Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ah, so my request for supporting factual information was some sort of gimmick. Ah yes, the trickery of asking the poster for facts relating to their claims.
Back to topic....while on a long drive this weekend I listened to a GREAT NPR article on this very event.
They had some raw foods people interviewed along with some nutritionists and science types, along with a lawyer that makes his living suing companies over food quality, ingredients etc. All of the interviewees were devotees of healthy natural foods and a number of good points were made so let me recap.
1) The "rawesome" foods group was raided over dairy products and a dispute over proper licensing.
2) raw milk in particular is REALLY easy to contaminate so if you are dead set on this course you should at a minimum inspect the facility. There have been something like 8 raw milk related outbreaks already this year which relative to the vastly larger convential food markets is unacceptably high.
3) Pasturizing milk does destroy some of the vitamin content of milk but a lot of claims about the natural enzymes etc. are not scientifically supportable since those are destroyed by the stomach acids if not by pasturization.
The bottom line was that the raw dairy products are somewhat overstated in their benefits by their proponents (many of them in the business of selling it to you) and carry rather large risks along with them so you have to really question the value of taking that choice. However, if you do go that route just make sure you are getting high-quality product and not just someone dumping low-quality control stuff off on you and getting an automatic pass because it's raw and therefore *good*.
Overall, an excellently balanced piece of reporting.
Back to topic....while on a long drive this weekend I listened to a GREAT NPR article on this very event.
They had some raw foods people interviewed along with some nutritionists and science types, along with a lawyer that makes his living suing companies over food quality, ingredients etc. All of the interviewees were devotees of healthy natural foods and a number of good points were made so let me recap.
1) The "rawesome" foods group was raided over dairy products and a dispute over proper licensing.
2) raw milk in particular is REALLY easy to contaminate so if you are dead set on this course you should at a minimum inspect the facility. There have been something like 8 raw milk related outbreaks already this year which relative to the vastly larger convential food markets is unacceptably high.
3) Pasturizing milk does destroy some of the vitamin content of milk but a lot of claims about the natural enzymes etc. are not scientifically supportable since those are destroyed by the stomach acids if not by pasturization.
The bottom line was that the raw dairy products are somewhat overstated in their benefits by their proponents (many of them in the business of selling it to you) and carry rather large risks along with them so you have to really question the value of taking that choice. However, if you do go that route just make sure you are getting high-quality product and not just someone dumping low-quality control stuff off on you and getting an automatic pass because it's raw and therefore *good*.
Overall, an excellently balanced piece of reporting.
I really don't have a horse in this race, however there are a couple of points I'd like to raise.
1) Food borne illness outbreaks, if you are suspected of having a foodborne illness, and are given a questionnaire, regardless of the illness there is one question that is always present, "have you eaten, or suspect you've eaten, any raw milk or raw milk product". This almost certainly skews data towards raw milk being the culprit for some foodborne illnesses that it is not responsible for.
For illustration purposes suppose we created a questionnaire that asked if someone "had consumed or suspected that they'd consumed tap water" well then you could say that there were X thousand outbreaks of foodborne illnesses from tap water. The major problem I have with these questionnaires anyway is that they're revised every couple of years or so and focus on the food fear de-jour, we've had raw egg, raw milk, undercooked meats, yada-yada-yada. Surprisingly the number of foodborne illnesses related to these fears always increase during these times and subside after subsequent revisions.
2) As far as the enzymes, well maybe they do something maybe they don't, however since there was a study published that showed how in-vitro pancreatic cancer cells proliferate with feeding on fructose, but not glucose, it might not be the best time to say they do nothing, for 20+ years we've all been told that HFCS is no different to sugar, well apparently there is some difference if proliferation of pancreatic cancer happens with fructose but not glucose.
Scientific method posit a theory and attempt to disprove it, we do not know enough about the human metabolism to, with any high degree of confidence, state that these enzymes do nothing, are they absorbed through mucus membranes prior to hitting stomach acid? Do they partially digest the milk leaving a beneficial by-product that is not present in pasteurized milk, or is present but at much lower levels. Does digestion produce a beneficial by-product from these enzymes, is there a beneficial immune response to these enzymes (which could start immediately on ingestion) studies linking the inversely proportional relationship of eczema allergies and asthma (http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0091-6749/PIIS0091674906006518.pdf - broken link) to the consumption of raw milk certainly indicate there is some immune effect. Of course the corollary for each of these is also true. Answer is we don't know.
3) How is raw milk any easier to contaminate than pasteurized? That doesn't make rational sense. If a pathogen is introduced into that milk then it is contaminated; once a substance is pasteurized, then the pasteurization process is done, and plays no further role in any further contamination. Incidental historical note pasteurization was invented for improving shelf life of beers and wines it wasn't conceived by Pasteur to be used on milk that was Franz von Soxhlet.
4) While it is possible that the raw milk benefits are overstated for marketing purposes, it is equally true that commercial milk production are overstating the risks and understating any benefits. Raw milk production is competition to commercial dairy production. Now add in to this that the FDA/USDA have for years been hailing the benefits of pasteurization, as well as being lobbied by massive agricultural producers and processors, and you may not be seeing the picture as it really is. The FDA/USDA have a vested interest in not looking like bumbling idiots any more than they often already do, so should evidence come to light that either pasteurization is less effective than we're led to believe, or that it actively destroys certain nutritional benefits in raw milk, then they're unlikely to proclaim it from a billboard on top of the USDA building.
Here are two documents, both are interesting reading. One is produced by the Weston A Price foundation, in response to the report by John F Sheehan.
Now, regardless of whether you believe the claims made by either Sheehan, or Real Milk, they both have enough data in them that is in opposition to make you ask the question of who's telling the truth. This is a scary situation when a government department that is meant to work forus has its data refuted enough to make us question the accuracy of their claims. Maybe we should do something about that, regardless of whether we think raw milk consumption is a good idea or not.
I buy raw milk form a local, and have for quite a few years, never a problem.
So what are the feds gonna get their panties in a bunch about next?
Our gardens? Our eggs and cheese? That we produce for ourselves?
Thats where I see this heading.
Some of the comments after the article were VERY enlightening.
kshe95girl !!! ... On the mark !
Indeed it will be interesting to discover just where this Feds "Nightmare" is heading !
The current "Goof Troop" in the WH are without a doubt quite capable of "Screwing Up The Works For Everyone & For Everything !
There are so many, many more dire problems that this nation is currently facing that desperately need the full attention and resolution of our so called elected Reps in DC ... it is absolutely unbelievable that the seemingly "Looney" Career Politicians" would select the usage of fresh natural milk by our citizens as a target for their continued intrusion into the private lives of all Americans !
What's Next regarding the mindset & actions of this exceedingly foolish bunch of officials is anyones guess !!!
The American People deserve so much better than this !!!
One thing I find interesting is that many non-commercialized food scares seem to coincide with foodbourne outbreaks in the commercial sector (it's not our CAFO beef, it's your local raw milk that you should be afraid of!!); and dietary recommendations seem to coincide with the introduction of new products or an overproduction in the commercial market (real butter is bad for you, our hydrogenated vegetable oil margerine is "healthier"; eat 9 servings of grain [which is cheaper to produce] and limit your meat/protein [which is more expensive to produce] because it's "healthier").
Coincidence or conspiracy? Who knows... but it seems hinky to me.
I really don't have a horse in this race, however there are a couple of points I'd like to raise.
1) Food borne illness outbreaks, if you are suspected of having a foodborne illness, and are given a questionnaire, regardless of the illness there is one question that is always present, "have you eaten, or suspect you've eaten, any raw milk or raw milk product". This almost certainly skews data towards raw milk being the culprit for some foodborne illnesses that it is not responsible for.
For illustration purposes suppose we created a questionnaire that asked if someone "had consumed or suspected that they'd consumed tap water" well then you could say that there were X thousand outbreaks of foodborne illnesses from tap water. The major problem I have with these questionnaires anyway is that they're revised every couple of years or so and focus on the food fear de-jour, we've had raw egg, raw milk, undercooked meats, yada-yada-yada. Surprisingly the number of foodborne illnesses related to these fears always increase during these times and subside after subsequent revisions.
2) As far as the enzymes, well maybe they do something maybe they don't, however since there was a study published that showed how in-vitro pancreatic cancer cells proliferate with feeding on fructose, but not glucose, it might not be the best time to say they do nothing, for 20+ years we've all been told that HFCS is no different to sugar, well apparently there is some difference if proliferation of pancreatic cancer happens with fructose but not glucose.
Scientific method posit a theory and attempt to disprove it, we do not know enough about the human metabolism to, with any high degree of confidence, state that these enzymes do nothing, are they absorbed through mucus membranes prior to hitting stomach acid? Do they partially digest the milk leaving a beneficial by-product that is not present in pasteurized milk, or is present but at much lower levels. Does digestion produce a beneficial by-product from these enzymes, is there a beneficial immune response to these enzymes (which could start immediately on ingestion) studies linking the inversely proportional relationship of eczema allergies and asthma (http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0091-6749/PIIS0091674906006518.pdf - broken link) to the consumption of raw milk certainly indicate there is some immune effect. Of course the corollary for each of these is also true. Answer is we don't know.
3) How is raw milk any easier to contaminate than pasteurized? That doesn't make rational sense. If a pathogen is introduced into that milk then it is contaminated; once a substance is pasteurized, then the pasteurization process is done, and plays no further role in any further contamination. Incidental historical note pasteurization was invented for improving shelf life of beers and wines it wasn't conceived by Pasteur to be used on milk that was Franz von Soxhlet.
4) While it is possible that the raw milk benefits are overstated for marketing purposes, it is equally true that commercial milk production are overstating the risks and understating any benefits. Raw milk production is competition to commercial dairy production. Now add in to this that the FDA/USDA have for years been hailing the benefits of pasteurization, as well as being lobbied by massive agricultural producers and processors, and you may not be seeing the picture as it really is. The FDA/USDA have a vested interest in not looking like bumbling idiots any more than they often already do, so should evidence come to light that either pasteurization is less effective than we're led to believe, or that it actively destroys certain nutritional benefits in raw milk, then they're unlikely to proclaim it from a billboard on top of the USDA building.
Here are two documents, both are interesting reading. One is produced by the Weston A Price foundation, in response to the report by John F Sheehan.
Now, regardless of whether you believe the claims made by either Sheehan, or Real Milk, they both have enough data in them that is in opposition to make you ask the question of who's telling the truth. This is a scary situation when a government department that is meant to work forus has its data refuted enough to make us question the accuracy of their claims. Maybe we should do something about that, regardless of whether we think raw milk consumption is a good idea or not.
Um, without wading through all of that...you need to learn how to parse your comments. I got as far as your point #3 which is utterly off the mark and not even what I said....so at that point I figured I gave you too much of my time as it was. The 3rd point is like responding I like cake when asked the capital of Iowa.
I got as far as your point #3 which is utterly off the mark and not even what I said....so at that point I figured I gave you too much of my time as it was. The 3rd point is like responding I like cake when asked the capital of Iowa.
Point 3 relates to your statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
2) raw milk in particular is REALLY easy to contaminate so if you are dead set on this course you should at a minimum inspect the facility. There have been something like 8 raw milk related outbreaks already this year which relative to the vastly larger convential food markets is unacceptably high.
Raw milk is no easier to contaminate than pasteurized milk, therefore the statement you made is misleading. The fact is that any food substance is equally easy to contaminate.
Raw milk is no easier to contaminate than pasteurized milk, therefore the statement you made is misleading. The fact is that any food substance is equally easy to contaminate.
Apparantly you should not be allowing cows to work in and operate your pasturization facility or where they bottle the milk etc.
Contaminating milk with bovine fecal matter AFTER the pasturization process is done is quite a feat.
Do you even understand why they perform pasteurization? I think you must just be misreading something.
Apparantly you should not be allowing cows to work in and operate your pasturization facility or where they bottle the milk etc.
This would be quite a feat, and would get under the minimum wage rules, if you could get them to wear diapers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
Contaminating milk with bovine fecal matter AFTER the pasturization process is done is quite a feat.
Not really and not relevant to my point and bacteria contamination is not limited to cow flop either.
Perhaps you did not write what you thought you wrote.
"Raw milk in particular is really easy to contaminate"
I would like to know exactly what rational criteria you have to argue that raw milk is easier to contaminate than pasteurized milk or anything else for that matter?
How does pasteurization reduce contaminant risk post pasteurization?
Unless we live under a different set of physical laws (or you do not understand how pasteurization functions) pasteurization plays no role in controlling contamination post pasteurization. Nor does it entirely eliminate contamination prior to pasteurization.
Now I would agree with the following statements...
Milk in particular is a perfect bacterial growth medium
Raw milk has a higher risk of containing pathogenic bacteria at infectious levels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
Do you even understand why they perform pasteurization? I think you must just be misreading something.
No I think that the misunderstanding is that I cannot see how "raw milk in particular is really easy to contaminate" than anything else. "To contaminate" is an active verb, thus we must assume that it was not contaminated before, or that any prior contamination is not relevant to the statement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On the mark !
