Answer: No.

The New York Times is asking if raw milk should be legal. Asking with every intention, it appears, of convincing us that it should. Although they cite a few of the health risks, they focus on the 'brave' families breaking the law (or bending) to get raw milk in NYC. 'It tastes better!' 'It may have health benefits!'

Let me make this absolutely clear: there are no health benefits to drinking raw milk. It does not have any enzymes or bacteria that you need in order to drink milk. It is not enriched, like commercial milk, with vitamins A and D. It does not guarantee a better source, being closer to nature, environmentally-friendly farming, or any other advantage.

Not that it is universally unsafe -- I must admit that I drank raw milk as a child living on a dairy farm. I came out healthy, with a strong immune system. I was lucky.

However, now that I know what I know about food safety, I would never, ever give a child raw milk. Bad bacteria, people! Death! I have a feeling that the woman who said she drank raw milk while pregnant also gave up cold cuts -- Listeria lives in both! It causes abortions! Bad!

Trust me on this: you have no reason to drink raw milk.

Should it be illegal, though? Plenty of thinks I don't like are perfectly legal, and I'm not going to petition for their illegality. Raw milk, however, is a public health concern. When you get sick from drinking raw milk, you cost the health care system money. You cost our economy your work time while you're out sick. In the military, they refer to this as rendering yourself unfit for service. Gray area, in civilian affairs, but, if nothing else, we should be protecting these children. Right? Any law is okay if it protects children . . .