‘Adding Fuel to the Controversy Fire’

While reading and researching material for this blogging project on the ‘raw’ milk debate / controversy I have been trying to formulate some thoughts on why this controversy has arisen. I have yet to come up with a succinct answer/s, but I have a few questions that may be influencing and ‘adding fuel to the controversy fire’ –

• The language (in the style of the deficit model of communication – assuming the public knows nothing and organisations inform the public in authoritative ways and don’t take into account the experiences and knowledge of individuals) in which public health agencies, government departments and scientists state the dangers of consuming ‘raw’ milk, risks involved in consuming ‘raw’ milk and food-borne illness associated with ‘raw’ milk
• Do members of the public just want to know ‘what is the risk of getting sick if I drink some raw milk?’ and do public health agencies etc clearly present this type of information?
• Does this language create a negative reaction in members of the public wanting to know more about ‘raw’ milk and spurs them to look elsewhere (other internet sources) for information? And stumble upon webpages and information on the pro-‘raw’ milk side of the debate?
• Do the numerous webpages and blogs of pro-‘raw’ milk supporters, advocates, lobby groups, charities and organisations capture more readers (due to their high numbers, prominence in google searches, use of everyday language etc)?
• Do the social issues (government control, conspiracy theories, support for raw, wholesome and natural foods, and support for local farmers) ‘hook’ readers in?
• Does the desire in ‘raw’ milk consumers to live healthier lives and help alleviate allergy and asthma symptoms override potential risks of contracting a food-borne infection?

I will continue mulling over these questions and perhaps I can use this for the essay assignment I have to write on my chosen controversy.

Read Full Post »