Tell me about raw milk

[get_lives]

@Habeed

What would you rather have?

Every person in the United States has to drink milk that isn’t quite as tasty and it doesn’t have the helpful bacteria that it would have without pasteurization

OR

1 in a million people or so die every year from contaminated milk.

Pasteurization is needed. All kind of contaminants sometimes sneak in when you’re trying to milk cows on an industrial scale. Even if you tried to have a micro-dairy where you keep everything meticulously clean, mistakes can be made.

Also, pasteurization increases the shelf life of the milk.

In addition to losing the good bacteria, pasteurization also reduces the amount of the water-soluble vitamins, specifically the B vitamins. Cooking solid foods does this as well. The heavier the heating, the more the loss of vitamins.

And yes, while mistakes can be made at a totally grassfed dairy, they’re usually not going to be life-threatening, especially to people with more-or-less normal immune systems.

I make no such guarantees about grainfed dairies. However, like I said, I drank partially-grainfed milk for many years, that sat at room temp in the dark for days and even weeks at a time.

[Broomstick]

@get_lives

And yes, while mistakes can be made at a totally grassfed dairy, they’re usually not going to be life-threatening, especially to people with more-or-less normal immune systems.

That may even be true, but thanks to modern medicine we have more people than ever before with non-normal immune systems. What about them?

[HoneyBadgerDC]

In the 1950’s milk would spoil in just a few days, now I can keep milk in the fridge for weeks. What is the difference?

[get_lives]

@Broomstick

That may even be true, but thanks to modern medicine we have more people than ever before with non-normal immune systems. What about them?

What about them? They are responsible for themselves. Raw milk can be sold with a warning, just like raw shellfish are. We still sell peanuts and peanut-containing food products, even though more and more people are literally deathly allergic.

For that matter, there was a compromise reached in the late 1800s, with raw milk having to be “certified”, and pasteurized milk NOT having to be. We could still have, nationally, such a program. For that matter, several states STILL allow, and have always allowed, raw milk sales.
" Pasteurization…was a solution of sorts. The other was the certified raw milk movement, which insisted on clean, fresh milk from healthy, grassfed animals. Henry Coit, a medical doctor, was the founder of the first Medical Milk Commission and the certified milk movement. Physicians in cities throughout the country considered raw milk essential in the treatment of their patients; they worked together to certify dairies for the production of clean raw milk. This resulted in the availability of safe raw milk from regulated dairies. Initially, from around 1890 to 1910, the movements for certified raw milk and pasteurization coexisted and in many ways even complemented one another. From about 1910 until the 1940s, an uneasy truce existed. Certified raw milk was available for those who wanted it, while the influence of the pasteurization lobby saw to it that most states and municipalities adopted regulations that required all milk other than certified milk be pasteurized. The end of this truce (detailed below)has led to the subsequent outlawing of all retail sales of raw milk in most states and even of on-farm sales in many…"

from http://www.drrons.com/raw-milk-history-health-benefits-distortions-3.htm
That’s an incredibly interesting article, rich with the history of medicine, pasteurization, public health, and milk. One of the best-written articles I’ve read in a while.

[Jackmannii]

It’s a myth that raw milk has more nutritional value than pasteurized milk (for one thing, pasteurized milk is fortified with vitamin D, and raw milk is not). Also, the risk of disease from raw milk is considerably greater:

*"The rate of food-poisoning outbreaks caused by unpasteurized, or raw, milk and dairy products is 150 times greater than outbreaks linked to pasteurized milk, according to new research.

The studies were published…by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases.

But alas, that number might be closer to 151 by now. A new outbreak emanating from bad raw milk in Pennsylvania, coincidentally coinciding with the release of this CDC report, so far has sickened nearly 100 people in four states.

It’s not as if pasteurized milk is perfectly safe. There were 48 disease outbreaks from contaminated pasteurized milk and cheese resulting in thousands of illnesses and one death between 1993 and 2006, the period analyzed by the CDC.

