I’m glad to see that the discussion about Organic Pastures Dairy Co. and the children who became ill has evolved beyond a discussion of raw milk to embrace broader issues, like the problem of foodborne illness, our dysfunctional food system, and the availability of key data from government agencies.

In that vein, I’d like to briefly address two issues Mary McGonigle-Martin raises. First, she strongly suggests that MarkMcAfee should continue investigating the possibility that E.coli 0157:H7 from his dairy made Chris sick. She even states, “He’s behaving like a guilty person.”

Over the weekend, I found myself thinking, What if I were in Mark’s position. What would I be doing differently?

I once was in something at least approaching Mark’s position when I worked with a startup testing online sale of nutritional supplements. I can tell you that my biggest fear the entire ten months or so I was involved in that venture was that a customer would become ill from some accidental contamination of one or another of the supplements we were selling.

Now mind you, this venture didn’t even produce any of the supplements—they were from high-quality outside manufacturers. I spoke with several insurance agents about obtaining product liability insurance for the venture, and they all came back empty-handed. No insurer wanted any part of our venture. Finally, after I badgered one agent I knew well to search harder, he came back with one company that was willing to insure us, but only with a very high deductible, and a huge premium that would have immediately bankrupted us.

Each agent I sought quotes from told me my fears were absolutely justified. As one put it, “Even if you didn’t produce the supplement, if someone becomes ill, you can be absolutely certain the people who got sick will name everyone connected with the supplement, including you, in their multimillion dollar damage suit.”

We never did get insurance—I finally decided to take the risk and go to work with sweaty palms for the few months of the test, and face the issue again if we decided to proceed with the business, which we didn’t.

So I experienced just a fraction of what Mark McAfee experienced, and what many others who not only produce raw milk, but really any food or ingestible product, go through.

I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, but rather a fact of business life, that if your business is in a position to possibly make people ill, you’ve got not only a huge personal responsibility, but also potentially major financial risks. And the sicker customers might get, the bigger your potential problem.

All the foregoing is probably as it should be. What is unrealistic is to expect someone under that kind of pressure to say, after they are cleared by intensive investigation, “Hey, Mary, I know you want to get to the bottom of this. Let’s continue this investigation, you and I, let’s look at those genetic codes and search further among my animals. If there’s anything to get on me, I want you to get it, so you and everyone else who got sick can sue the pants off me and put me out of business. And you know what would really be fun? To hear from all the ‘experts’ who would line up to testify in court that these illnesses were inevitable because I insisted on selling raw milk. Come on, Mary, let’s do it.”

I know this isn’t what Mary is saying literally, and it may sound harsh, but looking at this from Mark’s perspective, it’s how it might look. (And remember also, these are my words, not Mark’s, because he’s never verbalized the matter this way to me.) I also know I’ve been supportive of Mary’s quest for answers, but now that we’re nearly a year after the illnesses, I’m questioning whether Mark is the place to go for answers.

For whatever it’s worth, Mark has taken some commendable actions–visiting Chris and Lauren in the hospital and remaining open to questioning on the matter, long after he’s been cleared. How many spinach farm executives or Taco Bell executives did you hear about visiting with sick patients last fall and winter, and continuing to discuss the matter long after the fact? (Oh yeah, I think a few did…when they were subpoenaed by Congressional inquiries.)

Mary can argue all she wants that she isn’t in this to sue Mark, and I believe her. But once the product liability lawyers were to get through telling her it’s not about the money, but about "making sure no one else has to suffer like Chris did," she could well change her mind. Once again, I’m not saying that she should drop the matter because Mark, for understandable reasons, doesn’t want to go further down her path, but rather that she should push harder with the government agencies (California agriculture and public health agencies), which almost certainly have more information than Mark, since they collected data from both his dairy and the sick children. File Freedom of Information requests, challenge privacy regulations, get Melissa Herzog and other parents of affected children involved, mine databases, and do whatever is possible to get to the bottom of the matter.

I also want to answer Mary’s statement, about me: “He’s pro raw milk and wants to encourage pro raw milk messages/information on this blog.”

It’s not the first time I’ve heard this observation. In a variation, I’ve been asked by a number of friends and colleagues, “Why do you care so much about raw milk?”

My interest in raw milk grew out of several investigations I did for BusinessWeek.com last year into what appeared to me to be unreasonable interference by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration against producers of health-related products. One that especially stood out was against Michigan cherry farmers and another was against producers of natural hormone supplements for women. I came to appreciate how serious the government was in seeking to prevent consumers from learning about and using certain alternative products that could be beneficial to their health.

So when I investigated the shutdown of Organic Pastures last September and the raid against Richard Hebron in October, I saw additional examples of unreasonable interference. The examples have only multiplied.

While there’s lots of discussion about raw milk on this blog, I consider raw milk to be a proxy for a much larger struggle over food production and the role of nutrition in improving health. The rabid establishment opposition to raw milk belies an underlying fear: if raw milk becomes accepted, and people discover that it may be improve health, then the entire edifice of our agriculture and medical system could be in danger.