A young family took a chance on alternative food source.

They were apparently uniformed.

It didn't work out well, in fact dangerously unwell.

For a period of 30 days.

Ok, what do we learn? Probably that raw milk products ought not to be consumed by young people, or others with undeveloped systems.

What am I missing?

How on earth can someone think that milk for a baby goat is healthier than milk manufactured specifically for baby humans in your own body??

When I began reading the article I felt that the store shouldn't be liable because it was her choice to purchase the raw milk and give it to her son, however if people at the store are spouting this type of erroneous advice then they absolutely deserve to be held responsible.

The parent is responsible for what goes into the mouth of that child. I won't let joe-schmo at the supermarket tell me this is "better for him/her" based on a passing conversation. Do a little research people!

I can understand a tough decision in finding blame/liability in this case; no picnic there. But I would say both parties need to look in the mirror here. Aren't there quite a few items in the stores these days that are likely to cause just as much harm in the market? Don't we hold some sense of responsiblity as parents to take note of and research some of those items before we feed it to our children, especially as young as this one?

thanks for the article