Milk

by Mark Kurlansky

  Weary of teaching, Ceri wanted to return to her family farm, and Chad agreed to the move. He thought it would be a chance for him to raise bees for honey. But instead he learned to be a dairy farmer and learned that cows did in fact have only four teats. The couple replaced the family’s English shorthorn stock with a type of Holsteins that are not quite as large or productive as the American Holstein, but also not as expensive to feed. “Not as high an output, but not as high an input,” Joe said. They bred them to have strong legs and strong feet and to keep producing for about ten years. They had one that was still producing at fourteen years. They maintain about ninety cows.

  The Cryers produce 2,000 liters of raw milk a day and sell most of it to a cooperative. But they keep 5 to 6 percent for themselves and pasteurize it. With this they make yogurt flavored with gooseberry, strawberry, raspberry, and rhubarb. They also sell thick cream, ice cream, nonhomogenized milk, and four kinds of cheese. Their farm, which they call Brinkworth Dairy, produces the once famous Wiltshire Loaf and three other cheeses of their own invention: a strong, flavorful blue called Brinkworth blue; a softer, milder blue called Royal Bassett blue; and a soft, fresh garlic-and-pepper cheese.

  Chad spends weekends selling at outdoor farmers markets in various towns, including London. But cheese, for all its proud tradition, is not how the Brinkworth Dairy makes money. “The most profitable product,” says Chad, “is ice cream, because it’s all air, and it’s a highly competitive market. Cones are most profitable, but it has to be a hot sunny day.” In any event, cheesemaking is back in the Wiltshire Vale.

  Jane Austen, the great chronicler of the English gentry in the late eighteenth century, has her characters Emma and Mr. Elton in Emma eating Wiltshire and Stilton cheese. They may have been the most popular upmarket cheeses of the time. The British have always loved blue cheese. That is why two of the four cheeses at Brinkworth Dairy are blue.

  There are well over thirty Great Britain blue cheeses, some of them new. In Scotland’s Clyde Valley, Dunsyre Blue, a mild, complex blue cheese made from unpasteurized Ayrshire milk, was invented in 1980. Beenleigh Blue, which also dates from 1980, is made from vegetarian rennet and pasteurized sheep cheese. But the most famous British blue cheese is Stilton. No one knows its exact origin, but it began to be widely traded in the early eighteenth century.

  In 1990 the European Union defined the standards that cheese must meet in order to be called by the name Stilton. Oddly, it defined it as what Stilton was at that time, not what it was historically. So a cheese that is made in the town of Stilton, which is where the cheese got its name, does not have the right to call itself Stilton. Rather, the rules specify that the cheese must be made in one of three counties: Derbyshire, Leicestershire, or Nottinghamshire. Stilton lies outside these counties. The rules also say that Stilton must be made with pasteurized cow’s milk. But the original Stilton was made long before Pasteur and so was made with raw milk. Using pasteurized milk to make Stilton only began in 1988 when a batch of the cheese was falsely accused of being contaminated, causing all the Stilton makers to panic and switch to pasteurized milk.

  “Stilton,” The Illustrated London News, November 4, 1876.

  In 2004, Joe Schneider, a new cheesemaker, decided to make authentic Stilton that would resemble the cheese sold in 1730. This is called “farmstead” cheese, and all the milk used to make it is raw and from the same herd. Raw milk changes day to day and from season to season, making for subtle and sometimes more obvious variations in the cheese. The newer Stilton cheese, in contrast, is made from milk from a variety of herds, and after that milk has been pasteurized, there is no variation in the cheese. Its producers proudly call this consistency. But all those rogue flavors that turn up in Stilton made from raw milk are dimensions of taste that are simply missing from pasteurized cheese.

  In Britain, a cheesemonger can be fined for selling Schneider’s authentic old-style Stilton as Stilton or “raw milk Stilton.” And so the traditional Stilton has ended up with a name as odd as its situation. It is called Stichelton. If you want authentic old-time Stilton such as Joe Schneider’s, you have to ask for Stichelton.

