E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSBy Christopher Wanjek
Live Science
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 last week 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.
Outbreaks stem from many kinds of bacteria, such as Campylobacter, Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria.
These outbreaks may be on the rise, too, the CDC says, given the growing popularity of raw milk products. In the 20 U.S. states that ban raw milk sales, willing consumers can circumvent the laws by forming cow-sharing cooperatives or by buying raw milk under the guise of pet food.
Raw facts
Raw milk comes straight from the dairy animal's teat to you with little processing, the way nature sort of intended this otherwise rare interspecies-sharing of lactating fluid. Humans throughout history, however, rarely guzzled milk by the glassful the way we do today. Milk usually was soured into yogurt, curdled into cheese, or made into whey or other products that could keep longer without refrigeration.
Those who did drink raw milk, an important source of protein and other nutrients, usually lived on a farm with cows or other dairy animals and benefited from a fresh product.
As milk drinking became more popular in the 20th century, governments began instituting the practice of pasteurization, which flash-boils the milk to kill most of the bacteria, good and bad. This made milk safe for consumption in cities and other regions far from a dairy farm.
But forced pasteurization in the United States in the early 20th century created a faction that has grown stronger in recent years. Proponents of raw milk argue that it is healthier, tastier and safer than conventional milk if produced correctly.
Health benefits debatable
The "healthier" argument remains unproven. Pasteurization only slightly reduces the nutritional value of milk. The reduction in vitamins B12 and E and, actually, an increase in vitamin A in pasteurized milk are of little concern because the levels are inherently so low and easily can be obtained in other foods, according to a systematic review of 40 studies published in 2011 in the Journal of Food Safety. Pasteurization reduces vitamin B2, or riboflavin; yet so too does sunlight, and raw milk sold in glass bottles loses some of its riboflavin this way.
Conversely, raw milk usually doesn't contain vitamin D, which is added to conventional milk. The main source of this vitamin is sunlight, but many people in northern climates do not get enough sun during the winter months. Without a supplement, children in particular would be at risk for poor bone development.
Infographic: The Power of Vitamin D
Whether raw milk can boost the immune system also is debated. A study published in 2011 in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology demonstrated that drinking raw milk was associated with lower asthma rates among farm children in rural Germany and Switzerland. Yet the effect might be due to farm living more than the milk, since research has shown that living on farms (and having pets) can stimulate kids' immune systems.
Ban it or improve it?
Taste is another thing, though. Raw milk and cheeses do have a distinctive taste, which raw-milk advocates say they are denied as a result of perverse laws that sacrifice personal liberties in the name of public health.
That is, there is no call to ban raw vegetables or seafood. In 2011, 50 people died from contaminated bean sprouts from Germany and 29 people died from contaminated cantaloupes from California, according to CDC data. Pasteurized cheese contaminated with listeria killed 52 people in 1985, the deadliest bacterial food-borne outbreak recorded in U.S. history.
Raw-milk advocates argue that unpasteurized milk from grass-fed cows raised humanely in open fields and handled hygienically is inherently safer than the milk from large and crowded commercial farms, where disease is rampant. Unfortunately, the new CDC research doesn't support this notion, because outbreaks from bad raw milk are emanating from seemingly clean and humane farms.
"Restricting the sale of raw milk products is likely to reduce the number of outbreaks and can help keep people healthier," said Robert Tauxe, CDC's deputy director of the Division of Foodborne, Waterborne and Environmental Diseases, in a press statement tied to this latest study.
In light of the CDC analysis, the best advice for raw-milk connoisseurs is to think of raw milk as analogous to raw eggs, meat, fish or oysters. Also, think twice before giving raw milk to children, as they constitute the majority of the victims of raw-milk illnesses.
Leave a Comment:
Go ahead sheeple, government milk is gooooood for you.
I drank raw cows milk as a kid when it was from relative's cows who were washed well before milking. The milk was great.
I also lived a few miles from a dairy. The dairy cows would have their udders sprayed off by a water hose after dragging them through cow manure a couple of feet deep and then get put on a milking machine. They would sometimes get milked until they were irritated and bleeding. Cows would also occasionally be put on the machine with infected teats. After seeing that, there is NO way I'd ever drink milk from anyone other than a trusted friend or family member with only a few hand milked cows.
Even the 'free range" dairies with 50-100 plus cows can't provide the one on one attention to every cow and cannot afford to milk them without the use of machinery, so trusting you're getting good clean milk from them is nuts!
