You’re right, I was probably being emotional. I’ve been dealing with anti-public health policy sentiment for quite a while, and since public health is one of the areas that I am involved in, it does make this subject important to me.
But you keep saying all this about knowledge, yet refuse a site that goes back to the CDC and its peer-reviewed articles, which is confusing.
Also, you do sound condescending describing how much difficult this is to understand, and how mere people (like us?) cannot understand it. Tell us, then, is your degree then in biochemistry? In something related? I just ask because you’re treating a lot of readers here like they’re complete ignorants, without acknowledging that they themselves know quite a bit of what they speak. Without reading our CVs and resumés, you cannot know that, can you?
Third point, you mention that pasteurization degrades the vitamins again. Did you read what was cited that the degradation was not significant because the levels of those vitamins in milk to begin with were not significant?
It’s a good question, and it doesn’t have a simple answer like “brainwashed antiscience freaks”.
Milk production is a very highly industrialized process now. Dairy cattle are much like battery hens; the difference between a White X Hybrid hen who lives out her very short life mutilated and confined to a tiny wire cage with a conveyer belt under it and a hen, like mine and many others, who live the way hens have lived for millennia, scratching around human habitations for all sorts of foods, is vast – and the difference in their eggs is also vast. “Raw” is a kind of umbrella word to describe that difference in dairy animals – a cow grazing on grass in a field is a very different animal than a cow lying in a heap of her own waste, pumped up on grains, urea, hormones, antibiotics, and other chemicals. And so is her milk.
There is also a qualitative difference between “science” developed, lobbied for, promoted, and enforced by various means, by an agro-industrial complex which has profit as its only goal, and dispassionate science without any ties to that complex – the latter is a lot harder to find.
The risks of raw milk are statistically rare, acute, known, and localized. The risks of commercial milk are pervasive, cumulative, vague, and resisted acknowledgement by the full force of the milk industry. The result is that many people worry they are being lied to about their food. I don’t think this is wildly unjustified either. That’s what “raw” is about.
even though this isn’t a professional/dedicated-to-one-area board it does thrive on scientific/technical knowledge. this board is populated with scholarship at all levels in a huge number of areas.
If you’re going to get angry about this, go to a raw milk forum, like the Yahoo raw milk group. You’ll last less than a week there, no doubt, before you’re banned, but they act like raw milk is the best food for humans. I recognize it as a stopgap food, no more. And that’s what it is. Humans aren’t really designed to consume dairy past age 2 or so.
My real goals here are to teach the value of grassfeeding, and to point out the general importance of not over-cooking food. The hell with dairy. I just think that, given the fact that it’s still legal in several states, your rage is misplaced. Send some emails to the California or Pennsylvania legislatures. Go yell at an Amish dairyman, or whatever. I’m no proponent of dairy, and you shouldn’t be attacking me.
If you want to have a fight with me, start a thread about how grassfed meat is no different than grainfed, or how cooking making no difference in the health effects of food. I promise at least the beginnings of a rousing battle, before I get bored.
We could have a discussion about raw fish and shellfish, if you want, too. I’m just not the person/entity that represents the raw milk movement. I roll my eyes at many of them. So get off my back.
Here’s the thing–everybody would either get bored or overemotional long before we’d reach any real agreed-upon conclusion. Believe me, I’ve been there, and been disappointed many times. The science doesn’t lead you to any absolute conclusions, anyway.
There’s no such thing as a perfect diet or a perfect food, believe me (or hell, don’t believe me, I don’t care), and a thorough study of all the issues surrounding the nexus of nutrition and health is really just the long way around to recognizing that fact.
The deal is, though, that few have anything LIKE the patience or drive to make it all the way back through to that conclusion, and most people just end up making their food decisions based on social cues, cravings, and poorly-understood third-hand “science”.
That PDF even mentions the existence of raw milk vending machines in Europe. I find it crazy that people act like the issue is clear-cut, when regulations in the developed world run the complete gamut from “raw milk RAWKS” to “raw milk is teh EEEBIIIIL”.
Recognize that the scientists and regulators who create these laws all go to accredited institutions, and read each others’ work. Yet we still have no clear consensus.
Yet the overconfident and underinformed (like me 14 years ago) still come to this issue confident that they’ll solve it with 5 minutes of googling. SMH ROFL
I don’t want to make raw milk illegal, I just want it hard to be obtained, heavily regulated, and people to stop the ideal that it is super more awesome than regular, pasteurized milk.
For the third time, you haven’t read the cites or you don’t believe them, even if they are from peer-reviewed journals. My concern right now is that you’re refuting sound science and lumping it with pseudo-science, which is dangerous.
Twowebsites with links and citations to articles regarding raw milk vs pasteurized milk.
Lastly, your tone and the way you come off in this thread is annoying, but that is thread-hacking so I shall stop.
I actually would like this too. This board thrives on being shown technical stuff. I know that I’ve tried to “simplify” some things, and on occasion been called back for not being technical enough for other dopers in this board. Fair enough.
Again, your rage is misplaced. I suggest emailing legislators and public health officials in the states and countries where you think that raw milk isn’t sufficiently regulated. You’ve attacked me personally twice already. I don’t want to give your behavior attention, and thereby maybe create a probably-unnecessary flameout, so I won’t involve a moderator. However…you are over the line with the personal attacks. Please redirect the rage at a more-appropriate target, hmm?
Hey, I finally made it to the 1%! Clean living, well, clean living plus the morals and ethics of a robber baron on coke, pays off!
