Raw milk 150 times more likely to cause illness than pasteurized

[autumn1971]

Note also that "sick" in the US is generally used for all illness and not nausea specifically. I speculate that it's due to Dutch immigrants

So. . . we should ban the sale of Dutch immigrants? Or just make sure that they're pasturized?

 

[quadraginta]

Actually, unfiltered and unpasteurised cider should last much longer before going off than the pasteurised stuff. The living yeast left in an unpasteurised bottle is a great stabiliser, without which volatile components in beer and cider break down and produce off tastes much quicker.

Not to mention certain other ... umm ... benefits of cider with live yeast.

 

[Damien Evans]

Not to mention certain other ... umm ... benefits of cider with live yeast.

Reculturing for homebrewing for one.

 

[quadraginta]

Reculturing for homebrewing for one.

There were lots of small local orchards where I grew up. It was possible to catch a bit of a buzz by accident from the cider at some of the roadside stands.

Other times it wasn't by accident.

 

[Jorghnassen]

Actually, unfiltered and unpasteurised cider should last much longer before going off than the pasteurised stuff. The living yeast left in an unpasteurised bottle is a great stabiliser, without which volatile components in beer and cider break down and produce off tastes much quicker.

I meant (brown cloudy) apple juice, the non-alcoholic stuff that part of the US and Canada (mostly eastern) call "apple cider" (as opposed to "hard cider"). The unpasteurized stuff, while delicious, does get fizzy/yeasty/alcoholicky-ish faster than the pasteurized stuff.

I make no claim as to which is the better way to make actual (alcoholic) cider. Not a homebrewer, but I do like cider in all its forms. Unfortunately, outside of ice cider, there's not much variety around here.

 

[casebro]

I am a homebrewer.

Before pasteurization, ALL ciders were hard ciders.

Yeast occurs naturally on many fruits. Ever notice the frosty/dusty coating on grapes and plums? Yeast. But those wild strains may not make the best flavors, so brewers want to kill them off. They use a sulphite, potassium metabisulphite, then add commercial yeast that has been bred to be sulphite immune. The sulphite comes as a aspirin like pill called Campden Tablets, and the yeast cost about $1 for a package similar to bread yeast envelopes. One package will make up to a 10 gallon batch, then re-use the dreck off the bottom in subsequent batches, all summer long.

I brew a lot of fruit wines. If fruit is free, the cork costs me more than the wine. About 24¢. If I have to buy fruit, about $1/bottle.

Though I did lately brew a couple batches with fruit that had fruit flies within. Those carry acetobactor, which turns alcohol into vinegar, so I ended up with 4 gallons of Plum Wine Vinegar. Makes sweet and fruity pickled eggs, excellent on salads and in sauces. Probably worth more than wine.

Used to be the way to tell an alcoholic farmer was that he had a big apple orchard. But if you wild yeasted hard cider went bad due to an acetobactor infection, you had apple cider vinegar.

So germs ain't all bad.

 

[Dinwar]

So if growing pot for personal use was made legal, but you weren't allow to sell it, that would be an attempt to ban its consumption?

No. Regulation is not the same as prohibition.

"Regulation" implies restrictions, so all bans are regulations. Outright banning selling of a product removes that product from the marketplace, by definition--therefore yes, it's a de facto ban on its consumption, with an escape clause so that people can pretend it's not.

It doesn't take much due diligence to ascertain that raw milk is dangerous. So you agree that anybody selling raw milk is either incompetent, irresponsible or a liar?

It doesn't take much due diligence to ascertain that sitting is dangerous. So you agree that anybody selling chairs is either incompetent, irresponsible, or a liar?

It doesn't take much due diligence to ascertain that driving is dangerous--far more so than any food consumption in any industrialized nation. So you agree that anybody selling cars is either incompetent, irresponsible, or a liar?

It doesnt' take much due diligence to ascertain that owning a pitbull is dangerous. So you agree that anybody selling pitbulls is either incompetent, irresponsible, or a liar?

Need I go on? Or is the point clear enough?

