have my own cow, and can thus legally consume my own milk. I don't like the dichotomy. I am allowed to make the decision of whether or not to consume my own milk, but others, who are not able to live in the country, are not given the same freedom of choice. Why is raw milk banned when so many other products much, much more prone to cause illness or harm, are still unregulated? Soda-pop? Cigarettes? Alcohol? McDonald's cheeseburgers? I don't think ANYONE would argue that any of these products could be considered healthy, and yet people are allowed the choice of whether or not to consume them. But when it comes to raw milk, something an ever increasing body of research shows has nutritional and health benefits accessible with minimal risk, it is unavailable. If people can be trusted to make the choice about so many other foods and activities, why can't they also be trusted to make the choice about raw milk? Why is it the government's place to take this freedom of choice away? While the government does of course bear a responsibility to protect its people, it does NOT have the responsibility nor the right to control and dictate every aspect of their lives. Given the data of the low risk and increased health benefits of raw milk, banning its consumption crosses that line. West Virginia should never have banned raw milk to begin with, and allowing the herd shares bill to move forward would return to the people of West Virginia their voice, allowing them to be heard through a vote of their entire elected body. Right now, by declining to place the herd shares bill on the agenda of the health committee to be voted upon, you are listening to the opinions of only a tiny handful of people (all influenced by the same source, and not their own research) and silencing the voices of many West Virginians. Please, let the bill move forward - let us be heard! 

Thank you for your time,

Kathryn Fazenbaker
2076 Gladesville Rd.
Independence, WV 26374
304-864-4844