Tell me about raw milk

[jbaker]

I don’t have any actual learning on this subject, but I do have anecdotal information. I grew up on an old-fashioned farm, and we drank raw milk with every meal.

My view today, shared with my siblings, is that drinking raw milk is nuts. We never contracted any serious diseases, but as a child I contracted diarrhea on a fairly regular basis. I believe that this was primarily due to the raw milk. I almost never drink milk at all today, except occasionally with cereal. (I do eat yogurt, cheese, and ice cream.)

As for the benefits: I didn’t really care that much for the taste of unhomogenized milk, especially when it had a little cream floating around on top. The cream itself was quite good, not by itself, but when put over oatmeal or used to make whipped cream. We used Jersey cows when we wanted cream, as these produce a richer milk than the Holsteins that are mainly used in commercial dairies. And the supposed health benefits? The one thing I can say for sure is that there are plenty of very healthy people who have never tasted raw milk.

[johnpost]

@iamthewalrus_3

Two major differences:

1. 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.

have you seen teat cleaning?

[naita]

@get_lives

Humans aren’t really designed to consume dairy past age 2 or so.

I am. I have this mutation you see.

Your view on the evolution of human digestion is silly.

[J-P_L]

I was born and raised on a dairy farm. We were six kids plus my parents. As far as milk drinking goes, we drank nothing but raw milk until I was 24 when the farm was sold.

The milk was taken straight from the cows, filtered and refrigerated immediately.

Of course, with eight persons at the table, it was consumed rapidly and therefore was pretty much fresh daily but nobody ever got sick from drinking milk.

[Ulfreida]

@jbaker

I don’t have any actual learning on this subject, but I do have anecdotal information. I grew up on an old-fashioned farm, and we drank raw milk with every meal.

My view today, shared with my siblings, is that drinking raw milk is nuts. We never contracted any serious diseases, but as a child I contracted diarrhea on a fairly regular basis. I believe that this was primarily due to the raw milk. I almost never drink milk at all today, except occasionally with cereal. (I do eat yogurt, cheese, and ice cream.)

As for the benefits: I didn’t really care that much for the taste of unhomogenized milk, especially when it had a little cream floating around on top. The cream itself was quite good, not by itself, but when put over oatmeal or used to make whipped cream. We used Jersey cows when we wanted cream, as these produce a richer milk than the Holsteins that are mainly used in commercial dairies. And the supposed health benefits? The one thing I can say for sure is that there are plenty of very healthy people who have never tasted raw milk.

My grandmother, who grew up on a farm and was a farm wife until the 1960’s (in Wisconsin), told me that “spring fever” was a common complaint in those days, and it took her a long time to realize that it was probably just food poisoning from lack of refrigeration.

[Bricker]

@Exapno_Mapcase

No problem.

The best recent overview article is Raw or heated cow milk consumption: Review of risks and benefits (full article available).

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.

That study is similar to claims made in Food Safety Hazards Associated with Consumption of Raw Milk (abstract only), Unpasteurized Milk: A Continued Public Health Threat (abstract only), and Milk and Raw Milk Consumption as a Vector for Human Disease, chapter 5 in ZOONOTIC PATHOGENS IN THE FOOD CHAIN (full text available).

For outbreaks, check Nonpasteurized dairy products, disease outbreaks, and state laws-United States, 1993-2006 (full article available) or the older The epidemiology of raw milk-associated foodborne disease outbreaks reported in the United States, 1973 through 1992 (abstract only).

The literature is especially hard on the claims of the raw milk advocates, which they find to lack proper published sourcing.

Awesome. Many thanks!

[shiftless]

On a large dairy farm the cows are milked my machine and pumped immidately to chilled storage containers. What that means is that the milk is generally as clean as possible, since it never touches the outside air, but, since all the milk from that farm is intermixed, it’s only as clean as the cleanest milk that went in. A whole tanker full of milk really needs to be pasteurized, in case one or two cows were sick.

Raw milk is presumably made in smaller batches, perhaps from only one or two very well tended cows, so cross contamination isn’t such a problem. Hopefully the milking is done by machine though.

@jbaker

As for the benefits: I didn’t really care that much for the taste of unhomogenized milk, especially when it had a little cream floating around on top.