I'm a microbiologist, and I think drinking raw milk is incredibly foolish. Even if you wash the teats, you can't kill all of the organisms hiding in pores or inside the ducts. That's why surgeons wear sterile gloves even after thoroughly scrubbing their hands. Think about it- a cow's udder is exposed to fecal material all the time as she produces splatter-prone cow pies and lies down in the pasture. Even if the milk comes straight from the cow, there is risk. Just because a person hasn't yet become ill doesn't mean they never will. And the pathogens associated with milk can cause more than a stomach ache- they can be deadly. Especially to kids and pregnant women. Considering that there are no health benefits from drinking raw milk, is it really worth the risk?
I totally agree helicohunter. People don't understand spores and how they can affect them. By the way Adrienne, it's not government milk it's science milk. Louis Pasteur began the process of pasteurizing for safety not for the government. Read up on some history and see how he prevented numerous people from getting sick from "raw milk".
Agree helicohunter.. Even though I drank it as a kid from well washed cows I'd likely not do the same today, and especially not from any kind of dairy. The risk vs reward is just not worth it.
It is funny how those same people who complain about others ignoring the science on global warming are ignoring the science and blaming the government about cows milk. It seems as though science only counts when you agree with the scientific opinion.
"Government milk," that's hilarious. By the way, did you take your brain and liver tonic today?
No government agency has an unbiased report. NONE!!!!
Read the history of Royal Raymond Rife
Read the history of the alternative treatments for cancer.
Read the book Raw Truth, about raw milk
Read the history of the Hoxeley method for cancer treatment
Read the development of Protocel
Read the development of Geneticly Modified foods and Montsano involvement in your food
Read the reports on the EPA standards for engine emissions and the use of corn in our fuel
Use the internet to peruse the health hazards involved in drinking pasturized milk.
There is not one government agency that has an unbiased report. Reports from any government employee will without fail be disallowed or altered or ignored and trash canned so the agenda of the lobbiest who contributed the most can be met.
FDA, NCI, CDC, EPA, NSA there is an unending list of acronyms to symbolize the agencies and they are all
influenced by money. The pharmas influence your drug costs, the ag companies influence your seed use and cost, the unions influence your car costs and operating costs, OPEC influences your price of gas, and the members of all the law making bodies are influenced by the money these lobbyists spread in the house and senate to get their interests met by the laws they want supported.
Raw Truth is an expose of the lobbies who perpetrated the myth of pasturized milk being better for consumption than raw milk. Read it.
How to outsmart your cancer is a book about the lobbies who influenced the laws to prohibit the use of natural methods of dealing with cancer.
One minute cure deals with lobbies who lied about the uses of several natural remedies for several diseases.
The history of Royal Raymond Rife is a dismal read in that it exposes the FDA , Cancer Society and AMA in the fraud that deprived the American public of life saving devices invented in the late 1800's
Read something else than the NY times, LA times, Seattle times and Beavis and Butthead.
your life depends on ti
of course everything natural casues bad stuff. LOL. thanks government for trying to take our health away, day by day. i have been driking raw milk for YEARS, same as my daugther who is 3. no bad stuff. check your sources where you buy from. what next. vegetables cause cancer, water causes brain damage. give me abreak.
The government has an interest in keeping the populace healthyif for no other reason than having a productive work force. Consider me cynical.
That stated, raw milk is risky if you don't have access to a very fresh supply.
I really don't care if adults want to drink raw milk, but to feed it to a child is abuse. You are risking her life for absolutely no reason. Read a history book, for goodness sakes. The reason we started pasteurizing food was because bacteria kills. If you don't like giving your child pasteurized milk, then just don't feed her milk at all. Or, you can take the dangerous milk, which is dangerous regardless of how "clean" the cow it comes from is (unless you are hosing the cow down with bleach, it is still a dirty cow), and boil it for a couple of minutes.
100 years ago, the average life expectancy was 31 years. Today it is 69. Much of that is owed to modern food production techniques that keep us from getting sick. I hope for your daughter's sake that you take this information to heart.
The reason pasteurization took over was due to the pasteurization lobby in congress. No other reason.
I didn't see any numbers in the article to back up the 150x greater statement. The article stated that there were 48 outbreaks + 1 death for pasteurized milk and 73 outbreaks + 2 deaths for raw milk. It also didn't state what led to the "outbreaks". I would be more interested to see the % of people that got sick. if 73 outbreaks comes to 7300 people that got sick over a 13 year period (1993 - 2006) and the total consumers were 7,300,000, then that would mean 99.9% of consumers didn't get sick. So how about some real numbers to back up claims of 150x greater risk.
