I know I've had discussions about raw milk (I just don't recall with whom). I thought it was on these forums where someone said they drink raw milk, so I think it behooves me to share the following for my own peace of mind: http://www.oregonlive.com/health/in...ilk_outbreaks_on_the_rise.html#incart_m-rpt-1 I probably should have linked the following articles as well, when I first saw them: http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/12/illness-from-raw-milk-is-underreported/ http://doubtfulnews.com/2012/09/yummy-raw-milk-chock-full-of-bacteria-that-can-kill-you/ http://doubtfulnews.com/2012/02/com...es-raw-milk-products-are-unsafe-in-all-cases/
People eat pufferfish, too. Eating is a risky activity in general, raw eggs can put you in the hospital potentially but that remote chance doesn't stop me from doing it. The real issue here is that pasteurization is easy and doesn't have much in the line of downsides (I make sure to get pasteurized eggs for when I make food that needs them raw or undercooked, I used pasteurized cream in the last cheesecake I made). The benefit of conditioning the immune system is probably real but people do need to balance this against the chance of their kids dying. Unfortunately this seems to be part of the general trend of anti-scientific backlash going on right now. "Pasteurization" is too artificial for people. Consider the moral panics over harmless things like MSG, isinglass, or the trace amount of nitrites or azodicarbonamide used in some foods. I like to call this the Frankenstein complex. I say we ridicule them. It's not that appealing to make too much fun of it because people really are going to die and do a lot of harm by doing things like rejecting vaccines and drinking raw milk, but what else can you really do? Ridicule has genuinely worked in the past too, anyway; ridicule is credited as being part of why the Klu Klux Klan found its supply of new members drying up. PS: since I mentioned pufferfish, I should mention that this sort of thinking is not a solely American thing. The Japanese import fumigated food of inferior quality from the US even though we have the facilities to irradiate them instead, which although leaving them more perishable (irradiation doesn't kill bugs the way fumigation does, just renders them unable to reproduce or grow) also yields a better quality product. The reason? Fear of radiation. Folk medicine and dietary fads seem to be all over the place.
Regarding your comment on the KKK -- I probably posted this or a similar link way back when but for those who may not have seen it: http://dangerousminds.net/comments/how_superman_singlehandedly_thwarted_the_ku_klux_klan It's one of those stories that seems too good to be true, and yet it really happened.
And in the article, they do mention that people believe (absurdly) that because bacteria is 'natural', that it has to be healthy (never mind that it can and does make people sick, potentially destroying your kidneys and sometimes leads to death). But it's natural. (So's arsenic, and cyanide).
People call this the naturalistic fallacy. It gets invoked a lot (it's a common defense of unrestricted capitalism, for example). It is versatile in its psychic goals as it is unsubtle (little integrative complexity), justifies the status quo, and avoids introspection, which fits many different profiles. In this case it's probably to do with people who have so-called right-wing authoritarian personalities (given that they're probably generally on the "left" it's kind of poorly named) who are trying to achieve purity and avoid deep and perhaps uncomfortable thoughts; avoiding introspection or integrative complexity. I doubt justifying the status quo has much to do with it, if anything the naturalistic fallacy is being used to demonize it instead.
A lot of people are doing dangerous stuff, and for the most part, that's their choice. I just hope that whatever they do, that they have the proper information before they make that choice (and I'd hope that if they have kids, that they take their kids welfare into account, because a lot of the people getting sick from raw milk , are children).
I wouldn't be too ambivalent about this one. Anyone who says they drink raw milk for health reasons is misinformed; the risks far outweigh the benefits. The gastronomical advantage should be kept to those who are willing to take those risks for "the experience" of drinking milk, not that pasteurization really affects taste that much. Giving your kids raw milk is like refusing to get them vaccinated. Irresponsible, dangerous, abusive. Call them out on that.
I dislike the naturalistic fallacy so much I'm going out of my way to excise the word "natural" from my vocabulary. It just isn't useful for communicating anymore.
