It’s interesting that so many discussions here about the benefits of raw milk seem eventually to revert to the emotionally-laden matter of safety, to the argument that raw milk is somehow a special class of food that is inherently unsafe. It happens again following my post about the Michigan research that clearly demonstrates the benefits of raw milk in combating lactose intolerance.
There’s nothing logical or rational about the emotional aspect of this, especially when you consider that data from the Centers for Disease Control show raw milk causing an average of 59 illnesses annually (according to data between 1973 and 2005), versus an estimated annual minimum of six million illnesses from food-borne disease overall.
So what’s really going on here? How can the arguments be so heated, not just here, but in California, Maryland and various places where the question of our right to access raw milk comes up?
I gained an insight into this contradiction the other day during a discussion with a professor of nutrition at a Massachusetts university. Of course, we got to talking about raw milk and pasteurization, and it was pretty much the usual thing—him explaining how important pasteurization has been as a public health tool and how risky raw milk is. As a matter of fact, he said, pasteurization is so essential it’s been extended to apple juice and vegetable juice and almonds. How about that?
But he said something, almost as an aside, that I now realize is more important than many of us appreciate in this debate. “If you have any kind of immune-compromised system, there’s a good chance you’ll die” from unpasteurized contaminated milk and other foods, he explained. Of course, he didn’t say that if you are immune-compromised, you could die from contaminated pasteurized milk, as we saw when four elderly Massachusetts men died last year from listeriosis they got from pasteurized milk.
But what he was really doing, I realized later, was positioning the pasteurization issue (really the sanitizing of all our food) as a minority rights issue. The minority of people with immune problems must be protected, even at the expense of the majority with no immune problems.
Then today, NPR aired a report that the medical community is recommending that all children be given flu shots–not so much to protect them, but to "reduce the spread of flu through communities." In other words, sacrific a buildup in the kids’ natural immunity to "protect" adults who might be vulnerable.
The implication is that the vast majority of people must sacrifice, via sanitizing of food and vaccination, so that immune-compromised people aren’t placed at risk. But is that really fair, appropriate, or healthy? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to suggest that the immune-compromised should be careful about what they eat, whether pasteurized or unpasteurized…and to work at re-building their immunity? That parents with concerns should keep their kids away from raw milk, while those who want their kids to benefit from raw milk make have access to it?
Even more to the point, why should the vast majority who aren’t immune-compromised be placed at risk of becoming immune-compromised because they can’t get access to foods that help build immunity?
Have I trashed enough sacred cows for one day?
***
Reminder: It looks as if the Meadowsweet Dairy contempt-of-court hearing in connection with its refusal to cooperate on a New York Department of Agriculture and Markets search warrant will be held Thursday in Albany. The hearing is open to the public, at the Albany County Courthouse, 16 Eagle Street, Albany, N.Y.
We’ve had another run in with the NY State Ag and Markets. It’s a winner and we thought you’d like to hear about it. Call me at 518-686-4044. Thanks, David Phippen
I happen to think we have arrived at a place where we know exactly why this happened and how we can correct it, but we also know how hard it is to change the status quo and the ingrained thinking that goes along with it.
The status quo is factory dairies where cows don’t get access to pasture, but instead get fed an unnatural diet of grain. This skews the omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acid ratio in the milk causing eventual disease for those who drink it. We know this to be true, but these facts have only recently come to light and haven’t yet been embraced by the popular culture. Since the effects are delayed, we haven’t fully appreciated that these foods are unhealthy to eat. We are only starting to come around to the fact that the trans-fats in "healthy" margarine are far worse for us than the "bad" saturated fat in butter.
Changing the current belief system means using science to debunk false claims – even if they are claims against the old prevailing science. Instituting the coliform standard in California is just a red herring. It won’t prove that the milk is safe to drink, just as it won’t tell you what beaches are safe to swim at. It is a vestige of old science that should be challenged and replaced. It’s an antiquated and meaningless hurdle to put in front of people who wish to think outside the conventional wisdom – all sound and fury, but signifying nothing. We really need to completely rethink testing procedures for food so the tests that we actually perform have clear implications for safety.
Your professor would likely believe that a minority of Americans is immuno-compromised, but it seems to me that really the vast majority is so afflicted, just not at what doctors (and alas, nutritionists) consider a clinically significant level. (It is a common aphorism in differential diagnostic medicine that if you dont suspect something, it doesnt exist. In this case, not only do our white-coats not suspect it, they often do not understand it when they do see it.)