The alternative is, of course, that people disagree with you about the relative risks. And that's okay. It's their body, after all--if they want to take that risk, they can. We all take innumerable risks every day.

Again, nobody is stopping people getting milk from their own cows. The Federal government only regulates interstate commerce, and leaves it up to individual states to decide whether they should permit the sale of raw milk (28 states allow it).

Please point to where I said that the federal government was the issue here. You seem to be reading something other than my post, in a number of instances.

I think you have cause and effect backwards. It was public awareness which led to bans in the first place.

No, I was responding to a direct quote. YOU said:

The CDC isn't trying to ban people from consuming raw milk, they are just trying to keep them informed so that they can make better decisions.

I was saying that, if we agree that the CDC is attempting to keep people informed by banning the sale of raw milk, it's reasonable to ask if such bans have ever been effective. I was going off of YOUR assumption of causality. I've already stated what I believe (and what historically is true) the causal chain to be (in short, brewers fed cows nothing but swill and sold the extremely low-quality and often adulterated milk as fresh, particularly to orphenages and schools because it was cheap), so again, you're not actually responding to what I'm writing here.

d let's be clear. There is no ban on selling milk, only on disease-ridden un-pasteurized milk.

If you're after clarity, you need to remove that "disease-ridden" part. It's emotionally evocative but fundamentally unsupported by the data thus far presented in this thread.

Pasteurization is a simple process which dramatically reduces the incidence of milk-related sickness, but some producers would rather put the health of their customers at risk.

Given the difficulty in obtaining the milk, I think you're backwards here. The CONSUMERS put the consumers at risk--they go to rather extraordinary lengths to get raw milk, after all. There are few people who advertise it.

That is why governments around the world are keeping a close eye on the situation - we do not want to go back to the bad old days of no regulation and a sick populace.

Again, this language is extremely emotionally charged without being supported by the evidence thus far presented in this thread. I've little doubt that unpasteurized milk can be processed in a safe manner, and given the extreme rarity of illness associated with the consumption of raw milk (as per the evidence presented in this thread) I'd say that my conclusion is pretty well supported. And no one is supporting the notion of going back to swill milk. What I've been saying is that these people are adults and can make their own decisions about what they put into their bodies. If you don't like the risk they take, well, that's too bad--you're not taking the risk, so you don't get a say in it.

If you want REGULATIONS, rather than bans, cool. I propose allowing the sale of raw milk, but requiring that all such milk be clearly labeled. That way the consumers can know exactly what they're purchasing and can inform themselves adequately, but allow them the choice to take the risks if they so choose. I'll even go so far as to say I'd support requiring raw milk to have a label warning that it's not to be consumed by children under the age of, oh, let's call it 13. If people agree with you that raw milk is dangerous, or if disease rates skyrocket from it as you seem to think they will, the companies will fold quickly. If you're wrong, they will remain in business. A simple test, in which everyone involved is voluntarily taking risks that we can be reasonably certain they fully understand, and one in which one of us will be proven correct. I know it's impossible to actually RUN the test, but what I want to know is if you're even willing to consider the idea. Because given that you've resorted to emotional attacks, twisting my words, and taking what I say out of context (see above for examples of each), I'll be honest, I doubt you will be.

 

[IDB87]

I enjoy raw milk.

That is all.

 

[Brian-M]

I enjoy raw milk.

That is all.

Does it taste any different to pasteurized milk?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

"Regulation" implies restrictions, so all bans are regulations. Outright banning selling of a product removes that product from the marketplace, by definition--therefore yes, it's a de facto ban on its consumption

I see where you are coming from. All regulation is 'banning' something under certain circumstances, therefore we shouldn't have any regulations at all, right?

It doesn't take much due diligence to ascertain that sitting is dangerous. So you agree that anybody selling chairs is either incompetent, irresponsible, or a liar?

What a pathetic analogy. Is it a well established fact that sitting is dangerous? No. Raw milk? Yes. Not even close to equivalent.

