OT: health benefits of drinking raw milk

less often than factory-farmed cows confined in stalls, but they still get them.

that went around inspecting pasteurising plants and he had plenty of horror stories.

Hi,

Anywhere there are pasteurising plants there will be horror stories, pasteurization and disease go hand in hand. Raw milk on the other hand implies the necessity of healthy animals and milk for it to be successful.

The study showing the health benefits of raw milk compared to the pasteurized milk is a no-brainer for all but the most mainstream followers of health advice.

cheers, Jamie

Hi,

I would suggest you read up on the history of pasteurization and raw milk, your idea that pasteurization solved an existing problem is incorrect.

Pasteurization allowed cows to be raised in unhealthy conditions living with diseases and since the milk is made sterile by pasteurization, the diseases don't spread, however there are other ways the milk is effected negatively by the poor living conditions of the cows, which don't cause outright infections but (as shown by the study) cause other health related problems when compared to raw milk consumption.

cheers, Jamie

Hi,

From that wiki page:

"Pasteur discovered that heating milk to a high temperature then swiftly cooling it before bottling it, enabled the milk to remain fresher for an extended period of time."

That is probably the value he saw in it for mass production.

cheers, Jamie

Stopped too soon. Keep on reading.

Joe Gwinn

I'm not a new-age fad addict either. The woods are full of people who think that they've got a better point of view - some of them are sufficiently obsessed by their silly ideas to write a book about it.

Pasteur managed to dress up his ideas in a form that made it into the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Bechamp's microzymes didn't explain what was going on well enough to make through that level of quality control.

He died in well-deserved obscurity.

an still get bovine TB and other infections. They may get them less often t han factory-farmed cows confined in stalls, but they still get them.

ng before the days of dairy farming. Our doctor was on the committee that went around inspecting pasteurising plants and he had plenty of horror stor ies.

The catch is that the quality control program for raw milk involves watchin g the kids who drink it and going after the milk supplier when the kids get sick.

Pasteurising the milk means that fewer kids get sick from drinking it - in practice none of them. They can still get sick from infections coming in fr om other sources.

The study didn't control for source and frequency of infection. The kind of rural idiots who drink raw milk and take the risk of feeding it to their e ven-more-vulnerable kids don't have much contact with the rest of society a nd their infections.

The study makes the implicit assumption that the raw-milk drinkers were bei ng exposed to the same number of infectious agents as the Pasteurised milk drinkers, and goes on from there to claim that if the raw milk drinkers got sick less often, it had to be because their immune systems were stronger.

In reality, they almost certainly got sick less often because they got expo sed to infectious agents less often - the extra infectious agents in the ra w milk didn't outweigh the relatively low incidence of sneezing visitors.

The no-brainer response is yours - you can't see the weakness of the study, no matter how often we point it out to you.

of

ct.

It might, but it was used in north western Tasmania - where I grew up - to protect us against the diseases endemic in healthy cows raised in the tradi tional way, eating grass (and the occasional brassica in autumn, which tran slated into an unusually high incidence of goitre in the local children, un til it got investigated and farmers got discouraged from letting their cows graze brassicas too often).

"Goitrogens in plants affect the iodine requirements of livestock by interfering with iodine up-take by the thyroid gland or inhibiting synthesis of thyroxine. The most common goitrogen is thiocyanate, derived from both the cyanide in white clover and the glucosinolates in brassica fodder crops".

Pasteurised milk isn't sterile. The process reduces the number of pathogens, but doesn't eliminate them. UHT milk is more nearly sterile, but the flash-heating used - though brief - makes the milk taste vile.

The definition of a a pathogen is that it can create pathology - that is, make you sick. You have to ingest several thousand pathogens to have an even chance of getting sick, even if they are highly infectious.

This approach does select the more resistant infants. Only those with a robust immune system will make it to the age of five.

Historically speaking, about half the children ever born died before they grew up and had a chance to breed. If you think that this is a desirable state of affairs, migrate to Africa where there are areas where kids still do almost as badly.

Some kids do need their immune systems challenged more often than they are now, but occasional exposure to real dirt and other kids who are exposed to real dirt is probably as much as is required.

I've read alot of the claims about the supposed nutrients destroyed by past eurizing. While I know that alot of official information is bullshit, bough t and paid for research by those with a vested interest, the fact is that t he only real lost nutrients by heat are vitamin C and I think one or two ot hers. Milk is not really the best source of C anyway.

All this about the other stufff is mostly bunk because not much stays in it s own molecules when dumped in a vat of hydrochloric acid. Milk's nutriativ e value lies mainly in mineral salts, protein and fat. Your body buiolds pr otein so that's out. the fat, well there are are some things that are fat s oluble, but they are not taking oiut the fat unless you get lowfat milk, wh ich I believe ot be the stupidest thing to do.

I used to say "I can water it down myself" to which I got replies that wate ring it down is not what they're doing. Well, what they ARE doing is taking out the fat soluble nutrients and selling them. When they refine salt they make more money off of what they take out of it than the salt itself, but that doesn't mean it is the same for lowfat milk.

