Martin Sheen: Poisoning Your Babies with Ass Milk?


Endless Simmer usually likes to take bold political stances on the important issues facing the food world. (As you may recall, we’re staunchly pro-moose burger and anti-portion control.) But sometimes we just don’t know which side to take on the more serious issues. Case-in-point: The raw milk debate.

Raw milk is milk that has not been pasteurized, and it’s been a hot topic in the MSM, with articles that make it sound like raw milk has all the qualities we like: all-natural, tasty, and sticking-it-to-the-man rebelliousness Food bloggers like I Heart Farms have been pushing the raw milk movement, pressuring state governments to allow the sale of raw milk, claiming it has healthy benefits that cleaned-up milk can’t offer. But the FDA and other worrywarts still say  you gotta go the Louis Pasteur way if you don’t wanna get sick to your stomach.

Now the raw milk side has enlisted Martin Sheen to campaign for their cause.

Of course, we usually will believe anything Marty tells us, because he’s such a good pretend president. Sheen says he’s been drinking the raw his entire life, and this is a pretty good defense, because when has he ever produced anything less than top quality?

So we gotta side with Sheen on this one, right? He wouldn’t lie to us. Or would he…

We became a little concerned when we realized Sheen is in league with Whole Paycheck, the white people-approved grocery store chain best known for crushing smaller competition, poisoning people with faux-organic products, and making us fork over half-a-month’s rent just to put together a decent cheese plate.

And – hottie food bloggers the Haphazard Gourmet Girls serve up a pretty convincing indictment of Sheen and his fellow raw milk fiends:

Raw Milkies believe it is a magical elixir for a huge variety of health problems…a belief that is completely unsubstantiated by any medical studies. We refer to raw milk as ass in a glassdue to its origination point; the location of cow udders in close proximity to cow ass has caused problems since humans started ingesting milk. Pasteurization changed this; and in so doing profoundly changed the course of human health.

The Haphzard Girls showed up to protest at Sheen’s big event and seemed to make quite a splash:

…worried Raw Milkys approached us for more information; all of them said they’d started to drink raw milk after hearing the hype, but they’d never heard a single mention of potentially deadly pathogens, and wondered both why there was no warning labels on milk bottles, and why raw milk can be sold…

Ugh! Now we don’t know who to believe. You know how much we like to be at the cutting edge of things, but not at the expense of consuming ass milk. But who’s telling the truth? If any of you readers have thoughts on this, please do weigh in. To drink or not to drink? How are we supposed to figure this one out?

Photo: Haphazard Gourmet Girls

You may also like


  • JoeHoya September 16, 2008  

    I’m pro raw milk for one reason and one reason alone: raw milk cheese.

    I really don’t drink milk for any properties other than taste (go figure), so I’m probably not missing anything by drinking the pasteurized stuff.

    But I’ve had raw-milk Epoisses and I can honestly say that I could taste the difference between the real deal and the stuff you can buy here.

    If allowing raw milk paves the way for allowing the production and sale of raw milk cheeses, I say bring it on.

  • Jenny September 16, 2008  

    Actually, the girls have it wrong: the benefits of raw milk have been illustrated in several studies and the risk of pathogens is incredibly low in raw milk from clean dairies. Pasteurization is simply an excuse to produce dirty milk.

  • Nikki September 16, 2008  

    So what does raw milk have that pasteurized milk doesn’t…that I NEED to have in order to lead a healthful, fulfilled life? And can I get these properties from another source? Does it have to be dirty milk? And yes, it is dirty. Raw=dirty.

  • Vanessa September 16, 2008  

    I am not sure I understand what this entire drama is all about. The case in point is- should we allow people who would like to drink raw milk to have more access to it? My personal opinion is yes, we should. Will I drink it? Probably yes, but that’s a personal decision, not a policy-making argument! I disagree with the Haphazard Gourmet Girls on this one. They will not buy raw milk- but why shouldn’t I be able to?