The alternative is, of course, that people disagree with you about the relative risks. And that's okay. It's their body, after all--if they want to take that risk, they can. We all take innumerable risks every day.

More libertarian drivel. People can do anything they like with their own bodies - so long as they are willing to pay for their own medical bills etc. Of course in practice we all pay for the sick people in our society, but we accept that people aren't perfect and can't always avoid sickness. However, what we can do is try to help people reduce their exposure to diseases.

Please point to where I said that the federal government was the issue here...

I was saying that, if we agree that the CDC is attempting to keep people informed by banning the sale of raw milk, it's reasonable to ask if such bans have ever been effective.

But the CDC (a Federal organization) is not banning the sale of sale of raw milk. Some individual states have banned it.

I was going off of YOUR assumption of causality. I've already stated what I believe (and what historically is true) the causal chain to be (in short, brewers fed cows nothing but swill and sold the extremely low-quality and often adulterated milk

So your argument is that raw milk used to be dangerous due to poor production practices, but now it isn't? That still doesn't negate the fact that regulations were put in place to deal with the problem, not the other way around.

Raw milk may be safer now, due to greater awareness of its hazards and better hygiene practices. But it took regulations to force the milk industry into adopting pasteurization. Though pasteurization is now standard practice, a few people are still getting sick due to slack procedures in some factories. This is to be expected (no system is perfect) however we now know that the 1% of milk still being sold which is not pasteurized is causing more sickness than the 99% which is. This proves that the quality of today's raw milk is still not up to an acceptable standard.

If you're after clarity, you need to remove that "disease-ridden" part. It's emotionally evocative but fundamentally unsupported by the data thus far presented in this thread.

Oh sorry, here's some data...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_milk#United_States

The Cornell University Food Science Department has compiled data indicating that pathogenic microorganisms are present in between 0.87% and 12.6% of raw milk samples

That good enough for you?

Given the difficulty in obtaining the milk, I think you're backwards here. The CONSUMERS put the consumers at risk--they go to rather extraordinary lengths to get raw milk, after all. There are few people who advertise it.

Good. I'm glad to see that the laws are working. Unfortunately however, there is a growing trend towards promoting the so-called 'health benefits' of raw milk. Many people are concerned about getting a healthy diet, and this misinformation could trick them into thinking that it's better for them. I am concerned that a movement may be afoot to remove regulations and allow the unrestricted sale of raw milk, which could be a disaster if taken up wholesale.

I've little doubt that unpasteurized milk can be processed in a safe manner,

It can, but health nuts don't want that. They want 'natural' milk, which hasn't been tampered with in any way. Of course the producers don't mind this at all. Less processing means lower costs, more profit...

and given the extreme rarity of illness associated with the consumption of raw milk (as per the evidence presented in this thread)

No such evidence has been presented. My own (undisputed) calculation estimated that a recent outbreak might have involved over 7000 cases if raw milk was the norm. That's not what I would call 'extreme rarity'.

And no one is supporting the notion of going back to swill milk.

One would hope not! At that time, raw milk was the culprit in about 25% of food poisoning outbreaks, now it is down to 1%. But even if it only increased to 15%, that would still be unacceptable IMO.

What I've been saying is that these people are adults and can make their own decisions about what they put into their bodies. If you don't like the risk they take, well, that's too bad--you're not taking the risk, so you don't get a say in it.

Back to the libertarian nonsense. Sure we let people do what they like with their own bodies (up to a point) but do not suggest that their risk taking is not affecting the rest of us. No man is an island.

if disease rates skyrocket from it as you seem to think they will, the companies will fold quickly. If you're wrong, they will remain in business. A simple test,

A dangerous experiment that would almost certainly result in people dying. Do you want them on your conscience?

This libertarian idea that we should just allow businesses do whatever they like, and let the market cull out the bad ones, has been tried before. The results were disastrous. That's why we have regulations, to make sure that things are done properly in the first place, not wait until the damage is done and then try to patch it up. Two phrases come to mind:-

Shutting the Stable door after the Horse has Bolted.
Prevention is Better than Cure.

