Are propaganda and uncited overstatements really bad?

[Guest guest]

I'm still convinced that pasteurized milk is nutritionally inferior to raw.

That one's fairly easy. The burden of proof lay with those who wanted to

pasteurize, and they did not adequately succeed in shouldering that burden.

I think that the recent discussion has focused too much on the relative

merits of raw vs pasteurized milk. Understandable, given that's what the

subject heading was. I personally think that most of us have seen

sufficient evidence on the raw vs pasteurized debate to cause us to continue

to believe that raw is better.

I honestly don't care, however, whether there is some truth to the statement

that " Calves fed pasteurized milk die before maturity. " Either way I'm sure

that raw milk is better for us. For me the issue is that it is an extreme

statement. Worse yet it is an extreme statement without citations or

qualifications. In other words, it's propaganda not information.

Admittedly, this is just my opinion, but it seems to me that this list, the

WAPF, PPNF, etc should be strictly about *information*. Propaganda is only

appropriate when the issues and information don't stand on their own merits.

With that said, I also think that it's important that we not go overboard in

terms of accusations. I don't think Sally or anybody else intended to

overstate the case. I'm sure that they're just trying to do work that they

believe in. However, when people are immersed in an issue, it's easy to

become overly consumed with it and lose some objectivity. That's where

having a healthy and critical body of *supporters* helps to keep a movement

on track.