At any rate, the number of cases of people getting sick from raw milk in th e US numbers in the couple hundred, hardly enough to justify the SWAT teams and shit used on farmers who sell raw milk, even to their friends. I am se riious, they act like they are busting a meth lab. This is obviously due t o some driven influence, which could only come from the dairy industry. Thi s is what people resent here, having these decisions made for profit of big companies.

Anyone in other countries who wants to try to tell us in the US that this g ovenrment has any intention of protecting us from anything at all is full o f shit. They are all a bunch of crooks and every law and regulation is boug ht and paid for. Usually by lobbyists but every once in a while in votes, w hen a politician thinks they might lose their moneymaker.

So like 300 people tops get ill over raw ilk, while hostipals KILL liek 200 ,000, and this is medical mistakes, not that they were dropping dead walkin g in. thisis the AMA's own figures, not some nutcase website, unless you co nsider the AMA nutcases.

What "horror" stories? You don't get it. With pasteurization, the taste and nutritional content of milk is slightly compromised in exchange for elimination of disease causing contaminants in our milk.

Yes, a condition that can not be assured. Read about the problems from drinking raw milk that have happened. That is why we started using pasteurization. What makes you think we can eliminate disease from raw milk any other way?

Why can't you see that the articles you reference don't actually say raw milk is healthier? They say there are fewer colds...

Here is a perfect example from one of the raw milk proponents...

"Recent figures published regarding the spread of tuberculosis by milk show, among other facts, that over a period of five years, during which time 70 children belonging to a special organization received a pint of raw milk daily. One case only of the disease occurred. "

I'll wait for your reply.

Do you see the fallacy in your point? There are very few people getting sick from raw milk because very few people drink raw milk. If more people drink raw milk, more people will get sick from it.

I don't even know where you can buy raw milk, so it can't be too many people who are drinking it. I have bought raw eggs though.... lol Actually I would buy them from a local farmer, but it's too big a PITA making a special 10 mile round trip just for a couple of dozen eggs. A friend will have them next spring and I'm hoping to get a steady supply.

are sufficiently obsessed

explain what was going on well enough to make through that level of quality control.

Hi,

You can focus on his most incorrect views, which of course is expected as you fail to see the forest for the trees, but his general beliefs such as this from that wiki page are what turned out to be correct and important:

"he did not believe that bacteria could invade a healthy host and create disease on their own"

This is a "post Pasteur" type of understanding, along with the idea that sterilization isn't the goal but rather a realization that bacteria are natural and a necessary healthy part of life.

cheers, Jamie

them less often than factory-farmed cows confined in stalls, but they still get them.

committee that went around inspecting pasteurising plants and he had plenty of horror stories.

when the kids get sick.

coming in from other sources.

it to their even-more-vulnerable kids don't have much contact with the rest of society and their infections.

milk drinkers, and goes on from there to claim that if the raw milk drinkers got sick less often, it had to be because their immune systems were stronger.

the raw milk didn't outweigh the relatively low incidence of sneezing visitors.

Hi,

Many raw milk drinkers live in an urban setting, in fact most probably. Raw milk is the main type of milk available in some countries, and it is brought into cities. Also many cow share programs in North America have a big percentage of their members who living in cities.

I see no support for your assumption that the people drinking raw milk lived in a rural setting more often, but even if they did that just supports the idea that a traditional rural setting is potentially a more healthy way to live, if you want to argue that I won't disagree with you there :D

cheers, Jamie

Hi,

Ask Bill about that, he mentioned a pasteurising plant inspector with plenty of horror stories..

The market provides the assurance that raw milk has to be healthy. The standards for raw milk are set higher than almost any other food group.

The reason pasteurization was used was to increase the shelf life of milk, not because raw milk was dangerous.

Most people would agree with the statement that fewer colds is a health benefit.

cheers, Jamie

Hmm, did you read the next sentence in that article?

"During a similar period when pasteurized milk had been given, 14 cases were reported."

cheers, Jamie

So what part of this is incorrect? Bacteria invade healthy hosts every day. If you are going to blame disease on things you can't actually show, then just don't bother.

Good idea :D

from the same wiki page:

"Before the widespread urban growth caused by industrialisation, people kept dairy cows even in urban areas and the short time period between production and consumption minimised the disease risk of drinking raw milk.[18] However, as urban densities increased and supply chains lengthened to the distance from country to city, raw milk (often days old) began to be recognised as a source of disease."

So that supports that raw milk became a problem when "supply chains lengthened" for the raw milk, meaning it was not fresh milk. Raw milk supply chains are short again with modern transportation so the initial shelf life reason for pasteurizing milk is no longer valid in most cases.

cheers, Jamie

Anecdotal I assume? I don't see the post.

Yes, once I read up a bit I found that is true. But that doesn't mean raw milk is safe to drink. We know of many diseases from drinking raw milk. You can blame it on what you wish, but the point is disease happens. We even have problems from time to time with foods that don't naturally have a problem with disease causing organisms like vegetables. But they can become contaminated under unusual circumstances. With milk those are common circumstances and measures are taken to mitigate the problem and pasteurization is a part of that. Take away pasteurization and the disease rate from milk will increase.

"Fewer colds" is not "health". How do you compare 1000 people not getting a cold this winter to 1 person dying from an E coli infection?