 

[IDB87]

Does it taste any different to pasteurized milk?

To me, yes, but I think it -may- have something to do with the fat content rather than being pasteurized or not. I prefer one brand of (raw) over another, and even prefer whole pasteurized to this other competitor.

Shrugg.

 

[casebro]

Fat content? I take that to mean that the system skims the cream off before they sell it as "whole milk"? Where as raw milk has all the cream that came from the cow?

And as a slight derail, what is cultured buttermilk? Buttermilk used to be cream with the butter removed, leaving a tart lower fat product. No culture involved, just the agitation of churning.

 

[Brian-M]

To me, yes, but I think it -may- have something to do with the fat content rather than being pasteurized or not. I prefer one brand of (raw) over another, and even prefer whole pasteurized to this other competitor.

Fat content? I take that to mean that the system skims the cream off before they sell it as "whole milk"? Where as raw milk has all the cream that came from the cow?

I'd guess that would have more to do with homogenization rather than pasteurization. Most milk you can buy in stores is both pasteurized and homogenized.

Homogenization is a mechanical treatment of the fat globules in milk brought about by passing milk under high pressure through a tiny orifice, which results in a decrease in the average diameter and an increase in number and surface area, of the fat globules. The net result, from a practical view, is a much reduced tendency for creaming of fat globules.​

http://www.foodsci.uoguelph.ca/dairyedu/homogenization.html

 

[Brian-M]

Curious about the supposed health benefits of raw milk, I've decided to find some more information. I found a site called Raw Milk Facts that seems to be fairly detailed.

Here's some of the things I read on the site...

Few people are aware that clean, raw milk from grass-fed cows was actually used as a medicine in the early part of the last century.

Eminent Canadian physician, Sir William Osler ( below, right 1849-1919) recommended it as a valuable aid in treating many serious diseases, often calling it 'white blood.' Today, an incredible array of milk-derived supplements are available for those seeking relief from disease or to improve their health in general.

Around the same time a potassium arsenite solution known as Fowler's Solution was also being used as a medicine, and X-ray machines were becoming popular as hair-removal devices. Just because people back then thought it was a beneficial treatment doesn't necessarily make it true.

And, if the milk-derived supplements are readily available, why not just take the supplements to get exactly what you need when you need it?

Clean raw milk from pastured cows is a complete and properly balanced food. You could live on it exclusively if you had to. Indeed, published accounts exist of people who have done just that."]Clean raw milk from pastured cows is a complete and properly balanced food. You could live on it exclusively if you had to. Indeed, published accounts exist of people who have done just that.

That's an interesting claim. If true, you could probably go on a milk-only diet to lose weight if you wanted. Looking it up, I see people have done exactly that. But it greatly increases your chances of colorectal cancer.

Raw milk, with its lactose-digesting Lactobacilli bacteria intact, may allow people who traditionally have avoided milk to give it another try.

But wouldn't you have to let it sit in a warm environment for several days to give this bacteria enough time to eat up enough lactose for this to make a difference? And even if no other bacteria started breeding in there in the meantime, wouldn't this make the milk taste sour and unpleasant?

Besides having known inhibitory effects on harmful species of bacteria, lactic acid boosts the absorption of calcium, phosphorus and iron, and has been shown to make milk proteins more digestible by knocking them out of solution as fine curd particles.

Ah, finally a concrete health benefit over pasteurized milk. Higher levels of lactic acid, especially if it isn't fresh.

But looking it up, your muscles produce lactic acid when you exercise. It's also present in natural yogurt, wine, and some beers. So you hardly need to drink raw milk to increase your levels of lactic acid.

Now consider that prior to 1900, very few people died from heart disease.

Wait... what?


Skimming through the site, I'm having a hard time finding any alleged health benefits you can't get from pasteurized milk (nutrients) and natural yogurt (beneficial bacteria).

Presumable some people think that pasteurizing milk destroys some of the nutrients. Is there any evidence for this? And if so, wouldn't we get the same nutrients from elsewhere in our diet?