  • Food Fan September 16, 2008  

    milk is bad for most women’s tummies… that’s all milk, raw or cooked

  • warned again September 16, 2008  


  • Fearless Kitchen September 17, 2008  

    I’m pretty opposed to government interference in matters of personal choice. If someone wants to drink raw milk I have no problem with their drinking raw milk, with the caveat that they need to know what they’re getting into. And I do like raw milk cheese, proximity to cow hiney notwithstanding. I wouldn’t eat it if my immune system were compromised or if I were expecting or something like that, but since none of these are the case… As for drinking, I’ll stick to beer. Solves the problem for me!

  • Eris September 17, 2008  

    It’s funny that folks think that raw milk is dirty. In this state (Washington) the levels of pathogens has to be the same as pasturized milk. So think about that… after the milk is pasturized it has the same level of pathogens as the raw milk has without being pasturized. How nasty dirty did that pasturized stuff have to be to only get as safe as any decently clean dairy can get without the pasturization? The simple fact is that it wasn’t clean, it was horribly filthy to start with.

    As for what raw milk has in it that pasturized milk doesn’t… enzymes that allow you (and baby cows btw) to digest the stuff. Many people who have problems drinking milk have no issues drinking pasturized milk.

    That being said I don’t usually pay for raw milk. I do just fine on the other stuff even though I know it was dirtier to start with (wouldn’t it be nice if cleanliness was required from ALL dairies?) but the idea that someone else shouldn’t be allowed to purchase raw milk is asinine. Again, in this state there are warnings on raw milk so if someone wants to buy it (and oh yes they do) then what business of mine is it to stop them? Seriously people, don’t we all have something better to do then to stop people from drinking raw milk?

  • Maidelitala September 17, 2008  

    As a lactard, who misses cheese but who never could down a glass of the white stuff without gagging and having to hold my nose, I should probably stay out of this debate. HOWEVER, personal choice only gets one so far with incomplete information. In fact incomplete information -which is afterall what proganda and marketing in general is designed to give us – injects an element of coercive element into the “choices” we make.
    Now, I’m not saying raw milk is bad, I’m just saying, if there are questions about the safety of the white gunk, it’s probably better not to be pouring it into the mouths of babes (who have incomplete information and limited choices because their ‘rents buy and provide their sustenance).

  • The Haphazard Gourmet Girls November 1, 2008  

    The Haphazard Gourmet Girls are all for personal choice and as little government intervention as possible. But the raw milk issue in California was more about personal financial gain for the two dairies that somehow roped our Senator, Dean Florez, into backing SB 201, rather than providing The Public with a healthy source of food-based medicine (raw milk sells for $25/gallon to markets, as opposed to $4/gallon for pasteurized milk). Unfortunately, there is no hard medical evidence that raw milk provides any of the health benefits that the very emotional and very glossy pro-raw campaigns suggest (literally, not a single study done in a completely scientific way). However, there have been many, many studies done on the deadly pathogens like listeria, campylobacter and e coli that are regularly and naturally present in milk as part of cows’ daily digestive processes. Pasteurization kills these pathogens, and many others. It’s no accident that illness and mortality rates from milk have plummeted in the century since pasteurization became a standard. California’s governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, a self-proclaimed raw milk advocate due to his body-building “natural foods” past, ultimately vetoed the bill because he believed it dangerously altered state dairy standards, and because there was no real reason that raw milk should be allowed into the marketplace if it contained deadly pathogens. Can “raw milk” be bottled and sold without deadly pathogens being present? Absolutely. But it’s a labor intensive process, requiring scrupulous cleanliness in barns and fields, and constant testing for the presence of pathogens. Thus it’s extremely costly for raw milk dairyists, and vastly reduces their profit margin. SB 201 sought specifically to allow a higher level of pathogens to be present in milk being sold, thereby reducing the financial burden of testing, etc. Another complication in the mix is that cows naturally shed campylobacter in the spring and fall; it naturally exists in almost all cows’ digestive tracks, but just happens to cause renal failure, dementia, paralysis or death in humans. Raw milk dairyists who are scrupulous about cleanliness, health–and ethics–would not be selling raw milk during the natural campy shedding season. Coincidentally–or not, as it happens constantly–less than 24 hours after we showed up to protest passage of the bill at the Martin Sheen event, a whole batch of raw milk cream was quarantined and recalled for contamination. It was produced by Organic Pastures, the raw milk dairy that had sponsored the bill. Organic Pastures, as it happens, is involved in a number of ongoing law suits for poisoning its consumers. The Haphazard Girls are locavores, organic, microfarmers and activist foodies, and it pained us to be on the side of “Big Ag.” But in some cases, Big Ag has it right. There’s no good reason NOT to pasteurize, except for monetary gain.