  The worst nightmare, the kind of scare that drove Stilton cheesemakers to pasteurization in 1988, occurred again in the summer of 2016. There was an outbreak of E. coli, and a three-year-old girl died. The Food Standards Scotland traced the bacteria to a small dairy called Errington Cheese, the makers of Dunsyre Blue. Their stocks were seized and the twelve-person workforce laid off. Other tests by respected laboratories such as Actalia, a French company, also tested the cheese but saw no evidence of E. coli. The microbiologist in charge of the test, Ronan Calvez, said, “a great deal of cheese consumed in France is made of unpasteurized milk. The laboratories that test the safety of these products are of the very highest microbiological standards, and have developed sophisticated testing regimes to ensure that no bacteria containing harmful toxins are present in any cheese sold.”

  It is the certified-milk-versus-pasteurized-milk argument all over again. One of the reasons why cheese was made in the first place is that, long before Pasteur, people knew that cheese, in contrast to milk, did not make you sick, not even in hot countries. Most cheeses are made with a salt that kills bacteria, and blue cheeses often contain penicillin. But countries that fought long and hard for pasteurization, such as the United States and Britain, are still sensitive on the subject. Ironically, France, the land of Pasteur, isn’t. Historically, France has been much more open to the use of raw milk than either Britain or the United States. In fact, many French cheesemakers insist on raw milk, which is probably why the French are the world’s greatest cheesemakers, even if their thousand varieties make them hard to govern.

  19

  THE SEARCH FOR CONSENSUS

  The old debates over such subjects as which animals have the best milk, whether it is better to breastfeed or artificially feed, what is the most humane way to care for milking animals, what is the best food for cattle, and whether milk is a healthful food for adults have not been resolved. Newer arguments over such subjects as raw milk versus pasteurized milk have not been settled either. And now there are even newer disputes—about hormones and organic farming and genetically modified organisms.

  The farmer usually respects the land and respects his animals, but faced with the narrowest of profit margins, his foremost question is often not so much “What is right?” as “What works economically?” With milk prices held down by the federal government in the United States, the European Union in Europe, supermarket chains in Australia, and various other governing bodies all over the world, held to barely above the cost of production, farmers must look for ways to make their milk and milk products stand out so that they can demand higher prices. The hormone-free milk, organic farming, and GMO-free movements all represent such opportunities, but they also make milk more expensive to produce.

  The challenge for farmers is to find the right equation, including the right size herd and the right animals, to make their dairies economically viable. Some products, such as the best cheeses, are very expensive to produce, but they also have a market—there are people willing to pay for these prestigious luxury items. There are far fewer people willing to buy expensive milk. There is too much cheap milk available.

  It is clear that the issue of raw milk has not been resolved. But there is unusually broad agreement among cheesemakers and cheese lovers that raw milk is needed to make good cheese. Not everyone agrees, but there is far more consensus on this issue than there is on the issue of liquid milk for drinking. In America, where almost all milk is pasteurized, many people are not even aware of the debate. The popular belief is that it was a real concern in the nineteenth century, but then pasteurization was adopted and now people don’t get sick anymore. But the debate has never ended.

  It was never said that certified raw milk is unhealthful. In fact, there are a lot of reasonable arguments positing that it is more healthful than pasteurized milk. The argument has alwa
ys been that pasteurized milk is easier to monitor and regulate than certified milk. But even in countries where raw milk is legal and regulated, such as France, it is very hard to find. In fact, European supermarkets specialize in unrefrigerated shelves full of UHT milk. It is really the same argument: The milk isn’t as good but is much easier to regulate and handle. Good milk in Paris is usually found at quality fromageries, where with luck you might even find it unhomogenized.

  Raw milk is currently benefiting from a growing interest in “all natural” food. Raw milk certainly is that, and it is also noncorporate, since no corporations are interested in producing it. In the United States, twenty-eight states allow raw milk under certain conditions, and there are strong movements in other states to loosen laws against it.