A health-care system that minimizes the importance of immune function, in happy companionship with a dead-food nourished, manically sanitizing, civilly litigious society, is a marvel to witness.
My view is that people should understand the risks with whatever food they are eating and be able to access whatever it is they choose to eat.
Amanda
Accepting the basics of why raw milk is valuable – which is directly linked to criticism of our way of raising animals and what is acceptable in the market place (which should not be), awareness of farmers and their vulnerability, and so much more craziness in nutrition and food supply — your whole life and what you believe and trust can begin to unravel if you actually consider that maybe raw milk makes sense.Even if you just go the small distance of maybe it is OK for a few people.
My personal struggle is with a family member diagnosed with a number of autoimmune diseases – including the almost unheard of combination of polymyositis and autoimmune hepatitis. His liver and muscles are being destroyed by his own body. And yet there is resistance to my ideas of how such a process may have been initiated, and nutritional approaches to resolution.
The paradigm shift to embracing nourishment as a cause and also a cure is really huge. Really almost impossible for so many people raised on a typical American diet. We’re the lunatics, even though nearly every dietary insight I had or learned 20 and 30 years ago has now been validated. Remember when linking stress and immune system functioning was considered crazy? I do. Now when I teach at the med school they think it’s weird if I pause to go into that idea. It is so obvious to them.
My point in summary – raw milk opens questions and ideas that many people would be more comfortable left un-addressed. I was already far along, and being involved with raw milk (and not just drinking it!) has moved me even further into some radical and non-convetional actions and understandings.
Of course it’s dangerous. But the ideas and values associated with it are far more dangerous than the actual milk!
What is going on here? It seems to me, that western medicine’s focus on "fixing" things only when they become clinical problems, drives the reductionist logic that says, "well, if we kill all the TB reactors we’ll be sure to wipe out this disease."
Similarly, the logic goes on raw milk, "if we kill all the bacteria and other living organisms in the milk, we’ll be sure to wipe out the risks."
My point is obvious to all who read this blog, I understand, but I thought the parallels in logic were striking. In both cases, there is virtually no regard paid to the question of fortifying the majority (or at least, in the case of raw milk, those who choose to drink it) to resist the disease, and nurturing those whose immune systems prove most adaptable.
Do we forget about those less fortunate? Of course not. That is what the healthcare system is for. I humbly submit, however, if the healthcare system were only required to take care of those who are injured or sick and did not have to take care of the majority who are made sick by un-natural restrictions on a healthy diet, that we’d have a much smaller, less expensive, fairer, and more efficient healthcare system.
They get the usual yearly illnesses, maybe fewer, maybe milder, but they get on with their lives.
And yet i feel a juddering in my bones when i come on here and listen, read, all you proponents of raw milk, as though it were a fearful thing.
I would say let’s have more optimistic talk. We know what we’re about, but our appearance of victims of the establishment carries it’s own reality.
We need to be carrying on this discussion without anger and without an aura of victimization. We need to accept the fact that what we want to happen here is the only sane way to continue, and figure out how to make it happen.
No more whining, is my suggestion.
I have known people who have agreed with me on such issues until they realized the full conclusion of that belief, at which time they suddenly changed their mind again and began to vehemently deny that which they had just previously believed. Why? Because the facts had changed? No, but they couldn’t stand to accept that which they knew was true. It is really a coping measure against radical paradigm shifts. But it sure is sad to watch.
It’s like saying that wearing seatbelts is useless because I never had an accident. If 300 million Americans were to drink unpasteurized milk, there would be MUCH more than 50+ illnesses/year. And keep in mind, these are only CONFIRMED cases. The number of illnesses that go unrecorded is much higher beyond any doubt.
The published journal article and the study final report can be viewed on my website using the links below:
http://orderman.ohiorawmilk.info/rawmilkasthma.pdf
http://orderman.ohiorawmilk.info/parsifal_en.pdf
Likewise, there are myriad, well-documented negative health effects associated with the consumption of unnatural, processed, industrialized, manufactured (and historically very new!) foods.