Yeah, as a kid I couldn’t get past what was basically skim milk with globs of cream floating around. We drank regular milk until we went to grandma’s house (she kept a single milk cow.) As a nod to us city kids she would shake it up the milk bottle to mix the cream in. The little globs in the milk creeped me out.

[KarlGrenze]

@Exapno_Mapcase

No problem.

The best recent overview article is Raw or heated cow milk consumption: Review of risks and benefits (full article available).

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.

That study is similar to claims made in Food Safety Hazards Associated with Consumption of Raw Milk (abstract only), Unpasteurized Milk: A Continued Public Health Threat (abstract only), and Milk and Raw Milk Consumption as a Vector for Human Disease, chapter 5 in ZOONOTIC PATHOGENS IN THE FOOD CHAIN (full text available).

For outbreaks, check Nonpasteurized dairy products, disease outbreaks, and state laws-United States, 1993-2006 (full article available) or the older The epidemiology of raw milk-associated foodborne disease outbreaks reported in the United States, 1973 through 1992 (abstract only).

The literature is especially hard on the claims of the raw milk advocates, which they find to lack proper published sourcing.

Thank you.

[get_lives]

@Exapno_Mapcase

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.

There’s no data comparing the health benefits of raw versus pasteurized milk since 1946 because nobody has the money to do a study. Well, Big Ag and Big Pharma do. I’m sure we can all agree they’ll never DO such a study, though, right?

A few universities have the money, as does the federal government…but they’re mostly bought-and-paid-for by Big Ag and Big Pharma, so…

I’ll keep being a raw milk guinea pig, until I can get a better alternative fat source.

I can’t wait for people to start saying that the lack of a side-by-side comparison study proves that raw milk sucks.

[Jackmannii]

@get_lives

There’s no data comparing the health benefits of raw versus pasteurized milk since 1946 because nobody has the money to do a study. Well, Big Ag and Big Pharma do. I’m sure we can all agree they’ll never DO such a study, though, right?

Did you read the linked study " Raw or heated cow milk consumption: Review of risks and benefits"? Or did you just assume Big Udder was suppressing the Truth?

If there are such fantastic health benefits to drinking unpasteurized milk, you’d think the raw milk producers would band together to fund their own study and get it published, thus providing a vehicle to greatly increase their sales.

But as with woo in general, it’s a lot easier to tell anecdotes and rail about how the Man is holding you down.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@get_lives

There’s no data comparing the health benefits of raw versus pasteurized milk since 1946 because nobody has the money to do a study. Well, Big Ag and Big Pharma do. I’m sure we can all agree they’ll never DO such a study, though, right?

A few universities have the money, as does the federal government…but they’re mostly bought-and-paid-for by Big Ag and Big Pharma, so…

I’ll keep being a raw milk guinea pig, until I can get a better alternative fat source.

I can’t wait for people to start saying that the lack of a side-by-side comparison study proves that raw milk sucks.

Considering that I already posted links to exactly such studies, this is world class denialism. I’m privileged to be the recipient. I will post the link again here so there is no possibility you can say you missed it: Raw or heated cow milk consumption: Review of risks and benefits. From Food Control, Volume 31, Issue 1, May 2013, Pages 251–262, so it’s as cutting edge as you could hope for.

As for raw milk advocates funding studies, well, that’s what the Weston A. Price Foundation is for. Scads of money. Only one problem. When it was done, it didn’t meet the standards of any peer-reviewed publication. Oops.

[get_lives]

So the entire study is composed of reviews of reported illnesses from raw milk?

That doesn’t really answer the question fully, does it?

Let me tell you how to design such a study.

You take a group of animals (humans would be better as far as science goes, but the study would cost more and take longer), for instance, mice, chimps, or rats, and divide them into multiple groups. You feed each group the same milk daily, except that each individual group gets a different level of pasteurization. You’d probably want the study to go on at least a year or more, and ideally the life span of the animal (not realistic for chimps, but mice only live about 3 years). You’d probably want to feed the animals at least 30-40% of their calories from other foods as well, to give some kind of realistic balance.

That’s a starting point. If you do that exact study, without any real variations, at least 3-4 times, at different institutions, at different times, with different researchers, THEN you’ve got a basis to work from.

At some point, you can start including human volunteers in the study, to really nail things down.

To make it even more interesting, you could feed the cows different types of grass, on different types of soil that had different mineral ratios, and see how that affected the results.