The sale of raw milk, however, has led to 73 disease outbreaks, two deaths, and many permanent disabilities during the same period — alarming numbers considering that raw milk constitutes less than 1 percent of all dairy sales. States where raw milk sales are legal had twice as many outbreaks, the study found."*

There’s a variety of nasty bacteria that can be transmitted through unpasteurized milk, including TB, Listeria, Campylobacter and pathogenic E. coli. Yes, people historically growing up on farms commonly drank raw milk and “didn’t all die”, just as they didn’t all die of diseases now preventable through vaccines. What raw milk advocates need to ask themselves is if the taste (or thrill, or whatever) of consuming the stuff justifies the relatively small but real risk of serious illness.

[bump]

@HoneyBadgerDC

In the 1950’s milk would spoil in just a few days, now I can keep milk in the fridge for weeks. What is the difference?

This is a WAG, but I’d guess that it’s some combination of better hygiene at the cow-milking stage, better hygiene along the path between milking and the store, better packaging that prevents oxidation and bacteria from getting at the milk, and probably even some better pasteurization techniques.

The latter is a big part of why organic milk lasts so long- it’s the UHT pasteurization that’s very effective at killing anything and everything in the milk, thereby giving it a much longer shelf life. Basically it’s a higher temp (280 degrees for 2 seconds) versus the standard 165 deg. for 15 seconds pasteurization.

Pasteurization Methods | Organic Valley

[howye]

http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-questions-and-answers.html#years

Among dairy product-associated outbreaks reported to CDC between 1998 and 2011 in which the investigators reported whether the product was pasteurized or raw, 79% were due to raw milk or cheese. From 1998 through 2011, 148 outbreaks due to consumption of raw milk or raw milk products were reported to CDC. These resulted in 2,384 illnesses, 284 hospitalizations, and 2 deaths. Most of these illnesses were caused by Escherichia coli, Campylobacter, Salmonella, or Listeria. It is important to note that a substantial proportion of the raw milk-associated disease burden falls on children; among the 104 outbreaks from 1998-2011 with information on the patients’ ages available, 82% involved at least one person younger than 20 years old.

Bolding added by me.

When I began my current job, my then boss got angry over only one thing: raw milk and in particular its consumption by children. One of the most level headed lawyers you would ever meet got furiously angry over those “idiots” who fed their children raw milk. As we worked for an agency that regulated dairy production this issue came up quite often.

If you have your cow that you take care of and know is healthy, then raw milk consumed from that cow is probably safe. If you have a bottle of raw milk from a dairy with dozens or hundreds of cows, you might as well go lick a bathroom door handle. Large scale production of milk simply will not allow for safe raw milk production, and if you want milk you need large scale dairy production. There is no other way to support this country’s need for milk, cheese, and other dairy products with out it.

Plus, there is no solid reason to believe that raw milk is any better for you than pasteurized milk. But this will not dissuade the raw milk crowd.

[get_lives]

@Jackmannii

It’s a myth that raw milk has more nutritional value than pasteurized milk (for one thing, pasteurized milk is fortified with vitamin D, and raw milk is not). Also, the risk of disease from raw milk is considerably greater:

*"The rate of food-poisoning outbreaks caused by unpasteurized, or raw, milk and dairy products is 150 times greater than outbreaks linked to pasteurized milk, according to new research.

The studies were published…by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases.

But alas, that number might be closer to 151 by now. A new outbreak emanating from bad raw milk in Pennsylvania, coincidentally coinciding with the release of this CDC report, so far has sickened nearly 100 people in four states.

It’s not as if pasteurized milk is perfectly safe. There were 48 disease outbreaks from contaminated pasteurized milk and cheese resulting in thousands of illnesses and one death between 1993 and 2006, the period analyzed by the CDC.