To understand the whole of it would require a significant time investment. A reasonable starting point is westonaprice.org, where one can see the results of Dr. Weston Price’s astounding anthropological research into healthy peoples and what they ate. That also can be a long journey, but, partial as I am to anthropological data, I would begin here:
http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/characteristics.html
"The present study does not allow evaluating the effect of pasteurized vs. raw milk consumption because no objective confirmation of the raw milk status of the farm milk samples was available."
There is a difference between raw milk and farm milk.
I am also aware of Weston Price foundation and their website. I don’t consider it an authoritative, unbiased information source. Much rather it is a selective information presentation to back their claims. For example, the Lancet papers quoted at http://www.realmilk.com/asthma-brucellosis.html indeed exist. The second reference (publ. August 6 2001) is titled "Exposure to farming in early live and development of asthma and allergy: a cross sectional survey". Note that the exposure to farming (not raw milk) was the main focus. Any of the factors could have contributed to the observed reduced incidence of asthma (as noted in a later letter in the same journal), and yet westonprice speculate that it could be raw milk. Well, that is a speculation and this was an epidemiological study.
In brief, there is no scientific evidence that benefits of raw milk outweigh its inherent risk.
Even if raw milk were capable of preventing asthma, asthma is still better than renail failure due to E. coli from raw milk. Oh, and children are at a much higher risk of foodborne illness.
Also pasteurized milk is a highly processed food and that concept belongs in this discussion. As you say, MP, highly processed foods are not a bonus to health
http://www.cspinet.org/foodsafety/outbreak/outbreaks.php?column=subgroup&colval=Milk&column1=Dairy
Note that the last couple of years haven’t been included.
It also seems that there are more than just about 60 CONFIRMED cases a year.
Further, if you go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez and search scientific publications by entering "unpasteurized milk" you will get further proof that unpasteurized milk is an unsafe product.
In regards to your claim that pasteurized milk is a highly processed product: I said earlier that highly processed foods are not a bonus to health, hence you claim pasteurized milk must be unhealthy. That’s faulty logic. But I would disagree that pasterized milk is a "highly processed food".
Also fat is removed further processing it.
This milk is derived from cows that eat an inappropriate diet of grains and chemicals.
Here is a link to check:
http://www.realmilk.com/abstractsmilk.html
This link explains how pasteurized milkis processed.:
http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/dirty-secrets.html
You also should look at this updated power point presentation on the safety of raw milk
http://www.realmilk.com/ppt/index.html
I already commented on the credibility of Weston Price material in the post above – all those web pages were created by them.
I have no hopes (well, I had no hope to begin with) to change your opinion, but at least people who come across this article will be able to see the other side of the story as well.
By the way, I used to drink farm milk as a child, but it was always brought to a rolling boil before any of the kids were allowed to drink it. I have nothing against that. But drinking raw milk is like playing Russian roulette – http://www.cspinet.org/foodsafety/outbreak/outbreaks.php?column=subgroup&colval=Milk&column1=Dairy
It seems that you are ignoring the biases and the lack of credibility in the sources that you cite.
Please explain how a database tracking outbreaks that were traced back to raw milk can lack credibility or be biased??? It’s a DATABASE for Pete’s sake. It was assembled by the CSPI, which whould have no interest in distorting it to make sure "commercial" milk came on top.
Government officials often distort the facts to fit their version of the truth. And of course the government doesn’t lie. Just look at what the folks at Meadowsweet Dairy are going through.
Just because you think that the Weston Price site is propaganda does not mean that it is propaganda. Calling it propaganda to minimize it does not make it any less true.
The statements that they make are supported with references. Because you don’t want to hear it, it becomes propaganda.
Looks like you are the one espousing propaganda, the governmental type. And don’t try to tell me that the government doesn’t engage in propaganda.
I don’t think raw milk is appropriate for everyone, and I would personally not be comfortable buying it in a retail setting where the farmer was unknown to me.
I’ve been part of a herd share for about 5 years. I know my farmer to be a man of great integrity, I’ve been to the farm, followed our cows in their pasture, and inspected the milking parlor a couple of times.
That makes me comfortable. I have a personal opinion (not based on science) about how large a herd I’m comfortable co-mingling milk with (it is far less than 100) and I’m responsible for the cleanliness of my own bottles.
Other operations are different. This is the best I know – balancing my need with what is practical. Other set ups have other safety systems in place, and if I had to I might be OK with those too, but I can’t agree that all raw milk operations are the same or all the risks are the same.