My guess would be that the lower levels of pasteurization would have little effect. Eventually, though, you are going to reach levels that will have noticeable health effects. Negative effects, I mean. As to what level that is…the study has yet to be done.

[get_lives]

@Exapno_Mapcase

Considering that I already posted links to exactly such studies, this is world class denialism. I’m privileged to be the recipient. I will post the link again here so there is no possibility you can say you missed it: Raw or heated cow milk consumption: Review of risks and benefits. From Food Control, Volume 31, Issue 1, May 2013, Pages 251–262, so it’s as cutting edge as you could hope for.

As for raw milk advocates funding studies, well, that’s what the Weston A. Price Foundation is for. Scads of money. Only one problem. When it was done, it didn’t meet the standards of any peer-reviewed publication. Oops.

The WAPF does not have scads of money. It’s mainly just Sally Fallon and Mary Enig, plus a few helpers, and it’s only about 15 years old. The Price-Pottenger foundation is a good bit older, but still very small, and with a relatively small budget.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@get_lives

So the entire study is composed of reviews of reported illnesses from raw milk?

When you start by proving that you didn’t bother to read the study in question, it’s very, very hard to take the rest of your post seriously.

But in this case, it doesn’t matter. I find it very, very hard to take the rest of your post seriously after reading it all, in wide-eyed disbelief. Of course, you don’t have to listen to me. Just tell the medical community that that’s the way to design a study on raw milk. Really. I would give money to the Weston A. Price Foundation for the chance to hear the medical community’s response.

[KarlGrenze]

@Exapno_Mapcase

But in this case, it doesn’t matter. I find it very, very hard to take the rest of your post seriously after reading it all, in wide-eyed disbelief. Of course, you don’t have to listen to me. Just tell the medical community that that’s the way to design a study on raw milk. Really. I would give money to the Weston A. Price Foundation for the chance to hear the medical community’s response.

I second this.

[get_lives]

@Exapno_Mapcase

When you start by proving that you didn’t bother to read the study in question, it’s very, very hard to take the rest of your post seriously.

But in this case, it doesn’t matter. I find it very, very hard to take the rest of your post seriously after reading it all, in wide-eyed disbelief. Of course, you don’t have to listen to me. Just tell the medical community that that’s the way to design a study on raw milk. Really. I would give money to the Weston A. Price Foundation for the chance to hear the medical community’s response.

I read a little farther, and was disappointed to find that no one actually did any real-world studies. I don’t care about test-tube chemistry. If you haven’t proven it in live subjects, you haven’t proven it. The FDA requires both animal and human studies prior to approving a drug. Why shouldn’t we hold pasteurization to a similar standard?

And that is exactly how to design a study. If you think you can design it better, go ahead. I’m waiting.

[obfusciatrist]

You’d probably want to feed the animals at least 30-40% of their calories from other foods as well, to give some kind of realistic balance.

60-70% of calories from milk strikes you as a realistic balance?

[jbaker]

@get_lives

The FDA requires both animal and human studies prior to approving a drug. Why shouldn’t we hold pasteurization to a similar standard?

Shouldn’t the burden of proof be on raw milk rather than the known safe process of pasteurization?

[Guinastasia]

@get_lives

In Italy, you can even find maggoty cheese as a delicacy in one or two places. It’s traditional.

:dubious:

I’m assuming you’re refering to casu marzu, which is actually illegal. You have to find it on the black market. So that’s not exactly a ringing endorsement.
(Besides, I find whole milk to be too rich. I’ll stick with my 2%, kthnxby)

[Jackmannii]

Pasteurization does not require present-day studies, any more than proper sewage treatment to prevent cholera and other diseases, mosquito control to eliminate malaria, or for that matter appendectomies for appendicitis, setting bone fractures and so on. They’re proven successful through many years of application and it would be unethical and foolish to subject people to double-blind studies to “prove” their worth.

We also have good information as to the rough equivalence nutritionally of pasteurized and raw milk. Therefore it does not make sense to demand of the scientific community that it expend limited research dollars “proving” that two groups consuming raw and pasteurized milk will have different health outcomes (apart from greater disease incidence in the raw milk group). However, if raw milk advocates feel the need to back their claims of greater health benefits, there’s nothing stopping them from funding their own studies and startling the world with revolutionary findings of Mystery Substances that make raw milk a panacea. :dubious: