The Official Raw Milk Thread

[Flash Walken]

Ok fellas, let's stop polluting the nutty conservatives thread with Raw Milk discussion.

Here's the article I posted some time ago:

If the police actions against Schmidt and other farmers have been overzealous, they are nevertheless motivated by a real threat. The requirement for pasteurization—heating milk to at least 161 degrees Fahrenheit for fifteen seconds—neutralizes such deadly bacteria as Campylobacter jejuni, Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli, and salmonella. Between 1919, when only a third of the milk in Massachusetts was pasteurized, and 1939, when almost all of it was, the number of outbreaks of milk-borne disease fell by nearly 90 percent. Indeed, pasteurization is part of a much broader security cordon set up in the past century to protect people from germs. Although milk has a special place on the watch list (it’s not washable and comes out of apertures that sit just below the orifice of excretion), all foods are subject to scrutiny. The thing that makes our defense against raw milk so interesting, however, is the mounting evidence that these health measures also could be doing us great harm.

Over the past fifty years, people in developed countries began showing up in doctors’ offices with autoimmune disorders in far greater numbers. In many places, the rates of such conditions as multiple sclerosis, type 1 diabetes, and Crohn’s disease have doubled and even tripled. Almost half the people living in First World nations now suffer from allergies. It turns out that people who grow up on farms are much less likely to have these problems. Perhaps, scientists hypothesized, we’ve become too clean and aren’t being exposed to the bacteria we need to prime our immune systems.

What we pour over our cereal has become the physical analogue of this larger ideological struggle over microbial security. The very thing that makes raw milk dangerous, its dirtiness, may make people healthier, and pasteurization could be cleansing beneficial bacteria from milk. The recent wave of raw-milk busts comes at a time when new evidence is invigorating those who threaten to throw open our borders to bacterial incursion. Public-health officials are infuriated by the raw milkers’ sheer wrongheadedness and inability to correctly interpret the facts, and the raw milkers feel the same way about them. Milk as it emerges from the teat, it seems, is both panacea and poison.

The rest of the article can be found here: http://harpers.org/archive/2008/04/0081992


yzUKD0paUZ4

[FlamesAddiction]

My wife's sister and her family get this crap. They are also into homeopathy, reiki, "The Secret", raw-meat diets, Waldorf schooling, anti-vaccination, anti-diaper for their babies and whatever other new age crap that is popular at the moment. It drives me bonkers.

[Azure]

Some interesting points from the article.

Allan Nation, a grazing expert, offered another explanation: the cows had been eating grass. Grass-fed cows carry a lower number of pathogens, he said. And for a few days in the spring and fall, when the weather changes and new grass sprouts, the cows “tend to squirt,” as Nation put it. But grass-eating cows have become so rare that, to California health officials, they seemed unnatural. The norms of industrial dairying had become so deeply ingrained that a regulator could jump to the conclu sion that all milk is dirty until pasteurized.

Absolutely correct, and I'm not sure why its only a 'theory.' Grass-fed animals very rarely have e-coli problems. It is pretty well known that animals that are raised in feedlots and are fed a 'corn' diet have higher e-coli levels. This has become a pretty big problem. A problem that the FDA is for the most part ignoring.

There are other bacterial opportunists that move in when a cow’s gastric environment is disturbed by a change in diet. Tired cows and ubiquitous feces combine to create conditions that are ideal for the transmission of pathogens. In a 2002 survey of American farms, the U.S. Department of Agriculture found Campylobacter in 98 percent of all dairies and E. coli O157:H7 on more than half of farms with 500 or more cows. When the milk at these large farms was tested, the researchers discovered salmonella in 3 percent of all bulk tanks and Listeria monocytogenes in 7 percent. If that milk were shipped to supermarkets without pasteurization, a lot of people would get sick. Healthy cows with plenty of energy are less likely to take on pathogens.

Biggest reason for this? Their diet.

Fascinating article really. I agree that its not feasible to expect the dairy industry to provide us with dairy products in any other way than pasteurizing everything before it is sold.

But, that is necessary because of the way the animals are raised, their diet, and the demand. Not because 'raw milk', in its pure form is unhealthy.