And what is my need that makes the risk worth while to me? Regular store bought milk makes me ill. I can’t drink it without becoming nauseous. The yogurt and butter taste amazing to me, and I love eating those products. So for the first time in my life I’m getting nourishment from and enjoying milk products. I need the minerals milk delivers, and my health has never been better as far as resistance to illness. I can’t prove the milk is doing it, but certainly my body is HAPPY every time I consume the milk and milk products.
IF you’re going to be critical of raw milk, look at each part of the operation and be specific about where the danger lies. It isn’t just milk that isn’t pasteurized. The whole operation is different from conventional dairy farms beginning with the choice and care of the cow to the bottles used and transported to my refrigerator and everything in between. Almost ANY product would benefit from the care I’ve seen go into this simple food.
It is a philosophy and a way of doing business and for nearly all of us a product offered with honesty and integrity. To me, that is far safer than the horrors of factory farming and what passes for food in the supermarket.We have an entirely different definition of what is safe.
And all of that is hard to include in a study, and certainly no double blinded placebo controlled research can control for the many factors involved – including a personal relationship with the farmer and the cows.
If you rather trust Weston Price than scientific research, than you must have a good reason for that. That reason is WITHIN you because you believe in raw milk.
I have already analyzed one of the pages from Weston Price and explained how they distort truth and select what to include in their article – see one of the previous posts.
Linda – although it isn’t entirely untrue what you are saying, knowing the farmer won’t help you if his cow starts shedding E. coli.
Raw milk from grass-fed, healthy cows that individuals who have educated themselves would drink, IS healthy. Humans drank it without problems for THOUSANDS of years. When humans started feeding cows stuff they were never meant to eat, then it became necessary to "kill" the milk so it didn’t kill people.
If someone doesn’t want to drink raw milk because they think it is not safe, that is their choice. OUR choice is to educate ourselves and drink raw milk from farmers we know and trust. They have the right to their opinion and their choice. We have the right to our opinion and WANT the right to make our choice.
Thank you. I had forgotten about the raw milk intended for pasteurization.
MP, another incorrect conclusion on your part.
Several people have done this simple experiment for themselves to judge the life supporting qualities of grass fed raw milk vs ultra-pasteurized organic milk.You should try it yourself. Make kefir with a pint of each kind of milk side by side and see which kind of milk the kefir prefers.I can assure you that the kefir grains are not biased in any way.They will tell you which kind of milk can support life.
I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that kefir from unpasteurized milk tastes better. However, I don’t want to take the risk. I also realize that it could be years before I get sick, but once that happens the consequences could be severe.
Rob, Evelyn, now you are distancing yourself from any raw milk that made people ill? That’s very convenient.
"the majority of the milk they are saying has caused illness was *raw* milk that was INTENDED FOR PASTEURIZATION."
All raw milk is not created equal.
Any dairy from the factory dairies has to be pasturized or you will become ill. Those cows eat un-natural feed, live in thier own excetement, etc. Very unhealthy for them and in turn for humans too. Lets not forget the drugs that are pumped into the cows in the form of vaccinations, antibiotics, other medications/hormones, and the man-made crap added to the un-natural feed. All have an effect on the outcome of that dairy product and that is even before pasturization. Pasturization will not eliminate it either.
If you wish to consume that, be my guest, I do not and I resent others trying to force me to bend to thier ways. I don’t eat raw fish, and I would not tell anyone else not to eat it either. I’ve gotten sick from pasturized dairy numerous times. Not from raw dairy.
I would just hate to see other people switch to raw milk without hearing both sides of the story. A little balance to your pseudo-science summed up at Weston Price and anectodal evidence of health benefits of raw milk would be welcome by anyone trying to make an informed choice.
Evelyn – it would be great if you could back your claim with some sort of evidence.
Look at it this way: If raw milk causes illness, you conclude that milk should have been pasteurized and came from dirty cows. If it doesn’t cause illness, then it is real, great raw milk. That’s a very convenient way of proving that raw milk is safe.
And here is a full list of outbreaks linked to consumption of raw milk and dairy: http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu/articles/384/RawMilkOutbreakTable.pdf
I am sure a lot of these farms were treating their animals in just the way you describe and the consumers even knew the farmer. Knowing the farmer does not bring about food safety.