I do have the background and the curiosity to pursue this subject. And I have for more than twice your 13 years. I’ll tell you what lengths I go to to keep up-to-date on raw milk issues: I’m on the email list for the Weston A. Price Foundation. That’s like being on the email list for creationist.org to keep up with the horse’s, er, mouth.
So, with that in mind, let me take a look at your cites.
That’s the history I referred to in my earlier post. In that history raw milk lost. Because it produced worse results. A little fact that your source leaves out.
Even more telling is what it includes. It’s main science source is Pottenger, F.M., Jr. “The Effect of Heat-Processed and Metabolized Vitamin D Milk on the Dentofacial Structures of Experimental Animals.” American Journal of Orthodontics and Oral Surgery, Vol. 32, No. 8, 467-485, August, 1946. It’s amazing how many raw milk advocates stop their science with Pottenger in 1946. Who else in any field stops science in 1946? Now it’s certainly true that correct science in 1946 would hold up today. But it’s also true that science is cumulative. Every year we learn more - much more - about every subject. An article purporting to rely on science but stops in 1946 should set off every CRANK! alarm in your system. It should come as no surprise when you look to the left of the screen and see the solicitation for… The Weston A. Price Foundation. And the… Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation. Cranks of a feather flock together.
That first paragraph might be true, but nothing in your cite confirms it. It doesn’t mention milk at all. I did a search in Google Scholar for articles examining the value of milk from grass-fed vs. grain-fed animals. I didn’t find any. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist. But since you’re making the claim I would hope that you have something more persuasive and relevant to back it up.
Remember that I already said that carefully prepared raw milk is fine to drink before you even appeared in this thread. It is not raw milk I’m attacking; it’s the lack of proper science and substitution of anecdote in its defense that I don’t like.
I refer you again to the link I posted on the CDC study, showing 48 disease outbreaks due to contaminated pasteurized milk during the study period, and 73 disease outbreaks due to raw milk - with that higher total in raw milk drinkers even though raw milk is less than 1% of total dairy sales. That’s a striking disproportion that is not favorable to the “raw milk is healthier” advocates.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner for the Most Hilarious Irrelevancy award.
I’m the OP, and perhaps there might be some value in hearing my reaction. I remember my high school Biochem, but have no real training past that level. But I am interested in the topic, and I like to think I can follow an argument, especially one made with reference to peer-reviewed and sourced studies.
So I guess I’m saying: facts are always good, with citations.
So – as an uninformed seeker of truth, I thought your point about relying on a 1946 study was well-taken. But then I was disappointed to see your only further refutation was noting the existence of evil bedfellows, as opposed to a more substantive newer study that kicked the 1946 study in the teeth.
Jackmannii’s CDC link seems pretty compelling, though.
Nothing scientific to share, just personal position.
I like raw milk. Have had it many times with no negative outcomes.
I react poorly when some fool on TV (or as in the case of raw milk, at the farmer’s market) is telling me that the modern world is lying to me and they have a cure for all that ails me. No, not all raw milk advocates are quacks but I’ve seen a lot of quack claims made about raw milk over the years.
I have no doubt that like many other potentially unsanitary food products that raw milk is completely safe when produces properly.
I also have no doubt that it is very easy to produce raw milk improperly. Therefore I would not generally support (with my business) the large scale production of raw milk since the repercussions would be so negative when it is not done properly.
I also do not really think that small producers are inherently better at producing it properly. I’ve met many incredibly smart skillful small farmers and food producers. I’ve also met many incredibly earnest and stupid small farmers and food producers. And profit motives drive the individual to make poor decisions hardly less than the corporation. They do have the benefit that when they go wrong they will impact a smaller pool of people.
Since I have no real interest in expending the energy to achieve the confidence level necessary for me to regularly consume raw milk I am fine with pasteurized (though I really don’t drink milk much as I get older, I can it has just slipped from my regular diet).
Since I tend to have libertarian tendencies on what personal decisions people are allowed to make I think producers should be allowed to produce raw milk, be required to give appropriate warning and be appropriately liable if they make people sick through negligence. And consumers should be free to buy and drink if they want so long as they agree to shut up about how this somehow makes them superior human beings.
I like that it even knocks out the one argument that can legitimately be argued for raw milk, that it contains more of the beneficial bacteria. It’s too low by several orders of magnitude.
I live in a state where I can buy raw milk at the grocery store. I drink it, and use it to make yogurt & cheese and haven’t had any problems with it. If you can get it from a reliable source, I highly recommend it.
My mother didn’t lay around on the ground in her own waste. Cows do that pretty regularly, even the free-range ones. Yes, farmers clean off the udders before milking, but not as carefully as I wash my hands after going to the bathroom.
Drinking milk from one (human) animal is much less risky than drinking milk from a herd of animals that’s all put together into one vat. The risk is multiplied by the number of cows whose milk is collected together.
On the general topic of raw milk: Certainly, we know more about medicine and sanitation than we did when pasteurization was initially invented. The risk of raw milk today is, I’m sure, much lower than the risk of unpasteurized milk back then. But I’d bet it’s still higher than the risk of pasteurized milk.
Excellent on your points, although your possible belief that anyone will ever stop being quacks or believing in quacks because it is refuted by peer-reviewed scientifically produced data is doomed to disappointment.
Grade A (liquid milk for public sale) dairy production is very rigorous. Milk is constantly tested, protocols are rigid. You can rest assured, scale won’t be an issue if raw liquid milk was certified to that level. In fact, large scale is probably the only way it could be done, because the capital outlay for any size grade-A facility is huge.
I promise at least the beginnings of a rousing battle, before I get bored.