[Azure]

My wife's sister and her family get this crap. They are also into homeopathy, reiki, "The Secret", raw-meat diets, Waldorf schooling, anti-vaccination, anti-diaper for their babies and whatever other new age crap that is popular at the moment. It drives me bonkers.

Its not crap. Well, most of what you talk about is crap, but raw milk isn't 'crap' and doesn't deserve to be included in the other things you mentioned above.

Also, I'm not anti-vaccination at all, but the way antibiotics are used to 'prevent' sickness in animals is a bit ridiculous already.

We were able to control the majority of sicknesses that medicines like Draxxin are designed to stop by simply having a clean environment for our animals. It means a lot more work, perhaps an added cost, but you have a better product.

[Luder]

Raw toast is delicious

[Flash Walken]

Supplemental Reading. (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/08/killing-beneficial-bacteria/)

[troutman]

http://www.agbioworld.org/newsletter...ve&newsid=2458 (http://www.agbioworld.org/newsletter_wm/index.php?caseid=archive&newsid=2458)

While most people recover from E.coli O157:H7, 5-10 per cent of cases go on to develop hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) which is characterized by kidney failure. It's not fun.

Regardless, raw, unpasteurized milk has been gaining in popularity as part of the growing organic and natural foods movement. Proponents say raw milk is healthier and better tasting than pasteurized, milk. The glowing media coverage of all things natural abounds.

Under federal law in Canada it is illegal to sell or distribute raw milk because of the risk of transmitting disease from microorganisms like E. coli, salmonella and campylobacter, which are eliminated during the process of pasteurization.

And in Ontario, if you're caught selling, or even giving away raw milk, the fine can be as much as $5,000. In the U.S., unpasteurized milk is legally allowed for sale in 28 states. In Washington state, the farm must be licensed through the state and each bottle must have a warning label.

Raw milk drinkers believe the pasteurized milk found on grocery store shelves lack the essential enzymes and nutrients necessary to absorb calcium -- yet research shows this is simply not the case. The only things lacking in pasteurized milk are the bacteria that make people -- especially kids -- seriously ill.

With proper testing, it may be possible to offer a safe, unpasteurized product to the consuming public. But the onus is on producers to show the rest of us that data. Adults, do whatever you think works, but please, don't impose your dietary regimes on your kids. Flowery words don't do much for kids in the hospital.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/foodsafetynetwork/

http://www.uoguelph.ca/foodsafetynetwork/raw-milk

The consumption of raw milk is not recommended. The potential risk(s) associated with the consumption of raw milk outweigh the alleged benefits, as evidenced by the scientific literature.

Raw Milk in Modern Times (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/raw-milk-in-modern-times/)

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...-modern-times/ (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/raw-milk-in-modern-times/)

[Azure]

The e-coli levels are based on the diet of the animal.

Feedlot animals that are corn-fed have a huge problem with e-coli. Grass-fed cows don't. Which is why grass-fed beef is MUCH healthier. Hell, grass-fed beef contains Omega3s.

So, I'll repeat it again, pasteurization is necessary because of the diet, conditions and because we mass produce dairy products. Not because 'raw' milk, where the cow is raised in natural environments, and given their 'natural' food, is unhealthy.

[ranchlandsselling]

The e-coli levels are based on the diet of the animal.

Feedlot animals that are corn-fed have a huge problem with e-coli. Grass-fed cows don't. Which is why grass-fed beef is MUCH healthier. Hell, grass-fed beef contains Omega3s.

So, I'll repeat it again, pasteurization is necessary because of the diet, conditions and because we mass produce dairy products. Not because 'raw' milk, where the cow is raised in natural environments, and given their 'natural' food, is unhealthy.

What were the cows of Louis Pasteur's days eating?

[ShaolinFlame]

What were the cows of Louis Pasteur's days eating?

Alexander Flemming Bread.

[scotty2hotty]

I normally appreciate Troutman's references, but the links above are disappointingly alarmist and unscientific. Asking a university 'nutrition' department anything beyond the preposterous four food groups or safe food handling and you'll be met with glass eyed stares.

The raw milk, regular milk, full fat, skim, blah blah debate had been going on for decades and is probably blown way out of proportion.

Here are some facts:
- raw milk is a whole food. Pasteurized milk is a processed food.
- raw milk has more nutrients than pasteurized milk. (Why do think your milk is 'fortified' with vitamins and minerals?)
- depending on your race and ethnicity, chances are you stopped producing lactase (the enzyme that digests lactose) after childhood. Raw milk contains lactase, PM doesn't.
- Raw milk has a much higher likelihood of containing E. Coli., and a lot of that likelihood depends on farm conditions.
- Most people recover fully after a bout with E. Coli.

I should point out here that I really don't care for milk one way or the other. If you are drinking tons of milk for health reasons, then you should probably dig into this a bit deeper. (Start with looking its highly insulinogenic nature)

I agree that a lot of these people who want whole, raw milk only want it because they are unwashed hippies and someone told them it was 'natural'. But I've got no problem if someone made an informed decision and had a private transaction with a reputable farmer for raw milk. I find it infuriating that the government tells me it is illegal for me to decide what is best for my own health (I could go on for an hour on this one :mad: )

Anyhoo, enough ranting. Bottom line ... if I could guarantee that the farmer I purchased from raised his cattle in pristine, natural conditions, then I'd choose raw milk every time. But I can't, and I think milk is overrated anyway, so I don't bother buying it in any form.

[Azure]

Milk is overrated? How dare you.

But good post. Agreed for the most part. I prefer whole, natural milk. It tastes better anyways.

[Slava]

Milk is overrated and it's for babies.

[annasuave]

Raw, pasteurized, grass-fed, feed lot notwithstanding - what I don't understand is why I as an adult human "need" to consume cow's milk to be healthy. Still buzzing from hate on about "are you getting enough calcium" commercials, I guess. This has honestly mystified me - I'm not saying that to stir the pot. It just seems so darned weird to me that I won't be healthy if I don't drink milk.

[ranchlandsselling]

I normally appreciate Troutman's references, but the links above are disappointingly alarmist and unscientific. Asking a university 'nutrition' department anything beyond the preposterous four food groups or safe food handling and you'll be met with glass eyed stares.

The raw milk, regular milk, full fat, skim, blah blah debate had been going on for decades and is probably blown way out of proportion.

Here are some facts:
- raw milk is a whole food. Pasteurized milk is a processed food.
- raw milk has more nutrients than pasteurized milk. (Why do think your milk is 'fortified' with vitamins and minerals?)
- depending on your race and ethnicity, chances are you stopped producing lactase (the enzyme that digests lactose) after childhood. Raw milk contains lactase, PM doesn't.
- Raw milk has a much higher likelihood of containing E. Coli., and a lot of that likelihood depends on farm conditions.
- Most people recover fully after a bout with E. Coli.

I should point out here that I really don't care for milk one way or the other. If you are drinking tons of milk for health reasons, then you should probably dig into this a bit deeper. (Start with looking its highly insulinogenic nature)

I agree that a lot of these people who want whole, raw milk only want it because they are unwashed hippies and someone told them it was 'natural'. But I've got no problem if someone made an informed decision and had a private transaction with a reputable farmer for raw milk. I find it infuriating that the government tells me it is illegal for me to decide what is best for my own health (I could go on for an hour on this one :mad: )

Anyhoo, enough ranting. Bottom line ... if I could guarantee that the farmer I purchased from raised his cattle in pristine, natural conditions, then I'd choose raw milk every time. But I can't, and I think milk is overrated anyway, so I don't bother buying it in any form.

Good post, generally I'd agree with you (except for the raw milk more nutrients, only because I haven't seen anything saying otherwise, that said, I haven't looked because I'm not the type to follow dirty hippies). Anyway, your bolded part is what is most important. The government is protecting stupid people.

Let's say PM is lacking nutrients compared to Raw Milk, fine, big deal, the government isn't hurting anyone by making milk pasteurized. If anything the good (not getting sick) still outweighs that bad (less nutrients). But, if it's a free for all on Raw Milk think how many morons would feed it to their kids? Too many.

There's too many wacko's out their selling their organic/holistic/naturopathic garbage that are about as bright as a barrel of hay. A large portion of them are doing it because they flaked out of whatever schooling or career they were in prior and thought picking up a three month certificate/diploma/degree/label and changing their lives and telling everyone about it is the best thing they could do with their time.

[Rathji]

I ...