  • Pingback: What Are We Googling? November 18, 2008  
  • erica December 12, 2008  

    all milk is dirty… studies show that all milk has between one and seven drops of puss per glass, depending on the state you live in. This is because of mastitis in cows forced to overproduced. The government regulates how much puss is “acceptable” in the dairy supply.

    When food is changed from it’s original, natural version to a cooked version, it loses it’s enzymes and between 70 and 99% of the vitamins and minerals.

    Technically no children should have cow dairy prior to the age of 2, babies cannot digest cow’s milk, and early introduction of dairy is a frequent cause of dairy allergies, especially when the parents have allergies.


    humans have been drinking milk straight from the cow for hundreds of years.

  • Jonathan July 2, 2009  


    Did you even read the aticle that you posted about how much pus is allowed in milk before and after pasteurization during inspection? There is a certain amount allowed before because they use that as a tool to measure how healthy they are keeping the cows, and then of course after pasteurizaion there is NONE, NADA, ZILCH pus allowed in the milk, and a myriad of other things as well that they check for before it is even marketable!!! Gimme good neo-facist milk anyday plz kthxbai. Enjoy your ass milk.

  • William July 8, 2009  

    What a wonderful contribution of speculation, opinions and beliefs that we can find in response to this article!

    I wonder how many of these folks have any personal experience with raw milk? I wonder how many of these humans realize that pasteurization destroys a plethora of heat-sensitive enzymes, vitamins and a host of other nutrients? I wonder how many of these individuals commenting here have contemplated and studied deeply the dietary choices of healthy traditional and primitive groups around the world consuming and subsisting on unheated, unadulterated raw milk? I wonder how many people commenting here realize the impact raw milk had on their ancestors’ overall genetic viability and personal health? I wonder if anyone commenting on this board has taken an earnest, well-focused, and determined approach to seeking out actual verifiable statistics regarding the risks associated with consuming such a natural substance? I wonder how well the human race would have fared had every mother in the inhabiting this planet taken their own breast milk and applied high heat pasteurization temperatures in order to avoid so-called pathogenic bacteria? I wonder how many of these folks were indoctrinated at a very young age with information regarding the so-called ‘inherent dangers’ linked to unpasteurized milk consumption? I wonder who benefits from mass-produced pasteurized milk? I wonder who benefits from raw milk production on small-scale eco-friendly traditional farming methods geared toward sustaining animals (such as cow) on a natural diet of abundant grass and vegetation grown on nutrient dense soils? I wonder if many of us realize that we are walking, breathing, laughing, crying, dancing bacterial vehicles, maintaining 10 times more bacteria within our human organism than human cells? Should I wonder if any of the preceding comments stemmed from individuals with realization that e. coli, salmonella, and various other living agents are naturally discovered to be inhabiting various regions of the average human gut flora? I wonder if any of the aforementioned inquiries will catalyze or instigate investigation by any of the readers or commentators of this article?

  • Dina February 20, 2012  

    Pasteurization changed the coarse of human health alright! Heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, poor digestive systems, poor immune systems, cancer, asthma, bad teeth, poor bone structure, the list goes on.

    No scientific proof that raw milk is beneficial? Use common sense. It gives life to all mammals. People who drink raw milk know and they have seen the difference it makes in their lives. Isn’t it nice not to be sick anymore?

Leave a comment