These numbers indicate that pasteurized milk is a problem for as many as 29 million (taking the 10% number) Americans who cannot tolerate pasteurized milk, which MP considers not to be a highly processed food. The 82% statistic, in turn, would indicate that something like 24 million Americans might be able to benefit from the superior nutrition and taste of raw milk. Oops, I forgot, I can’t say that – it’s only anecdotal.
Although it has not been my tack to bust the chops of pasteurized milk, since all any of us advocating free choice want is free choice in this matter, MP asked for it, so it bears noting that four people died within the last year in Massachusetts from defectively pasteurized milk, and the single largest outbreak of almost any kind of food poisoning, in terms of numbers affected, was in the several hundreds of thousands throughout the Midwest back in (I think) the 80’s from pasteurized milk.
MP’s agenda started out with a dismissal, typically, of all "anecdotal" experiences. Well, there are by conservative estimates, many hundreds of thousands of people, the weight of whose "anecdotes" awaits only further measuring. Defining these experiences out of existence will not make them go away. WAPF is funding the work to bring some more light onto this subject, which any agency that’s truly interested in health ought to be doing as well. Carefully. Honestly, Impartially.
A nice first step in that direction would be the newly appointed Blue Ribbon Commission in California, whose job presumably will be to determine whether the 10-100 cfu standards for coliform which are common in many jurisdictions, when measured at the bulk tank, will be the new standard for raw milk in California rather than, the limit of 10 cfu applied to the final container which obviously targeted California’s raw milk suppliers. Based on what we’ve just witnessed in this blog installment, I’m not optimistic of a fair hearing.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/312/7/404
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/258/22/3269 <~~1987 number of persons who were actually affected yielded estimates of 168 791 and 197 581 persons
http://www.cspinet.org/foodsafety/outbreak_alert.pdf <~~page 11
http://nabc.ksu.edu/content/factsheets/category/Listeriosis#outbreaks
http://www.foodsafety.gov/~dms/lmr2-2.html
Yes, there are other inherenlty unsafe products – sprouts, cantaloupes, various berries, green onions etc. Still, none of them has caused as many outbreaks as raw milk. AND, if a safer version of eg. green onions becomes available, I would definitely buy it. A safer version of milk has been available for many decades.
In regards to lactose intolerance, it’s not pasteurized milk that is a problem, it is lactose, a naturally occuring sugar. taking your research results at face value, consider that there is lactose-free milk, which is a much safer alternative to raw milk. Taking care of lactose intolerance just to be put at risk of an E. coli infection doesn’t seem like a good trade-off.
Keep in mind once again that only a small proportion of people drink raw milk and there are still frequent outbreaks traced back to that product. If 24 million Americans were indeed to drink raw milk, the number of outbreaks and cases would follow suit. On top of that, a number of those infected would pass on the infection to people they come into contact with, amplifying the effect. You would have a major public health issue. That’s epidemiology 101.
So, who would foot the medical bills? Who would be ultimately responsible? Would the consumers of raw milk sue the dairy operation, like food companies get sued over outbreaks caused by their product?
Once a considerable body of evidence exists (again Weston Price material posted only on their website doesn’t count) showing the health benefits of raw milk and once those benefits outweigh any risks, your case may get considered. Until then, I am glad there is a government capable of making science-based and informed decisions on behalf of the majority who doesn’t want to jeopardize its health in exchange for questionable health benefits of raw milk.
I will assume there is indeed only 60 confirmed cases of foodborne illness due to raw milk but the CSPI database shows several outbreaks with more than a hundred cases in the past few years.
So… 60 confirmed cases as you claim. The factor to use to arrive at the total number of cases is about 30 (Mead et al., 1999; combining the factors for nontyphoidal Salmonella and E.coli O157), that gives us about 1,800 per year.
Let’s say there is 500,000 Americans drinking raw milk at this point, although that;s probably a little exaggerated.
That means there would be about 86,000 total cases per year if 24 million were to drink raw milk. This includes only foodborne transmission and not person- to person transmission that would also occur.
If everyone were to drink raw milk, that number would baloon to about a million each year.
That’s a lot. And I was very conservative in my calculations, assumed that your 60 per year is correct and assumed that the number of cases would go up in a linear fashion.