Raw milk doesn't have the shelf life of pasteurized milk. If people that have been used to drinking pasteurized milk decide to buy raw milk without any knowledge, then I could see them keeping it too long. Or possibly using unclean containers to get the milk. I grew up on raw milk from the farm next door. My parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents all had raw milk in the house and we never got sick from it.
The article states that only 1% of all milk sales were raw milk. That means that 99% of the milk (pasteurized) caused only 48 outbreaks. That 1% (raw) caused 73 outbreaks. It doesn't take a mathematician to realize that is a big difference. Extrapolate this out and you would have about 7300 outbreaks, 400 deaths, and potentially thousands of permanent disabilities if there was no pasteurization (and people consumed the same amount of milk).
Pasteurization is a very well established method to make milk (and a few other products) much safer by killing off potentially deadly bacteria. I'll take my pasteurized vitamin D milk over a soup that could contain a fatal amount of bacteria. Oh, and if you ever become immunosuppressed, you can count raw milk as something you'll never have again. It is much more likely to sicken or kill an immunosuppressed individual.
The bottom line is that raw milk is not healthy unless it is right out of the animal. You can't truck the animals to everyone who wants milk and if you let unpasteurized milk just sit for any amount of time it is not safe. Raw milk has a few micrograms more of a couple of vitamins and zero vitamin D. Those few micrograms don't seem capable of offsetting the fact that you are one hundred times more likely to be sickened by it. You conspiracy theorists and organic hippies can keep your ignorance and your unsafe food. I want no part of it.
Not sure why you are so defensive. I simply stated that there were no numbers in the article to back up a claim of 150x greater risk and that is a fact. It doesn't take an English major to read the article and see the lack of numbers to the claim. As for your claim of "if you let unpasteurized milk just sit for any amount of time it is not safe", that is an outright lie. Of course from your reply, it's easy to tell that you have no background with raw milk, either from growing up with it or from formal studies. I do however have experience with it, as does my entire family going back several generations, and I can tell you that you can keep it in the fridge for several days and that out of the thousands of gallons of milk that we drank we've never been sick. I get my milk by walking about 200 yards to the barn, squeezing on the teets of my brown jersey cow, and filling my sanitized container. I know exactly where it came from, what chemicals the animal has been exposed to, what it ate, how it was kept and how sanitized my containers are. How much of that do you know about what you consume?
One more thing, I'm probably the furthest thing from a hippie or conspiracy theorist you would find. Just a guy that raises his own food because that's what his family did for generations and thinks this article should have some numbers to support it's claims.
That is very safe. However, the issue is when people buy raw milk, and it has been sitting around for a day or two, and then they don't drink it for another day or so. The issue is not raw milk itself, but rather that raw milk is so much more likely to be contaminated when handled incorrectly.
I 100% agree. I just wish the CDC and the article had said that, instead it's all about the milk when it should be about improper handling of the milk. Thank you for making that point.
I would have no qualms if the FDA required farmers that sold raw milk to also give directions for proper handling or not allow consumers to bring their own containers (which might be contaminated). I know some of our friends that live in the city are really interested in raw milk but I would never give them any for fear of them keeping it too long or it going bad during the 90 minute drive back to their house.
CDC's analysis is highly flawed. Search on the terms "CDC Cherry Picks Data" and you'll see the other side of the story.
When I learned I was pregnant a few months ago, I did my own analysis of CDC's data, which is publicly available, and found that, at least when it comes to Listeria, you're far more likely to contract listeria from pasteurized dairy than raw dairy, even as a percentage of the number of people who consume it. But worse than that, processed meat products (deli meats, hot dogs, etc) have sickened *thousands of times* more consumers, even as a percentage of those who consume the product. My analysis is at ChurnYourOwn.
To those who say that there are no documented benefits to raw milk, I'm sorry but there are TONS. Like all other foods, milk has important and beneficial enzymes, bacteria and other probiotics that get killed upon being heated. There's tons of publically available information on all the health benefits.
Those of us who expouse the benefits of raw milk are ONLY talking about raw milk from pasture-raised cows that are grazing and eating fresh grass. The milk you find in grocery stores is from sick animals that are kept in confinement and fed an unnatural diet of corn, soy and other ingredients that ruminants are not meant to eat. That weakens their immune systems and makes them susceptible to pathogens. Their milk *has* to be pasteurized.
I don't personally consume dairy (raw or pasteurized) but I don't think its sale should be banned by a nanny state government. After all, tobacco products are much more dangerous, and they are perfectly legal to anyone over the age of 18. Require warning labels on the raw dairy products and signs at the store, but if someone wants to consume raw dairy, that's their business.
Between the CDC, FDA and other assorted government agencies, they'd like to outlaw everything natural but let us be overrun with synthetic garbage. Interesting how none of the studies that show that pasteurized milk causes all kinds of health problems are ever discussed in major news outlets. Only the studies against natural foods are ever broadcast. There are a lot more of the other kind.
I drank raw, straight-from-the-bulk-tank milk for over 20 years. I only stopped because I really need to get saturated fat and cholesterol out of my diet.
Since the real deal isn't an option, I just don't drink milk although a bowl of tomato soup or a PBJ just isn't the same without it.
I have had food poisoning however. One of the times was caused by potatoes whose main thrust of advertising is how 'safe' and 'clean' they are.
Let's see, here's a product nobody makes you buy (unlike health insurance under Obamacare), nobody forces you to drink (unlike fluoridated water if you live in a city), and yet governments at various levels make it illegal and the Federal government spends untold [millions?] of borrowed dollars to warn us against it and force individual farmers out of business.
Maybe there's another agency or two besides Energy and Education we can do without...
Yes. Heaven forbid someone check your meat to make sure it's safe. Forbid that your children should be vaccinated against horrible diseases. Forbid the man tell you that you have to wear a seat belt and stay off the cell phone in your car. Because you are the only person that exists. The needs of the "you" are far more important than protecting millions. If you don't want regulations go live in China. There your milk can be anything. Even toxic chemicals that just look and taste like milk. "You" don't need no G-man telling you what can and cannot go into your food. Let the people selling it to you make that decision. Your well-being is always their top priority.
Oh... that's all a really bad idea? Then we do need someone to make sure our food and water are safe and that the people are healthy. Glad we cleared that up.
Make the farmers label the product indicating the risks, and allow the consumers to decide. That stated the CDC and FDA are imperative to our public health.
I'm a strange mix of liberal and libertarian...
The problem is people like Biscuits above- they aren't just taking this risk themselves, they are risking the lives of children. Why? Because they think the government is out to get them? If the government says it, it must be wrong? We have had so many health breakthroughs in the past 100 years that have more than doubled our life expectancy. Why do so many people think things were better in the past? I am glad that I can expect to live past the age of 31 (especially since I'm turning 31 in a few months).
I've been surprised when doing my genealogy how most of my ancestors actually made it to old age in the 17th and 18th centuries. *IF* you survived to adulthood (and sadly many did not) back then, the chances of living until your late 60's or beyond were surprisingly good. The doubling of the life expectancy comes mostly from the reduction in childhood mortality.
Think I will side with the CDC as they have scientific studies behind their assertions rather than 1 or 2 personnal stories that say the opposite
You know, really, I don't care about raw milk. I think it's probably not very smart to drink it because of the way different bacteria or diseases affect different species different, and cow milk is for cows (why we don't drink breast milk instead, I'll never understand). So I'll have my milk pasteurized, thanks.
But still, how can we support spending tax dollars on this crap? Leave these people alone!
Umm, because outbreaks of food poisoning are public health threats?
I'm somewhat lactose intolerant and can't drink pasteurized milk at all. However, I can drink raw milk without any problems. Same thing with cheese - I have no problems with raw milk cheese, but sometimes do with cheeses made from pasteurized milk.
Finland started pasteurizing all their milk products in the late 1980s or early 1990s. Now every restaurant has a "Lactoosi" section on the menu for the lactose intolerant, which was something no one had heard of before the pasteurization mandate.
I don't know why you can drink raw milk without worry but not pasteurized if you are lactose intolerant. Lactose is a very simple sugar that is present in all milk. In lactose intolerant individuals the enzyme needed to metabolize this sugar is in insufficient quantity or absent altogether. In the absence of this enzyme the sugar goes undigested by the person and instead microbes in the gut go at it. This causes gas and irritation.
The only difference between pasteurized milk and raw milk? Heat. This heat kills virtually all of the bacteria present in the milk. This makes it safer and increases shelf life. It is possible that the bacteria present in raw milk simply break down the lactose before you drink it, but by then the milk is sweet and generally unsafe to drink due to the level of bacteria present. The lactose levels in the two milks is essentially the same provided that it is fresh and would have no bearing on lactose intolerance.
I'm not the only one either - I've heard the same thing from a number of people who have the same issue. One theory I've heard is that pasteurization destroys the enzymes in the milk, in particular lactase.
Impossible. In mammals lactase is produced exclusively in the intestines. There isn't a chance of finding lactase in mammary glands. There may be some bizarre, off-the-wall reason or it may be entirely psychological. I'd like to see a double blind study on the matter. One might be surprised at what wonders the placebo effect can work.
My "double blind study" is rather simple - I have issues not long after I drink more than a small amount of pasteurized milk, whereas I can drink raw milk without problems. If you want to attribute that to "psychology", you're a complete moron.
Whether you or I understand why my gut reacts the way it does is irrelevant.
I've only seen two studies about the issue, one supporting my claim the other not supporting it, but the fact remains that I have no problem with raw milk, soy milk, or almond milk, but do with pasteurized cow's milk.
You clearly don't even know what double blind means. A thousand anecdotal tales of raw milk not bothering a lactose intolerant person won't make me believe it. Answer me why or at least show me some numbers from a real study. Until then your claims are just that, an anecdote.
I know exactly what a double blind study is. That's why I put it in quotes when I said my "double blind study" - in an apparently fruitless attempt at humor.
Seriously, I know what happens to me when I drink milk, and you're an utter moron if you think it's psychological. I can even trace my intolerance to milk back to a specific time, years ago when I received ciprofloxacin - I never had a problem before that.
I hate to point out the obvious but is it really that hard to see? In raw milk, microbes are present that break down lactose allowing skrekk to consume it. The heating of milk kills these little guys, thus, leaving it up to our bodies to do all the work. And as skrekk and others who are lactose intolerant would know, some of us are unable to break down that sugar. The same principle applies to other raw foods that are not heated or processed but ignorance is bliss I suppose.
While I am all for the well-being of society, telling a few people they can't have raw milk because it may make them sick is ridiculous. What about the cop the other day who left a loaded gun where his kid got to it and accidentally shot his other kid who died? We going to take all the guns away from every other cop and responsible citizen because one guy screwed up? What about the countless number of Americans who knowing light up a cigarette...no less around kids? We going to stop them from smoking? It may take years for smoking to kill a person but it does and it makes it no different than raw milk or whatever cause the government wants to stop.
God forbid we use our brains and act responsibly on our own...sometimes, I think we might be better off without big brother watching over us. Then, everyone here condemning a few people for a personal choice that will never affect them wouldn't have anyone to follow so they would actually have to think for themselves. Would they be able to survive without a supermarket? My guess is most would be scared to death of killing an animal for dinner let alone touching the raw meat...rant over.
As a very logical and educated person of the planet, I always like to considered the absolute source of any information, which anyone purports... The below sums this whole report...of a report...of a cherry picked press release nicely...
CDC CHERRY PICKS DATA TO MAKE CASE AGAINST RAW MILK
Agency ignores data that shows dangers of pasteurized milk
In a press release issued, and which this author Christopher Wanjek also cherry picked, authors affiliated with the Centers for Disease Control claim that the rate of outbreaks caused by unpasteurized milk and products made from it was 150 times greater than outbreaks linked to pasteurized milk.” The authors based this conclusion on an analysis of reports submitted to the CDC from 1993 to 2006.
According the Weston A. Price Foundation, the CDC has manipulated and cherry picked this data to make raw milk look dangerous and to dismiss the same dangers associated with pasteurized milk.
“What consumers need to realize, first of all,” said Sally Fallon Morell, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, “is that the incidence of foodborne illnesses from dairy products, whether pasteurized or not, is extremely low. For the 14-year period that the authors examined, there was an average of 315 illnesses a year from all dairy products for which the pasteurization status was known. Of those, there was an average of 112 illnesses each year attributed to all raw dairy products and 203 associated with pasteurized dairy products.
“In comparison, there are almost 24,000 foodborne illnesses reported each year on average. Whether pasteurized or not, dairy products are simply not a high risk product.”
Because the incidence of illness from dairy products is so low, the authors’ choice of the time period for the study affected the results significantly, yet their decision to stop the analysis with the year 2006 was not explained. The CDC’s data shows that there were significant outbreaks of foodborne illness linked to pasteurized dairy products the very next year, in 2007: 135 people became ill from pasteurized cheese contad with e. coli, and three people died from pasteurized milk contaminated with listeria (wwwn.cdc.gov/foodborneoutbreaks/Default.aspx).
Outbreaks from pasteurized dairy were also a significant problem in the 1980s. In 1985, there were over 16,000 confirmed cases of Salmonella infection that were traced back to pasteurized milk from a single dairy. Surveys estimated that the actual number of people who became ill in that outbreak were over 168,000, “making this the largest outbreak of salmonellosis ever identified in the United States” at that time, according to an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
According to Fallon Morell “In the context of the very low numbers of illnesses attributed to dairy in general, the authors’ decision to cut the time frame short, as compared to the available CDC data, is troubling and adds to questions about the bias in this publication.”
According to Fallon Morell, the CDC’s authors continue to obscure their study by failing to document the actual information they are using. They rely on reports, many of which are preliminary. Of the references related to dairy outbreaks, five are from outbreaks in other countries, several did not involve any illness, seven are about cheese-related incidents, and of the forty-six outbreaks they count, only five describe any investigations.
Perhaps most troubling is the authors’ decision to focus on outbreaks rather than illnesses. An “outbreak” of foodborne illness can consist of two people with minor stomachaches to thousands of people with bloody diarrhea. In addressing the risk posed for individuals who consume a food, the logical data to examine is the number of illnesses, not the number of outbreaks.
“The authors acknowledge that the number of foodborne illnesses from raw dairy products (as opposed to outbreaks) were not significantly different in states where raw milk is legal to sell compared with states where it is illegal to sell,” notes Judith McGeary of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance. “In other words, had the authors looked at actual risk of illness, instead of the artificially defined “outbreaks,” there would have been no significant results to report.”
This does not end the list of flaws with the study, however. The link between the outbreaks and the legal status of raw dairy mixed an entire category of diverse products. Illnesses from suitcase style raw cheese or queso fresco were lumped together with illnesses attributed to fluid raw milk, a much less risky product. In the majority of states where the sale of raw fluid milk is allowed, the sale of queso fresco is still illegal. The authors had all of the data on which products were legal and which products allegedly caused the illnesses, yet chose not to use that data.
Similarly, to create the claimed numbers for how much riskier raw dairy products are, the authors relied on old data on raw milk consumption rates, rather than using the CDC’s own food survey from 2006-2007. The newer data showed that about 3 percent of the population consumes raw milk—over nine million people--yet the authors chose instead to make conclusions based on the assumption that only 1 percent of the dairy products in the country are consumed raw.
The authors also ignored relevant data on the populations of each state. For example, the three most populous states in the country (California, Texas, and New York) all allow for legal sales of raw milk; the larger number of people in these states would logically lead to larger numbers of illnesses than in low-population states such as Montana and Wyoming and has nothing to do with the fact that raw milk is illegal in those states.
“It would hardly be surprising to see some sort of increase in foodborne illnesses related to a food where that food is legal,” said McGeary. “If we banned ground beef, we’d see fewer illnesses related to ground beef products. Yet this new study fails to prove even that common-sense proposition, even as it claims to prove a great deal more. What the data really shows is that raw dairy products cause very few illnesses each year, even though the CDC data indicates that over 9 million people consume it.”
If the govt is so totally against this milk, there must be something good about it. I want it.
want to fk3d up yourself from raw milk, not my problem. people can choose to be sick if that makes them happy. CDC be damned, just dont use any public resources like court system to sue the milk producer and stuff like that when you choose to be free or i'll be pissed.
Big Dairy and Pharma lobby's would love to put the little guys out of business. But no. I'll be drinking my raw milk as long as I can. And if it becomes illegal, I'll buy myself a goat. This is still america, nobody is telling me what I can or can't eat or drink.
It's always about the money. Hell, cantaloupes and green onions have killed more people last year than raw milk has in 10 years. Nobody is raiding them and trying to put them out of business.
CDC Is in bed with the Dairy Industry. Just Follow the money!! They want to keep us so sick thaqt we have to go to the AMA, and Big Pharma for the rest of our lives! It's all a huge conspiracy; JUST FOLLOW THE MONEY!
This is sick. If you're gonna blame the government, blame them for the chemicals they add to the milk or to the cows, but to blame a scientific process to kill bacteria and viruses is disgusting. Read a science book ever and learn the process. It is used to keep people from getting sick and you people are saying it does no good! Look back into history and see the problem people were having with unpasteurized milk. If everyone drank the "raw milk" we would have the problems of back then. Not everyone drinks it these days and not everyone should. If you grew up on it you can become to immune to certain bacteria in the milk. That can be good if you are never immunocompromised. Yes, bacteria and viruses are ubiquitous, but that doesn't mean you should purposefully drink them, especially if there's a chance they are pathogenic.
Raw milk is rather disgusting as I have tried it before.
Soy milk, Almond milk, rice milk.. leave the cow alone :)
and all easily made right at home.
