Poor experiment, since they made it Homogenized and Grain fed and Paturized vs Grass fed, unhomogenized and un-Pasteurized. Too many variables. Note that the Pasteurized cow’s milk from Ralph’s grocery store won.
Un-homogenized milk is legal and available, and most of the difference is taste is there.
here’s anothe test:
“He found that, in his personal opinion, he could not tell much of a difference in taste between pasteurized and unpasteurized milk. He could tell a difference in texture – but found raw milk to be thinner, not creamier, than the commercial milk.”
I used to work on the family farm during summer vacation, drank milk straight from the cow. (You can squirt it pretty far).
Seriously, who cares what it tastes like? It’s a question of public health, not palatability.
For those of you who think labeled unpasteurized milk should be able to be sold in grocery stores without further restriction, I ask this.
Let’s say this happens, and more people sicken and/or die from contaminated milk. Is there some magic number where it becomes a public health issue, rather than a freedom of choice against the nanny-state issue? Or not? If they and perhaps some of their children sicken and die, is that ok because they had the choice not to do so?
Has anybody answered this? I don’t have any strong feelings one way or another but it seems like if other countries allow raw milk without much problem then it should be allowable here.
Why don’t you answer yourself? You do realize that legally-processed, legally-sold meats send dozens of people to hospitals, and a handful to their graves, each year? And there’s no labeling requirement that would have warned those people,* as there is or would be with raw milk.
At best, if they knew certain things about the meat industry, they might have minimized their risk by avoiding products that lacked certain labels.
It is definitely proven that smoking and using other tobacco products is bad for your health. The percent of people using raw milk products who get sick and suffer long or short term health problems has got to be minuscule compared to the percent of people who use tobacco products and suffer long or short term heath problems. (No cite, as I could not find any data studying the percent of people who die or get sick from raw milk.)
Yet, we do not ban tobacco. Why is that? The reason is because the government has decided that as long as you are over a certain age, you have the right to choose to poison your body with tobacco (and possibly those around you with second hand smoke). So why do we not have (in all states) the right to choose to drink raw milk? We could raise the legal age for raw milk to 18 or 21.
Do all of you who think raw milk should be banned also think all tobacco products should be banned? If not, what merits do you think tobacco has to warrant keeping it legal while still banning raw milk?
how? As far as I can tell, unlike smoking, driving drunk, or refusing to vaccinate your kids, consuming raw milk doesn’t impact anyone’s health but your own.
Let’s first be clear that if you were to show that a blind taste test had the vast majority of tasters picking the commercial pasteurized milk as tasting better, it would prove my point: that there is a difference in taste. Agreed?
Now, which are you arguing – that there is no taste difference or that most people prefer the taste of commercial milk?
Has it? Cite?
Eight years ago, I posted this thread, in which I relate being served a blended scotch out of a single malt bottle and being immediately able to tell the difference. I collect single malt scotch. I have held tasting parties. I admit I probably couldn’t reliably distinguish between, say, Auchentoshan (Bourbon Oak) and Auchentoshan (American Oak), because I don’t taste either enough to be familiar with them. But I assure you I can taste, every single time, the difference between Glenfiddich and Cutty Sark.
And the difference between raw milk and commercial milk. I have never heard or read any account that suggests they taste the same. Even the accounts you offer agree they taste different.
Are you reading this thread? Like the herd immunity function of mandatory universal vaccination, barring raw milk helps prevent certain afflictions from entering the population. It also prevents the accidental consumption of raw milk by vulnerable individuals.
I agree. It’s thinner, with hay or floral undertones, and not nearly as sweet as commercial milk. I suspect the majority of tasters would prefer commercial milk.
But then, I like Limburger cheese, which most people treat with revulsion. I like anchovies, which means my wife makes me order my own pizza. So I don’t tend to track with the majority’s taste palate.
Our culture has only drank pasteurized milk for a couple generations. Especially in rural areas. People had milk cows on their farms and thought nothing of filling a milk bucket for the family breakfast.
My dad grew up drinking fresh milk straight from the cow. His biggest complaint was it was skim milk. Grandmother always sold the cream or made butter that they sold.
I guess its risky for adults to switch from pasteurized to raw milk. Our stomachs aren’t prepared for that. Its different if someone grew up drinking only raw milk.
Very few people live in farms now. They really aren’t significant for public health questions. And before milk pasteurization was mandated there was a not insignificant harm.
I would also like further explanation about herd immunity with regard to raw or pasteurized milk. I understand how it works with vaccines and illnesses that are contagious, but I do not understand how that would apply to possible food-borne illnesses.
No, sorry. Nobody gets used to listeria, E. coli, salmonella or tuberculosis. Healthy adults don’t usually get sick from these things, but they are can be very serious for children, pregnant women, the elderly and those with compromised immune systems.
Have you even seen child mortality rates from the past? The spread of pasteurization was an enormous boon to people who want to survive to adulthood.
what afflictions? it just seems to cause food poisoning in people who consume it. Nothing that’s really contagious between people who wash their hands regularly.
Well then, we should get rid of peanuts; actually, get rid of all tree nuts so no one accidentally gets sick. Some people are allergic to shellfish so get rid of those, too. In rare cases soy can cause anaphylaxis so we’ll have to ban that. Too bad for vegans.