Anyhoo, enough ranting. Bottom line ... if I could guarantee that the farmer I purchased from raised his cattle in pristine, natural conditions, then I'd choose raw milk every time. But I can't, and I think milk is overrated anyway, so I don't bother buying it in any form.

Exactly. No way you could ensure that a process that produced enough milk for our current needs would be healthy enough for everyone to drink.

Don't get me wrong, I am sure there are some farmers out there who get close, but I wouldn't be willing to risk my kids health on it. I do understand the argument about you need to be exposed to bacteria to develop a good immune system. Anyone who thinks kids don't get enough dirt / feces / urine / cup sharing bacteria goodness either doesn't have kids or lives with blinders on.

Kids put everything in their mouths by themselves, you don't need to be potentially putting unpasteurized cow crap in there as well.

[Azure]

Except there is an argument to be made that because there is less and less bacteria in 'food'...which means that our immune system isn't as strong as it 'should' be.

Mostly because we eat less and less 'natural' food.

[Rathji]

Except there is an argument to be made that because there is less and less bacteria in 'food'...which means that our immune system isn't as strong as it 'should' be.

Mostly because we eat less and less 'natural' food.

I love weasel words, because they make it so no matter what reality is, you are not wrong.

I could also make an argument that a homeopathic remedy can work. I can make an argument that people should drink the midstream of their morning urine. I can make an argument that slavery is good for the economy. I can make an argument that if you castrate yourself your sex life will be better. I can make those arguments and every other idiotic argument under the sun.

Doesn't mean the things I am arguing about are right.

[TheSutterDynasty]

Raw, pasteurized, grass-fed, feed lot notwithstanding - what I don't understand is why I as an adult human "need" to consume cow's milk to be healthy. Still buzzing from hate on about "are you getting enough calcium" commercials, I guess. This has honestly mystified me - I'm not saying that to stir the pot. It just seems so darned weird to me that I won't be healthy if I don't drink milk.

You won't be healthy if you're calcium deficient. Of course, there are many alternatives to milk for that.

[sclitheroe]

You won't be healthy if you're calcium deficient. Of course, there are many alternatives to milk for that.

Like broccoli..which doesn't grow in proximity to a cow's derrière.

[burn_this_city]

I love weasel words, because they make it so no matter what reality is, you are not wrong.

I could also make an argument that a homeopathic remedy can work. I can make an argument that people should drink the midstream of their morning urine. I can make an argument that slavery is good for the economy. I can make an argument that if you castrate yourself your sex life will be better. I can make those arguments and every other idiotic argument under the sun.

Doesn't mean the things I am arguing about are right.

Should one pasteurize this before consumption or go Bear Grylls and drink it raw?

[Rathji]

I find the non-pasteurized urine tastes better.

[FlamesAddiction]

Except there is an argument to be made that because there is less and less bacteria in 'food'...which means that our immune system isn't as strong as it 'should' be.

Mostly because we eat less and less 'natural' food.
So for arguments sake, if the only thing that available was bacteria free pasteurized milk, would you purposely take bacteria supplements in an attempt to make your immune system stronger? One could use the same argument to promote the idea of not washing your hands after wiping.

While I am sure that there is some truth that exposure to bacteria and illnesses boosts the immune system, it is also truth that as our society became more sanitary, our life expectancy has also grown significantly. I don't think that is an accident. Whatever trade-off there is, I am sure it is worth it.

As others mentioned, we really don't need milk at all. The idea that we "need" milk and dairy in out diet was probably one of the most successful marketing campaigns ever conceived.

[wireframe]

Not totally on topic, but I have never had a glass or cow's milk in my entire life. Neither raw or non-raw. The only milk I have eaten came from a human woman when I was an infant. And contrary to all predictions, none of us have any health problems.

The way I see it, you should only drink something because you like it and not for the supposed health benefits. If you like raw milk more, go ahead and drink it.

[sclitheroe]

While I am sure that there is some truth that exposure to bacteria and illnesses boosts the immune system, it is also truth that as our society became more sanitary, our life expectancy has also grown significantly.

What's even more interesting to me, is that we could presume to blame a lack of bacteria found in milk for issues with our immune system, which is so highly tuned and incredibly sensitive that a small injection of dead cells is enough to inoculate us from a wide range of diseases effectively for life. To suggest that we need any additional bacteria in our daily lives to maintain the health of our immune system is kinda absurd.