The sale of raw milk, however, has led to 73 disease outbreaks, two deaths, and many permanent disabilities during the same period — alarming numbers considering that raw milk constitutes less than 1 percent of all dairy sales. States where raw milk sales are legal had twice as many outbreaks, the study found."*

There’s a variety of nasty bacteria that can be transmitted through unpasteurized milk, including TB, Listeria, Campylobacter and pathogenic E. coli. Yes, people historically growing up on farms commonly drank raw milk and “didn’t all die”, just as they didn’t all die of diseases now preventable through vaccines. What raw milk advocates need to ask themselves is if the taste (or thrill, or whatever) of consuming the stuff justifies the relatively small but real risk of serious illness.

As far as vitamin content, what’s wrong with supplementing with vitamin A and D separately? Some people don’t need the extra A, or the extra D, or both, depending on genetics, diet, and environment. I personally see a lot of health improvements from supplementing with vitamin D, and none at all with vitamin A. Why should I have to have both of them forced on me, if I want to drink milk?

And as far as disease outbreaks, those are from careless dairies. The people I buy raw milk from are uniformly overly-cautious about hygeine, and have never had any problems or outbreaks.

Part of that, too, is simply keeping the dairy small. The bigger the operation, the easier it is for a mistake to happen. Also, a single contamination event at a huge dairy is going to harm many more people than the same thing at a much smaller dairy.

Effficiency isn’t always efficient. the Law of Unintended Consequences applies to making dairies larger in the name of efficiency.

[get_lives]

@howye

…if you want milk you need large scale dairy production. There is no other way to support this country’s need for milk, cheese, and other dairy products with out it.

Plus, there is no solid reason to believe that raw milk is any better for you than pasteurized milk. But this will not dissuade the raw milk crowd.

Do you want to prove either one of those? BTW, unless you have an advanced degree in microbiology, I’d avoid making uncited statements like that second sentence. I’d prefer not to get into the extreme complexities of different pasteurization methods, grassfed versus grainfed, water-soluble versus fat-soluble vitamins, though. 99% of Dopers have neither the background nor the curiosity necessary to sustain such a discussion to any kind of real conclusion.

Not to insult Dopers, but I’ve spent 13+ years studying nutrition and health, and the reality is that biochemistry is still far beyond being understood completely. I strode confidently into the subject area, figuring that I could figure it all out in a matter of a few months or a couple of years. 14 years later, the doubts and maybes continue to multiply. Somehow I doubt that a crowd of people with mostly no more than a passing interest in food and nutrition is going to be able to sustain a really detailed look at the science of all this to any kind of conclusion. Thousands of people have done their doctorates in these areas. It’s complex, and we don’t have anywhere near all the answers yet, and things vary tremendously from person to person, and from time to time within the same person’s life, depending on environment, epigenetics, etc…

[Si_Amigo]

My mom purchased raw milk straight from the farmer down the road when we kids back in the sixties and seventies and other than having to shake it up to mix the cream we had no issues.

I’ve tasted warm mothers milk straight out of the tit and can’t understand how babies can tolerate that taste.

[Mithras]

My question then is, if we are unable to determine whether raw milk is more nutritious or not, why should a person choose the option that is known to cause more communicable disease?

[KarlGrenze]

@get_lives

As far as vitamin content, what’s wrong with supplementing with vitamin A and D separately? Some people don’t need the extra A, or the extra D, or both, depending on genetics, diet, and environment. I personally see a lot of health improvements from supplementing with vitamin D, and none at all with vitamin A. Why should I have to have both of them forced on me, if I want to drink milk?

You didn’t read the linked article?

• Some of the vitamins that are degraded can also degrade in raw milk that has been left sitting.

• The levels of those vitamins in milk, and the degree of degradation are both low enough that overall, they don’t make a big effect. They are not the major nutrients in milk.

• Even the increase in vitamin A is considered negligible.

• Vitamin D is needed because in the modern life, a lot of people (particularly children) are at risk of not having adequate amounts of this vitamin. This is a very important vitamin to have, and it is nice to include it with a calcium source, as calcium and vitamin D work side by side in some pathways and organs.

And as far as disease outbreaks, those are from careless dairies.

No true Scotman’s fallacy?