The only time I drink cow's milk now is the rare occasion when I make a cup of hot chocolate. I've tried it with almond milk, and it doesn't quite work. However, I adore my almond milk (unsweetened of course!) on cereal in the morning. Brown rice milk is great for cooking things as it basically has no flavour. I haven't tried making hot chocolate with soy milk, but it would be worth an experiment. I admit that I still do eat fat-free greek yogurt and sometimes a bit of cheese, but I like the vegan 'cheese', so I might investigate that a bit more.
Aspartame... just fine.
High Fructose Corn Syrup... dandy!
Antibiotic laden meats... no problem!
GMO Frankenfoods... bring it on!
Salmonella in salads... that's life!
But... SHRIEK! RAW MILK! Run for the hills... the apocalypse has arrived.
(And besides... the ban is "for the children" - right?)
Let's go down the list, shall we?
Aspartame. Highly controversial since some crazy activist published undocumented claims of several health effects. Since then there have been countless studies showing it's safety. In fact, thanks to that controversy, it is one of the most studied compounds. These studies have shown no ill effects. It's so safe that small, biased groups like the FDA, WHO, and the EFSA all state that it is completely safe for human consumption up to 40mg/kg/day. That's about three pounds of artificial sweetener in a day for someone my size. I doubt I could ever consume a fraction of that in a day.
High-fructose corn syrup. I still don't know why people don't like this one. It's fructose, glucose, and water! That's it! None of these are even close to being dangerous to anyone. It's sugar! That's it. The only reason they convert some of the glucose to fructose is that fructose is about twice as sweet as glucose. It's even sweeter than table sugar (sucrose). It tastes better.
Antibiotic laden meats. This one is contestable... but only for the living animal. Once it's meat there is little cause for concern. Feeding antibiotics to an animal increases the resistance of pathogens which is bad for people in the long run. I'm not well versed on this one. Feel free to contest me on this one.
GMO frankenfoods. Really? Who came up with that term? Genetically modified organisms, specifically transgenic organisms are a cause for concern. But mostly only for the newer ones. Most of our corn is GMO and not really a concern. I don't know of anyone who has eaten GMO corn and gotten sick or of any studies showing it to be inferior in any way to actual corn. New ones are untested and potentially dangerous as they could have the potential to spread and cause serious damage. Careful techniques and adequate testing resolves that issue.
Salmonella in salads. It's more like salmonella in raw fruits and veggies. This is usually the cause of tainted machinery or other mishandling during the processing of the foods. The FDA works hard to test foods and make sure they are safe, but they can't afford to test everything every day. A lot of these outbreaks are a result of outright bribery and oversight.
Raw milk is a hundred times more dangerous than pasteurized milk. We've been drinking pasteurized milk for over two hundred years for a reason. It's safer. The benefits of raw milk? There really aren't any. A small amount of vitamins are lost but that's it. A small price to pay for a product that is more than a hundred times more safe. Besides that raw milk has no vitamin D. Unless you get a few hours of sun each and every day or consume a large amount of fish, you should consider vitamin D milk if you don't want your bones to snap like twigs. It's like forgoing iodized salt. Not a good idea unless you want your thyroid to swell to the size of a football.
Above all of this, I don't think anyone is calling for a ban. We want it to be safer. Most people don't care that others have that option (even if that means they are putting their children in unnecessary danger). It needs to be safer. If it cannot be made safe then it should be banned, just like anything else that threatens to do more harm than good. Considering there is pretty much zero good that it can do over pasteurized milk, it's a tough sell for anyone with half a brain and any background in nutrition or common sense.
Here's a fun fact. All milk in Canada destined for human consumption has to be pasteurized. I wonder what their rate per capita of milk induced food poisoning is compared to ours. Probably spectacular.
Google the term "de novo lipogenesis" + HFCS. HFCS actually causes your body to make new fat cells in a way that natural sugars do not. That stuff is pure evil...
Glucose, fructose, water. Those are the only molecules present in high fructose corn syrup. All natural sugars (minus water). Water is freaking water. Nothing bad there. Fructose is a molecule present in high quantities in pretty much any fruit. If HFCS is bad for you, then fruit is bad for you. Glucose is the molecule that keeps us alive. All sugars, fats, and proteins are converted into glucose and it is glucose that is taken up into our cells and turned into ATP. All food is, in essence, glucose. I don't see anything wrong with any of these things. Do you? The only bad thing about HFCS is that it is pretty much just straight sugar. Empty calories. Not good for anyone to have too much of it, but in moderation it won't do any more harm than table sugar.