  In the twenty-first century, more than half a million Americans a year buy raw milk, and that number is slowly rising. In Canada, where laws make it difficult to purchase raw milk, consumers buy shares of a herd so that they are not buying raw milk, but simply drinking what is theirs.

  Raw milk is an example of the kind of trade-off farmers must calculate into their operations. Raw milk is a small market and it would probably be hard to sell the amount produced by a large herd. But there is a market, and a farmer might be able to make a profit if he produced just the right amount because raw milk advocates are willing to pay twice the normal milk price for it.

  Some claim that raw milk prevents allergies and other diseases. Scientists generally discount these claims, a position that some raw milk advocates see as a part of a conspiracy. That theory is supported by the fact that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which has always been suspected of being too cozy with Big Milk, has gone so far as to warn that raw milk contains dangerous pathogens and should not be consumed.

  What is going on? If the government thinks raw milk is dangerous, how can the states allow it? Because lawmakers and consumer advocates in many states believe that the government is being too sweeping in their pronouncements in the name of simplicity and that under the right circumstances, raw milk can be safe.

  In the state of New York, raw milk is legal, but it can only be sold on farms. The risk from haphazard distributors or careless stores has been eliminated. People wishing to buy raw milk have to find a farm and visit it, which can be problematic for many New York City dwellers, one of the largest markets for allegedly healthful milk specialties.

  Mary and Bill Koch have five acres north of New York City in the Hudson Valley, an area that is part suburban and part agricultural. The Kochs decided that a better way to keep their grass trimmed would be to get a cow. “If you have grassland,” said Mary, “and you don’t use it, you wind up spending a lot of time and money mowing it.” Also, she added, Teddy, their then second-grade son, became upset when he found that the mower was killing bird eggs, rabbits, and birds—“all kinds of wildlife chopped up.”

  Once the Kochs got a cow, however, they realized that they knew nothing about keeping cows. The cow died. It takes a great deal of knowledge to keep a cow healthy. Undeterred, they studied up on cows and got a few more. Today, they generally maintain between three and five Dutch Belted cows, handsome black cows with a thick white stripe around the middle. Despite their name, they are thought to have originated in Switzerland or Austria. Not as large, hungry, or productive as Holsteins, they are an affordable and reasonably productive breed. They produce good butterfat and, as Mary said, will “eat almost anything and turn it to milk.”

  The Kochs mostly let their cows graze, but they supplement their food with hay, especially in the winter. They also feed them treats such as carrots and Swiss chard from their garden. “Cows love getting treats,” Mary said. But even grass-feeding isn’t as cheap as it sounds; it costs eight dollars a day to feed each cow.

  The Kochs tried to earn a living by selling their dairy products. But they couldn’t earn enough to survive and so turned their farm into a four-room bed-and-breakfast, which they named Thyme in the Country B&B. They try to offer their guests a “true farm experience” by serving them raw milk along with other farmhouse products such as yogurt, butter, eggs, chicken, and pork. People often drive up from New York City to have “a farm experience” at Thyme in the Country, where they can enjoy raw milk. All the milk is raw, and inspectors come to the farm regularly. The Kochs find them to be likeable, and the inspectors have found the Kochs extremely helpful.

  Dutch Belted cows

  The Thyme’s habitués seem to be passionate about raw milk. Upon a new guest’s arrival, they often rush up to him or her to grill them about their attitudes toward raw milk, to know whether the guest is for it or against it. It doesn’t seem to occur to them that some people might be completely neutral on this issue.

  In contrast, in the state of Idaho, raw milk can be sold in a store. It commands a high price because it is expensive to produce. A separate herd has to be maintained and regularly tested.

  Alan Reed in Idaho Falls thought there might be a good market for this high-priced raw milk and decided to give producing it a try. He sold his raw milk for $6.87 a gallon as opposed to the $5 usually charged for a gallon of regular whole milk. It was a luxury item for milk gourmets: nonhomogenized milk with the cream still floating on top. But he only sold about 130 gallons a week. “I was surprised,” he said. “Everybody was coming in here talking about raw milk. I thought I would sell more.”