Part of that, too, is simply keeping the dairy small. The bigger the operation, the easier it is for a mistake to happen. Also, a single contamination event at a huge dairy is going to harm many more people than the same thing at a much smaller dairy.

Let’s speak economics for a sec… Small raw dairies can only be profitable, at least, “not a money-losing hobby”, if they charge a much more higher price than what is currently paid for milk.

Look, milk is a relatively cheap healthy product. That’s awesome!

Sharp increase in milk (let’s make it all raw or mostly raw) would make it unavailable to poorer people, many of whom really need it (children).

Also, since you complain about addition of vitamin D to pateurized milk, are you the type that also complains with the addition of fluoride to water, iodine to salt, folic acid, iron and other nutrients to a slew of products (cereals, for example)?

Are you so selfish as to not realize the importance of public health, and how public health policy is more important than your view?

[get_lives]

@Mithras

My question then is, if we are unable to determine whether raw milk is more nutritious or not, why should a person choose the option that is known to cause more communicable disease?

Earlier in the thread I mentioned that pasteurization reduces the water-soluble vitamins in the milk, or in cooked food in general. The higher and longer the heating, the more reduction in water-soluble vitamins.

In addition, I also raised the point that automatic supplementation is not always a good idea. I actually get almost continuous colds when I supplement with vitamin A, so I gave up on it years ago. However, if I don’t supplement with vitamin D, I have a long list of small, irritating health problems that returns gradually. I have also found, through years of reading online nutrition forums, that people vary widely in their responses to individual supplements.

Finally, it’s not always the best idea to help the “Big Boys” (Big Pharma, Big Ag) by unthinkingly believing things they promote. They would love for you to never hear how much healthier grassfed milk is than grainfed milk, because grassfeeding doesn’t work with their business model. I personally am really afraid that the arguments against raw milk will get people to ignore the absolutely incontrovertible evidence for grassfeeding.

And ultimately, several states STILL allow raw milk sales. You’re not a degreed public health professional, are you? Because it sounds like you might be advocating making raw milk illegal in those states.

[Hello_Again]

Because farmers are always good people who never cut corners and all have degrees in microbiogy, of course.

If you are able to personally inspect the facility, and have the knowledge to understand what you’re seeing, and know for certain the cows are protected from any contact with deer, consumption of raw milk might be ok. Otherwise, you’de have to be insane.

My good friend is a pastured cattle farmer and a large animal vet, and she wouldn’t ever drink raw milk from her own cows. There’s really no way to know what’s good and what isn’t without sampling and testing the milk youre about to consume. There are plenty of healthy foods that don’t involve bacterial Russian roulette.

[get_lives]

@KarlGrenze

You didn’t read the linked article?

• Some of the vitamins that are degraded can also degrade in raw milk that has been left sitting.

• The levels of those vitamins in milk, and the degree of degradation are both low enough that overall, they don’t make a big effect. They are not the major nutrients in milk.

• Even the increase in vitamin A is considered negligible.

• Vitamin D is needed because in the modern life, a lot of people (particularly children) are at risk of not having adequate amounts of this vitamin. This is a very important vitamin to have, and it is nice to include it with a calcium source, as calcium and vitamin D work side by side in some pathways and organs.

No true Scotman’s fallacy?

Let’s speak economics for a sec… Small raw dairies can only be profitable, at least, “not a money-losing hobby”, if they charge a much more higher price than what is currently paid for milk.

Look, milk is a relatively cheap healthy product. That’s awesome!

Sharp increase in milk (let’s make it all raw or mostly raw) would make it unavailable to poorer people, many of whom really need it (children).

Also, since you complain about addition of vitamin D to pateurized milk, are you the type that also complains with the addition of fluoride to water, iodine to salt, folic acid, iron and other nutrients to a slew of products (cereals, for example)?

Are you so selfish as to not realize the importance of public health, and how public health policy is more important than your view?

Do you really want to get into the biochemistry of all this? Because your post sounds pretty close to just attacking me personally, out of emotion.

