Why?

Asked July 12, 2014, 2:33 PM EDT

Why must you mislead those who actually invest their time into reading these articles? I just read one about how Pasteurized milk is healthier and has more benefits. In reality, if farmers maintained a healthy grass-fed diet for the cow, there would be no need for Pasteurization. The process of heating the milk only does damage to the nutritional benefits of the raw milk. For instance, the bodies of people who are lactose-intolerant are incapable of producing an enzyme which is meant to break down the lactose. Heating the raw milk up, which already has this enzyme in it, is killing the enzyme. Also, the true reason the government requires milk to be Pasteurized is to create a longer shelf-life for stores. Most cows are fed grains and their bodies do not appreciate it. Raw milk digests easier and is excellent for muscular growth. You will never find a case where a grass-fed cow has produced any milk or beef that made anyone sick. I have been raw grass-fed beef for years and it has not negatively affected me, nor will it affect anyone negatively. If cows are getting sick and yielding bad product due to their horrible diet, then I would advise people to stay completely away from all dairy.

Greene County Ohio

1 Response

You may wish to read what the Centers For Disease Control say about raw milk consumption. The web page includes information about raw milk disease transmission and nutritional health benefits claims. The web page is more extensive than the quotes below.

Your claim that raw milk has never harmed anyone is incorrect and the CDC data below indicates that is the case. Salmonella can be transmitted by wild turkeys on dairy cattle forage through their feces. When dairy cattle eat that contaminated forage , salmonella can then be transmitted to the milk and consumed unless pasteurized.

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/04/17/garden/salmonella-outbreak-is-traced.html


"What are the risks associated with drinking raw milk?

Raw milk can carry harmful bacteria and other germs that can make you very sick or kill you. While it is possible to get foodborne illnesses from many different foods, raw milk is one of the riskiest of all.

Getting sick from raw milk can mean many days of diarrhea, stomach cramping, and vomiting. Less commonly, it can mean kidney failure, paralysis, chronic disorders, and even death.

Many people who chose raw milk thinking they would improve their health instead found themselves (or their loved ones) sick in a hospital for several weeks fighting for their lives from infections caused by germs in raw milk. For example, a person can develop severe or even life-threatening diseases, such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, which can cause paralysis, and hemolytic uremic syndrome, which can result in kidney failure and stroke.

Illness can occur from the same brand and source of raw milk that people had been drinking for a long time without becoming ill.
A wide variety of germs that are sometimes found in raw milk, can make people sick, including bacteria (e.g., Brucella, Campylobacter, Listeria, Mycobacterium bovis (a cause of tuberculosis), Salmonella, Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli [e.g., E. coli O157], Shigella, Yersinia), parasites (e.g., Giardia), and viruses (e.g., norovirus).
Each ill person’s symptoms can differ, depending on the type of germ, the amount of contamination, and the person’s immune defenses. "
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-questions-and-answers.html

How many outbreaks are related to raw milk?

CDC collects data on foodborne disease outbreaks voluntarily reported by the state, local, territorial, or tribal health departments. The health departments conduct most outbreak investigations reported to CDC. The data reported may change frequently as reporting agencies enter new records and modify or delete old ones.

Among dairy product-associated outbreaks reported to CDC between 1998 and 2011 in which the investigators reported whether the product was pasteurized or raw, 79% were due to raw milk or cheese. From 1998 through 2011, 148 outbreaks due to consumption of raw milk or raw milk products were reported to CDC. These resulted in 2,384 illnesses, 284 hospitalizations, and 2 deaths. Most of these illnesses were caused by Escherichia coli, Campylobacter, Salmonella, or Listeria. It is important to note that a substantial proportion of the raw milk-associated disease burden falls on children; among the 104 outbreaks from 1998-2011 with information on the patients’ ages available, 82% involved at least one person younger than 20 years old.

Reported outbreaks represent the tip of the iceberg. For every outbreak and every illness reported, many others occur, and most illnesses are not part of recognized outbreaks.

Are there more outbreaks related to raw milk in states where it is legal to sell?

Yes. States that allow the legal sale of raw milk for human consumption have more raw milk-related outbreaks of illness than states that do not allow raw milk to be sold legally."

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-questions-and-answers.html

Your claim that raw milk is better for lactose intolerant individuals has been studied as well and found to be incorrect. The study used as it test product raw organic milk and found that lactose malabsorption and lactose intolerance symptoms were higher in subjects that consumed raw milk.
Source: http://thesouthern.com/lifestyles/health-med-fit/study-raw-milk-no-help-for-lactose-intolerance/arti...
http://www.annfammed.org/content/12/2/134.full

In fact the FDA web article summarizes that there is no lactase, the enzyme you refer to, in milk.
Source: http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodborneIllnessContaminants/BuyStoreServeSafeFood/ucm247991.htm