 

[johnnyawe]

Raw milk causes most illnesses from dairy, study finds



Quelle surprise.

Will it change any minds?

Obviously unpasteurized milk would be more likely to cause food poisoning - and I am unaware of any claims to the contrary. Claims of health benefits, that I am aware of, are more along the lines of more nutrients and more bacteria - which cumulatively over the course of very long time could have a positive effect - but for a single dose the impact could be negative, or at best negligible.

 

[johnnyawe]

If any of you actually ever milked a cow or worked in a dairy you wouldn't want to drink raw milk. Trust me. So gross.

If you think about it, harvesting milk from another species of animal and drinking it is disgusting and unsanitary - regardless of whether or not it is "raw" or "pasteurized".

I don't think that any other animals do this besides humans. Humans are only able to because certain of us "evolved" the ability to digest milk even as an adult.

 

[rjh01]

I think if you want to drink raw milk you should drink it straight from the cow.

 

[!Kaggen]

Ah, finally a concrete health benefit over pasteurized milk. Higher levels of lactic acid, especially if it isn't fresh.

But looking it up, your muscles produce lactic acid when you exercise. It's also present in natural yogurt, wine, and some beers. So you hardly need to drink raw milk to increase your levels of lactic acid.

The benefits of lactic acid are in the digestive tract not in the blood stream so muscle lactic acid has no benefits.

The argument for lactic acid has to do with natural lactic acid bacteria(LAB) in raw milk which are killed through pasteurization. They not only produce lactic acid, but other compounds such bacteriocin's and hydrogen pyroxide which inhibit the growth of pathogens and there is evidence that they play a role in preventing various bowl disorders.

The issue is that pasteurization is indiscriminate. Beneficial bacteria are also killed in the process. It is the same what wine makers do. They kill all the wild yeasts that occur naturally on the grapes with sulphur dioxide when the grapes come into the cellar and add yeast produced in a factory. Cheese and yoghurt makers do the same by adding the lactic acid bacteria they want after the pasteurization kills off the naturally occurring ones.

However there are more and more winemakers who are experimenting with using wild yeast and the results are proving very tasty. Of course the tradition cheesmaking in europe, specifically France, is completely dependent on wild LAB for their unique/regional flavours.

The thing with raw milk is that, as Africans have learn't who still depend on it, is that letting it ferment by allowing the LAB to multiply will kill off pathogens and make it more digestible. Drinking it before it has fermented is certainly less desirable. However drinking any, pasteurized or not, un-fermented milk may be problematic for its digestibility. At least raw milk has LAB in them so that some fermentation can occur in the digestive system.

Of course reducing the risk of pathogens in milk in the first place can be done, as we understand the conditions under which pathogen risk increases.
It is not as if pathogens magically appear out of nowhere. The real reason why pasteurization is popular is simply because it is cheaper than any other method and it can compensate for the unsanitary conditions of mass milk production. When milk has E.Coli filled blood (from cows with mastitis who slipped through the system) and manure (from standing up to their udders in it the whole day) it is simple just to pasteurize the mess.

Most advocates of raw milk are really drinking it so they don't have to support such poor practices. Its like vegetarians and animal factory farms.
It is more reactionary for the right reasons but without the right solutions.

 

[Aepervius]

Does it taste any different to pasteurized milk?

From my experience as a youth drinking raw milk ? Disgustingly, yes.

 

[!Kaggen]

If you think about it, harvesting milk from another species of animal and drinking it is disgusting and unsanitary - regardless of whether or not it is "raw" or "pasteurized".

I don't think that any other animals do this besides humans. Humans are only able to because certain of us "evolved" the ability to digest milk even as an adult.

Nice cultural sentiments. So what do you think of the Masai or Mursi who not only drink cows milk, but drink cows blood?

Also the argument that humans are the only animals who drink other animals milk and therefore it is wrong is a non-sequitar and false. The reason we do drink other animals milk is because we can and in fact some animals do steal milk when they can.

http://ciad.academia.edu/JuanPabloG..._cats_steal_milk_from_northern_elephant_seals