As far as automatic supplementation, that’s a big gray area. For people without the education, will, or money to supplement their (or especially their childrens’) diets, it is generally very good, no question. However, It’s mainly neutral for people who have a laser focus on their own health, and eat carefully, and supplement carefully, constantly paying attention to what effects specific supplements and foods are having day to day. I am in that second group, so…

But let’s be clear. I’m no libertarian. Most Paleo-ish eaters like me definitely ARE libertarians in every way imaginable, but I’m not. My political views are far more nuanced, mainly because I’m older than most of them, and I’ve had more education, and time to think things through.

[get_lives]

@Hello_Again

Because farmers are always good people who never cut corners and all have degrees in microbiogy, of course.

If you are able to personally inspect the facility, and have the knowledge to understand what you’re seeing, and know for certain the cows are protected from any contact with deer, consumption of raw milk might be ok. Otherwise, you’de have to be insane.

My good friend is a pastured cattle farmer and a large animal vet, and she wouldn’t ever drink raw milk from her own cows. There’s really no way to know what’s good and what isn’t without sampling and testing the milk youre about to consume. There are plenty of healthy foods that don’t involve bacterial Russian roulette.

Well, I’ve literally petted the cows/goats many times at most dairies that I’ve gotten raw milk from, as well as milked them myself multiple times, and paid attention to the whole process of the animals’ lives and the process of milking, refrigeration, etc., so…yeah, I’d say I satisfy your standard. ROFL

And if you could come to the farms where I’ve gotten my milk and see just how circumspect these farmers are…I could describe it to you, but like you said, firsthand knowledge is better.

And your friend sounds a little paranoid to me. I know plenty of casual current and former dairy-animal-owners, and they all drink the milk raw. Probably your friend bought into Big Ag’s/Big Pharma’s bag of half-truths while she was in school. They scare those vet students plenty good. Big Ag donates plenty of money to make sure that’s done.

[Tom_Tildrum]

@get_lives

Personally, I’ve been drinking raw milk for over 10 years, that sits at room temp in the dark for days at a time. I ferment it in glass jars in the dark at room temp, until it becomes cheese/yogurtish/whatever. I have eaten probably 500+ gallons this way, over the last 11 years or so. I’ve let it ferment to the point of having maggots, and still eaten it. In Italy, you can even find maggoty cheese as a delicacy in one or two places. It’s traditional. I’ve never gotten sick, not even once.

More power to you, but I suspect that this testimonial is not going to win many converts.

[get_lives]

@Tom_Tildrum

More power to you, but I suspect that this testimonial is not going to win many converts.

Well, I meant it as an example of what’s safe, not necessarily as a way to convince people to try it.

I don’t really care if people drink raw milk or not. Personally, I have to ferment it to digest it, and I only use soured cream and butter, never the rest of the milk. The calcium/magnesium ratio is around 12:1, and that’s not a good thing for most adults. Cream and especially butter don’t have as much of the cal/mag issue, because they contain FAR less minerals-per-calorie.

I really just use dairy as an alternate fat source. I get most of my fat from wild-caught ocean fish. I figure some variety is good, though.

These issues are complex.

[Hello_Again]

There’s just no benefit to the very significant risk. 75% of adults have a reduced ability to digest milk, showing that it is not a necessary food.

No need + significant risk that can only be ameliorated by levels of knowledge most people lack = not a good risk.

[get_lives]

@Hello_Again

There’s just no benefit to the very significant risk. 75% of adults have a reduced ability to digest milk, showing that it is not a necessary food.

No need + significant risk that can only be ameliorated by levels of knowledge most people lack = not a good risk.

I would be happy to stop using milk altogether if I could get easily get fat from 100% grassfed cows/goats/wild ruminants/etc… However, grassfeeding has fallen out of favor these days, thanks to tremendous short-sightedness and the profit motive. it’s making a slow comeback, but we’ll have acceptable lab-grown meat before most American beef is grassfed again.

Like I said above, I have to ferment milk for it to be digestible. That’s not a hallmark of an ideal dietary staple, IMHO.