  The debate over breastfeeding versus artificial feeding will probably never end. History has shown it to be a constant, with the majority opinion over which is better regularly swinging back and forth, like the fashionable width of neckties. In the early twenty-first century, especially in the United States, the pendulum has swung back to breastfeeding. Once regarded as the choice of poorer people who could not afford to buy milk or formula, it is now regarded as the thing to do by upper-middle-class and wealthy women. Working-class women, on the other hand, especially women with jobs, now prefer bottle-feeding.

  Starting in 1920, scientists, doctors, and mothers began doubting the virtues of breast milk. It had been found that the vitamin content of breast milk varied among women, and that not all women produced good breast milk. Artificial feeding, in contrast, could be consistently nutritious, and gradually, it became more popular. There were regional differences. Midwesterners preferred breastfeeding and Northeasterners preferred artificial feeding. But in general, artificial feeding was increasingly popular. During World War II, doctors assumed that there would be a resurgence in breastfeeding because there was a scarcity of milk. But that never happened.

  Hospitals pushed the notion of “scientific” childcare and discouraged breastfeeding. This was highly significant because by 1950, 80 percent of American women gave birth in hospitals, up from only 20 percent in 1920.

  Historians argue over whether breastfeeding became popular because of the seven Catholic housewives who in 1956 founded the La Leche League or the league just happened to come along at the right moment. Both theories might be right.

  La Leche began when its founders, Marian Tompson and Mary White, were breastfeeding their babies at a Christian Family Movement picnic and decided that they should do something to promote what they termed “natural mothering.” This struck a chord with American women, because it was a reaction against “scientific mothering.” There was a strong feeling that doctors should not be telling mothers what to do.

  Since most doctors at the time were men, the La Leche movement had a vague feminist overtone, even though the nascent feminist movement itself was generally on the side of bottle-feeding. But in other ways, the La Leche movement was decidedly nonfeminist. White had eleven children, and she and her league believed that women should stay home, have many children, and dedicate all their time to childcare. They openly opposed the idea of women working.

  After the Christian Family picnic, White and Thomson met with five other women in White’s Franklin Park, Illinois, home. Between them they had given birth to fifty-six babies, and their sentiment was
that they were the ones with some real expertise.

  Five years later, there were forty-three La Leche groups around the United States. In 1976, twenty years after their founding, there were about three thousand groups. But breastfeeding actually reached its lowest point in popularity in the 1970s. In 1971 only 24 percent of American women breastfed and only 5 percent continued to do so after six months. The best food for babies, most people were convinced, was commercially bottled baby formula.

  Nothing changes popular thinking as quickly as a major scandal.

  Until 1970 few statistics were available on infant mortality in the developing world. But when researchers started gathering these statistics, they discovered horrors reminiscent of the epidemics that had swept through nineteenth-century cities. In India in 1970, 2.6 million babies died. Worldwide, an estimated 11 million babies every year did not live to their first birthday. Most of the deaths were in Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, and Africa.

  In these countries, breastfeeding was on the decline and formula feeding was on the rise. It was a by-product of the struggle to develop the economy. Women were going to work. Parents were leaving their villages for work in the cities. Children were being left in the hands of relatives or paid caregivers, and without mothers being present, the practice of feeding babies formula became widespread. Companies that made formula, especially Nestlé, Bristol-Myers, Abbott Laboratories, and American Home Products, saw a tremendous opportunity and began building plants and producing formula throughout the developing world.

  Baby formula became a huge industry. By 1981 the world formula market was estimated to be worth $2 billion, with Nestlé controlling over half of it. Much of Nestlé’s growth was in poor countries, where people responded to extensive advertising campaigns on the health benefits of formula. Formula was also given out in hospitals, because market research showed that the majority of mothers given formula in hospitals would continue using it after they went home. Later investigations revealed that some of the “nurses” who visited mothers in hospital maternity wards were actually Nestlé’s salespeople in disguise. The United Nations World Health Organization estimated that between India, Nigeria, Ethiopia, and the Philippines, bottles were being given out at a rate of five million each year.