Personal freedom, role of government, and raw milk

Taxpayers money is being spend by the Fraser Health Region of British Columbia to prevent farmers from selling raw milk and thereby preventing consumers from doing what they might want to choose.

Personal freedom to make choices is of primary importance to me. Yes, I must be subject to penalties if the actions I take based on my choice cause identifiable damage to others.

A proper role of government is to provide unbiased and relevant information to assist individuals in making decisions as to personal action which may endanger the individual or society. It is not the proper role of government to prevent me from making what the government may regard as a mistake.

Our health region is alleging that the dangers from raw milk are sufficient to justify its prohibition. I have yet to see them publish the data supporting that opinion.

Here is my experience.
I was raised as a child in small town rural Saskatchewan in the 1930's. We had no electricity and limited refrigeration. A local farmer delivered unpasteurized milk to us daily. We had a kerosene refrigerator. Others in the town may have had some ice from the ice house or nothing more than a cool cupboard. I do not know of a single instance of health problems arising from the milk. Similarly in the 1970's living in Kenya we bought unpasteurized milk daily from a local farmer. Throughout the 1980's and 1990's on extended visits in France we drank unpasteurized milk and ate cheese from unpasteurized milk.

In my view here are some valid roles for government agencies both in general and for the particular case of raw milk.

-publish data on the risks of raw milk in general.
-publish data on the risks of raw milk in our geographic region. Similarly publish data on the risk of dining in fast food restaurants.
[Note that use of the internet reduces the cost of publication to virtually zero]
-publish data on the outcome of legal suits launched against distributors of raw milk on the basis of distributing products which resulted in damage. Note that this requires proof of directly related damage to identified individuals by identified distributors.
-inspect all food producing establishments as to sanitary standards, e.g. as for restaurants and for safety of raw materials, e.g. cattle for mad cow and dairy cattle for TB. Further to shut them down is standards are not met.
-require labeling of raw milk as is done for cigarettes.
-require an annual surcharge on Medical Service Plan premiums for those who are consuming raw milk. A similar surcharge should be levied on those who smoke. Here the purpose is to compensate society for any additional costs imposed by the results of risky personal decisions. Note that life insurance companies are able to charge higher premiums on those who smoke and yet do not do so for those who drink raw milk.
-require that I directly pay for any medical or hospital costs arising from my consumption of raw milk.
-
The present stance of the Fraser Health authority simply supports the existing milk cartel and the financial health of the legal industry.