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
)
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.