Much of the problem is NOT with raw milk and cheeses made from it.
The fact is America is now 3 generations into Pasteurized-Only consumption.
And the real loser in removing the good bacteria from our diets (you see, pasteurization kills all bacteria - good and bad) has been our immune systems.
There are more Americans with very weak immune systems today than in populations in any country on Earth.
That's why Americans are sick more often, with simply bacteria and viruses putting us in bed for a week sometimes several times a year.
I don't know of any circumstance in which brucellosis might be considered a good bacteria.
And of course, UVA, you have absolutely no scientific study that has been peer reviewed and published by respected journals to substantiate a single one of your ludicrous claims. You just make things up to suit your agenda. You have no science background or credentials whatsoever. But you seem to claim that you know what is best for the health of all Americans. Nice.
A couple of goats given free rein of the woods out in the back of my house, their kids raised naturally, were my source of fresh milk for a long time. They certainly never laid down in their own feces. Fresh, raw milk from LaMancha goats. Best stuff ever. I do agree that factory farmed animals need to have their milk pasteurized, be on a steady diet of preventative antibiotics, not be allowed to interact with their own young, and kept on concrete for their whole lives... yes, better sanitize the heck out of that stuff.
The Blood Sugar Solution, Mark Hyman, M.D.’s latest
book, is a self-help guide to reversing diabetes and
getting rid of obesity. Find it now on Amazon
That's nice. You don't expect me to buy it now, do you?
In Things White People Like, the author talks about the tendency for gen x waspy types to like everything retro, even diseases.
Regardless of the term "natural" which really does not mean anything measurable, a few things are generally beneficial, based upon sound scientific data:
Yes, vaccinations are beneficial.
Pasteurized milk is beneficial.
I mean, it is not natural to cook meat, but it is very unhealthy to eat it.
It is not natural to utilize modern water and sewer systems, but they are beneficial.
If one is to pe pragmatic and sceptical, great. Justbe consistent about it, not follow some neo-hippie bandwagon that will probably make one's kids sick.
If you really want to drink raw milk I think you should be able to, just don't fool yourself into thinking its just as safe. There's a lot of people who eat raw ground beef, pork, eggs, and etc who are fine, its just not a good idea to give it to young kids or older people with weak immune systems. Know the true risks; people need to stop reading junk internet studies and declare them as fact.
As a child I was fortunate to grow up next to a dairy farm.I can still remember at 5 years of age walking the 1/8 of a mile each week to get a gallon of milk. Every morning when my mom made my breakfast I remember
that she had to shake the milk. I asked her why my cousins living in town did not have to shake their milk. She said because it was fake milk. You see Jim there milk is pasteurized. When you pasteurize it you kill it. Dead milk does not need to be shaken to make sure everyone get some of the cream, it does not have cream. When they tell you cream always rises to the top it is true. Our neighbor charged us .25 per gallon, my
cousins in town paid .75 per gallon and it came in a PLASTIK bottle. I remember how bad there milk tasted. When I was 8 years old I walked to the neighbor’s farm just like I had done for the last three years, only this time it was different. This time there was a stranger in the barn, like always I just walked up to the stainless steel storage tank and got a gallon of milk and left
a quarter in the milk jar. The stranger saw me and asked what I was doing? I
told him I was getting milk. I did not know he was a government man. He arrested
our neighbor and took him to jail. This was 1963; just 8 months later they
would kill our president who by the way drank raw milk. Several years ago my
wife and I moved to Maine. Maine is a real cool place it is one of the few
places left where you can walk into a store and buy REAL milk. The first gallon
I bought I was so excited, I rushed home to have some granola. My wife could
not believe how I was acting. She tried it and said it was like have ice cream
for breakfast. I told her it was because it was real. We have been drinking a
gallon a piece for the last two years and have never gotten sick from the milk.
Queen Elisabeth drinks raw milk, as does the Prince of Wales. Both Prince
William and Harry had raw milk from the Queens herd delivered fresh daily to
Eaton when they were in school. Queen Elisabeth has been at work more days than
I or most Americans have been alive. Do you think it is because she drinks RAW
milk? I do.
Your choice of the idiotic British royal family is a poor one to support your assertions. It would seem that raw milk causes genetic idiocy, as evidenced by the behavior of the royal twits on an ongoing basis.
the cdc is another government agency that wants to control everything about your life.
I has a cow as a kid and milked it myself and that was the only source of milk for many in our little mining town. But they have no government control that way and no government PRICE control either.
For your further education REAL BUTTER is YELLOW, not that white crap they sell in the dairy department