MP-you should really stop making assumptions. I NEVER said raw milk-from healthy grass fed cows or otherwise-does not cause illness. You are putting words in my mouth when you said:
"If raw milk causes illness, you conclude that milk should have been pasteurized and came from dirty cows. If it doesn’t cause illness, then it is real, great raw milk. That’s a very convenient way of proving that raw milk is safe."
If YOU can dismiss the WAPF, then I can dismiss CSPI "propaganda" as well as anything coming from a university who receives research funding from monsatan and cohorts and anything the USDA, FDA et al have to say on the matter.
Again, all raw milk is not created equal. Please stop making accusations and putting words into my mouth.
You mention a possible multiplying effect due to person to person transmission. I’m unaware of statistics on person to person transmission, and Mead does not mention the factor in his careful analysis. In any case, I’m sure you don’t argue that person to person transmission is somehow more likely for raw milk than it is for any other foodborne illness outbreak.
We are hardly talking about an epidemic now, and obviously, if everyone drank raw milk all of the numbers would change, so that cannot be projected. In any case, rest assured, that most who drink raw milk would not be so foolish as to drink it from a supplier who had just switched over from conventional feeding and production techniques. If your campaign is to serve public health and help people to make informed choices as you say, then again, I would encourage yours and other agencies to work with raw milk advocates both to broaden the benefits of nature’s perfect food to the 24 million who we believe might benefit from being able to consume it (isn’t regaining eroding milk drinkers what the "Got Milk?" campaign is all about?) and do it carefully and responsibly.
Which is what we are trying to do.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/258/22/3269 <~~1987 number of persons who were actually affected yielded estimates of 168 791 and 197 581 persons
With below see page 11. Of 193 outbreaks 6053 illnesses were atributed to dairy. 30% of these outbreaks were atributed to unpasturized dairy. Since 1/3 is much less than 2/3 I would say the unpasturized is safer.
http://www.cspinet.org/foodsafety/outbreak_alert.pdf
As for dairy causing the most outbreaks, you are very wrong. page 23 shows which has the highest. Page 24 shows various graphs. And that is the same web site that mp posted. It appears it all depends on how you want to read things.
Everytime someone makes a point against raw milk or shares info they have read that argues anyones point here, you call them a nasty troll. You are not being fair to people who have a different opinion. Why cant you read the different opinion, argue back with your point and take this as what it is…people with different opinions ,sharing their opinions? You are being nasty yourself. I have gone back and read several posts and you spend most of the readers time calling anyone that does not agree with you a troll, You are acting very juvenile.
If every person that read this blog had the exact same opinion, this would be a very boring place. I think you should look at all the posts constructively and stop taking things so personally. I dont know why you feel the need to resort to name-calling.
They funded a "national survey" to show the benefits of raw milk in lactose intolerant? Please! A survey can’t do that. Nor can a single epidemiological study.
To quote one of the earlier posts from Stacey: "I wouldn’t put too much credibility into the Weston Price Foundation. You may as well get your information from THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER!"
CSPI – look them up. They have absolutely no intention to side with the USDA or Monsanto, and yet they post all this "biased data" as you call it. Strange, isn’t it? All of them are biased towards raw milk except a small bunch of folks quoting WAPF?
I won’t engage in infantile debates where facts (published research, public health databases) are countered by insults.
I will also stop stating facts at this point because you apparently take it too personally and counter my arguments by twisting the truth to fit what they are saying (now there is raw milk and the other raw milk).
If anyone is interested in those facts, please scroll up or go to the previous page with comments.
Have a good day.
I’m not sure he’s had a chance to review them, but I’d welcome MP’s comments on the conclusions which I suggest might be drawn from his projections of illness. I’d hope not to lose this opportunity for a constructive exchange of views.
Finally, it’s too bad that MP has such a jaundiced view of studies that are funded by particular sources. Sadly, his view in this area is shared by many who look at government and industry-funded work with the same caution. I am unaware of any pecuniary interest which WAPF might advance by supposedly skewing study results, unlike the incentives which may exist with many other study funding sources. I trust he brings the same jaundiced view toward the many other studies in this and other areas which unfortunately, have become so suspect when conducted by those with monetary and policy axes to grind.
Here’s my raw milk story. I was given a half gallon of raw milk right out of the bulk tank of a commercial diary. I didn’t use it right away and after 4 days it grew a penicillin mold on the top.
I had a half gallon of raw milk purchased from a grass farmer and left it in the fridge for a year as an experiment. At the end of the year the cream, thick and cultured, was at the top and the whey was clear as water.