I hate 'Natural' or 'all-Natural'. Also that something 'doesn't contain chemicals' is pretty humorous. Then there's the useful 'Gluten-Free', if you are one of the 0.6 to 1% of people who have celiac disease. But the way it's pushed causes worry. Why not say who Gluten effects? Because that would be bad advertising. Better to convince the public that Gluten is bad for everyone so that they can raise prices. We don't see advertisers saying that their food is Peanut-free, and that's a more common and more dangerous allergy. So why not? Because a peanut is something that we recognize, it's something that many of us eat at parties. Gluten? Well it's in a lot of foods (bread, soy sauce, artificial meats). It's easier to create a scare over because it's unfamiliar. and sounds like a 'chemical'.
Calves don't die when they drink raw milk even though their immune systems aren't fully developed. Human babies don't die when they drink their mothers' raw milk even though their immune systems are so very weak. In fact, it's extremely beneficial for them. Just saying. If I had to guesstimate the real reason, I think it's because the milk on those cases is as fresh as it can be. Time is of the essence Edit: oh wow. I resurrected quite an old thread
You should read the original article that I linked -- it talks about sick cows being kept next to healthy ones at the dairy. Furthermore, something that may not kill a cow, could be very capable of killing a baby (children are commonly the victims). Mostly, they are (currently) just getting sick, sometimes to the point that they require hospitalization. But people really have died from diseases contracted from drinking raw milk in the past. Think of it this way : it's more likely for E. coli to infect a cow that eats where it poops, than a human (most people don't graze, except maybe at salad bars, which is bad enough for spreading disease, sneeze guard or not). Besides, how long do you think raw milk stays in the refrigerator? If this were a theoretical situation where there was little or no hard evidence, then maybe you'd be justified in your suspicions of the study. But this comes from the CDC after several hundred outbreaks over the years that have clearly been traced to raw milk. People ARE getting sick, probably from sick cows. The thing about a cow is that she can't tell you when she's sick. She'd have to be VERY sick before someone noticed the problem, and if you had drank fresh milk from such a cow, you could have symptoms before the cow did.
Actually mastitis (inflammation of breast tissue) is quite easy to see with your bare eyes even if the cow can't speak and that basic check is done every time a farmer milks the cow or at least it should be done. Most farmers do it, because it's not good for their wallets to ignore it. Inflammation could occur for several reasons, but the main point was always not to take milk from that cow. I saw lots of those cases when I was working summers with a veterinarian. The color and composition of milk was different (flakes, clots, blood, grey gooish milk yuck!). There were also those cases where bacteries moved from teat/s to whole system and brought the cows lying down very quickly. Lethal, if not treated fast. Then there's also sub-clinical mastitis see symptons like redness, swelling etc. but no visible change in milk. Milk sample was taken and send to lab to determine cause. Sick cows are usually kept next to healthy ones. That's nothing new. There's a possibility that it can infect the other cows, but it's generally a low chance. If the other cow/s get infected, the symptons are varied since cows too have different immune systems from each other. Here's something I found: http://splashurl.com/mhqw7hh I still stand by my guesstimation that time is an important factor when storing raw milk. Another, more important point is hygiene when taking that milk. You could imagine what would happen, if mothers rubbed their breasts with feces, wiped them with a towel and then fed their babies. Personally, I wouldn't buy raw milk from stores, but I see no reason not to buy it directly from a farmer, IF I know he's doing his job properly. I do believe that raw milk has more health benefits than pasteurized milk largely for same reasons raw vegetables are more healthy than cooked vegetables. That said, I want to point out that I don't drink raw milk and I'm too lazy to go buy it from farmers. And that said, I want to point out that I drink organic milk when possible, but reasons for that are for another topic
Hygeine and poor storage likely do contribute to the risk of contamination, even well meaning farms may well be negligent on these ends. Buying it from a store is illegal in the US, the people who got sickened generally got it by going to farms as part of "milk clubs" so that the farmer couldn't be pinned for selling raw milk. That would be illegal. Raw vegetables are also a bigger health risk than cooked vegetables. You're much less likely to be sickened by cooked tomato on a pizza than raw tomato in a salad. Not that I'm against eating raw food, some things are much nicer raw. Carrots, sweet peas, and advocados come to mind. That is an issue of gastronomy though, and raw milk has to taste way better than pasteurized to be worth dying for.