MP…you kidder you. USDA is by far more credible than WAPF, Cracks me up.
Sharon
I’m not surprised at this view, though. People also consider conventionally packaged orange juice to be "unprocessed", too, yet is produced in a highly industrial manufacturing facility, is pasteurized, pulp is often added or removed, and often has added chemicals (calcium, vitamins, etc.). Much is done to standardize the product. Conventionally produced orange juice couldn’t be more different from the orange juice we squeeze by hand than a carbonated soft drink.
Like conventionally packaged orange juice, conventional pasteurized milk is highly processed, though on the surface it might look much like its minimally processed cousin, raw milk. Like the orange juice example, adulterated milk might not be as transformed as a Twinkie, but it doesn’t get to market without a radical transformation (and probably won’t even adequately nourish a calf anymore, either). Cows don’t produce 3.5%, 2%, 1% and non-fat milk – processing achieves that. Milk solids are added to skimmed milk to give it some body (so it doesn’t look like blue water). Shelf life is extended to extreme lengths and when it finally succumbes and spoils, it does so in a most disgusting way. While raw milk is a little bit different each day, as the naturally present bacteria consume the lactose and "process" the milk into a cultured food, I have never, ever, had raw milk go "off" in the way that pasteurized milk does. The difference is dramatic. I can’t see how anyone cannot see that conventionally pasteurized milk is not a very adulaterated product, if they just think about it for even 2 minutes.
Modern food processing is so ubiquitious that one can’t see the forest for the trees anymore. The average consumer has no idea what is done to their food anymore, because they are so removed from its production, to the point that, like MP, he/she even thinks that the typical carton of milk is not highly processed. It’s really sad and I think there’s a great danger in that. Perhaps not an acute danger, as in food poisoning, but a chronic danger, in that we no longer have any food sense and can’t tell what is good for us or not (or we rely on "experts" to tell us). Michael Pollan talks about this a lot in The Omnivore’s Dilemma.
MP’s assertion that milk is not highly processed is just the tip of the iceberg, too, and not much different than the young woman I overheard in the grocery store who wondered why the apples were labeled "new crop". She had no idea that apples are stored long term in atmosphere-controlled warehouse facilities, so that they may be sold throughout the year rather than in season. An apple may not look "processed", but there is a good chance that is has been "industrially processed" in such a way as to prevent obvious degradation for many months.
Of course, the word "process" is not inherently bad. Humans have been processing food for a very long time, to make it more palatable, longer-lasting, more nutritious, etc. The result of long-term human food processing is cuisine and a collective food sense, something that is fast becoming lost in the modern food setting. Industrial processing, that is a whole different ball game, and I think long term, we are big losers in that game. But we are so immersed in the "game", we can’t see the storm clouds building.
Actually it’s about increasing profits. Profits that would go the way of the dodo if they couldn’t produce cheap dirty milk in factory farms.
and i would bet dimes to dollars that the current war on raw milk is based on profits and not the state and fed gov trying to protect us ingnorant consumers who couldn’t possibly make an informed decision on what to eat.
alcohol (both legal and bootleg) hospitalizes and kills more people every year than raw milk but there are still states out there where drunk drivers do not get charged with murder when they kill somebody while they are behind the wheel. According to the CDC there are an average of 75,000 alcohol related deaths a year and the gov’t response is to only increase the tax on alcohol and lower the BAC level for DUI charges.
So banning raw milk on the basis of protecting the public is little more than lip service by the gov’t so people will believe they have our best interest at heart.
I am a herd shareholder in North-East Ohio and my family has been drinking raw milk from grass-few cows for the past three years, and following a traditional WAPF diet for the past five years. My personal testament is that my five year old son has never had an ear infection in his life, and has only been sick enough to require antibiotics once – over my objections and prior to us having raw milk available. He has widely-spaced teeth and excellent facial development, unlike the children of some of our friends whose dentists have already warned them to start saving their money for orthodontics. My eight-month old son has been on Sally Fallon’s raw milk formula since the day he came home from the hospital, started sleeping through the night at five weeks, weighs twenty-two pounds without looking fat or over-weight, naps regularly and is exceeding pleasant and even-tempered. I give thanks every day that my family has access to real milk, cream, eggs and other food from our farm, and see the results in our health and development.