Raw Milk Products

It's because of the horrible practices in today's treatment of farm animals. Sick cows, fed with a completely unnatural but cheap gmo corn diet and then injected with hormones and antibiotics to keep them alive enough to produce milk. Does anyone not see how said milk wouldn't carry all kinds of pathogens? But wait, just pasteurize it and its healthy right? I guess so if you're still wiling to drink it knowing the source...

Which brings me to...

Humans: The only species who willingly consume milk from species other than their own.

There's a reason over half of the population of the planet is lactose intolerant. We weren't designed to drink the stuff after a certain age! There is nothing wrong with mothers who breastfeed their newborns until the child can safely eat solid food. That is completely natural and many mammals follow this pattern. Humans drinking milk from cows however is just something we evolved to do out of necessity or survival. If you quit drinking it today your body will thank you.

OccamsRazor04

boncho
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

Specifically though, when I look at the numbers presented in these two studies, the CDC's position simply does not seem possible, or everyone drinking Raw Milk would be sick. It would mean 30% of ALL people throughout history would have been ill from milk every year. Simply seems untenable.

 

That's under the presumption that the agriculture industry has never changed over the years. Which clearly it wasn't as you pointed it out just above this paragraph.

Which is the point I was making, the problem is not Raw Milk, it's the industry. So Raw Milk from a farm that is organic/pasture fed/not full of antibiotics, should in no way give the results that the CDC says ALL Raw milk gives.

The CDC mitigates health related disease risk in the community from environmental and industrial/business impacts. If the industry standard in AG is to smear pig poo all over spinach and then not wash it, them saying spinach is dangerous is not disingenuous.

That being said, they tout the line of a few organizations that rely on pasteurized milk sales and they also do not give a balanced opinion, so lobbying efforts could be influencing how they present their information.

reply to post by boncho


The problem is they take that CDC study and decide across the board Raw Milk is 150 times more likely to make you ill.

They also do not differentiate as far as I can see pasture fed and indiustrial fed Raw milk.

That is how I ask .. how do they reconcile these 2 studies. The large study clearly shows Raw Milk can NOT be 150 times more likely to cause illness.

boncho

OccamsRazor04

boncho
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

Specifically though, when I look at the numbers presented in these two studies, the CDC's position simply does not seem possible, or everyone drinking Raw Milk would be sick. It would mean 30% of ALL people throughout history would have been ill from milk every year. Simply seems untenable.

 

That's under the presumption that the agriculture industry has never changed over the years. Which clearly it wasn't as you pointed it out just above this paragraph.

Which is the point I was making, the problem is not Raw Milk, it's the industry. So Raw Milk from a farm that is organic/pasture fed/not full of antibiotics, should in no way give the results that the CDC says ALL Raw milk gives.

The CDC mitigates health related disease risk in the community from environmental and industrial/business impacts. If the industry standard in AG is to smear pig poo all over spinach and then not wash it, them saying spinach is dangerous is not disingenuous.

That being said, they tout the line of a few organizations that rely on pasteurized milk sales and they also do not give a balanced opinion, so lobbying efforts could be influencing how they present their information.

Testing Raw Milk from an industrial cow and then using those findings to say pasture fed cows suffer the same problems IS disingenuous.

What should happen is standardization of WHEN you can sell milk Raw, rather than preventing all sales.

As I also pointed out, their claim of nutritional values is based on testing just a FEW vitamins (of which they concede some vitamin loss IS significant), and then using a few tests to say no harm is done at all (even though they admit some harm is done in fine print).

Perhaps I am mistaken, which is the point of this thread, but when I run the numbers ... they do not add up to me.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

That is how I ask .. how do they reconcile these 2 studies. The large study clearly shows Raw Milk can NOT be 150 times more likely to cause illness.

How? The larger study doesn't differentiate raw from pasteurized. In fact it seems they (ignorantly) use the smaller study to suggest the dairy outbreaks are more likely due to raw milk.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

Testing Raw Milk from an industrial cow and then using those findings to say pasture fed cows suffer the same problems IS disingenuous.

What should happen is standardization of WHEN you can sell milk Raw, rather than preventing all sales.

If there were a consensus on raw milk regulation and legalities across the board I would agree with that. Since the study is from numbers 1993-2006, 2008, etc… You are asking them to do something they simply don't have the data for.

Hence, this study does present the data fine (however fluff it is).

In a perfect world they would differentiate between the types of farms, which in this case they would have to recommend further study for an accurate picture (because they admit they can't with the data they have). Which I doubt they will. That is disingenuous (next action rather than the study).

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

That is how I ask .. how do they reconcile these 2 studies. The large study clearly shows Raw Milk can NOT be 150 times more likely to cause illness.

Can you post the numbers you are using to make this assertion. I am looking for it but can't find it. All I can get is that they determined (x) number of outbreaks in the larger study, and used (x) % from the smaller study to presume the cause was raw milk in the larger study.

(this being very faulty logic)

*I was speaking about the smaller study before when I said it was disingenuous. I haven't read the larger one yet, just the synopsis.

If a farmer takes care of his cows and is good about cleaning the cows the chance of getting contamination in the milk is low. The biggest problem that started all this in the first place was because the milk from many farms was combined and one farm could cause all the milk to be compromised. Then lots of people would get sick all over the place. Commercial milk needs to be pasteurized. Not Homogenized though, there is no good reason to homogenize milk. Homogenization is only for convenience and it does screw milk up.

Now buying milk from a farmer you know, that uses good sanitation practices, is not unsafe in my mind. The milk industry wanted to control the market and spread a bunch of bull. A few unclean farmers caused most of the problems in the past.

Lysteria is present almost everywhere.

The FDA doesn't have good enough people hiding their lies. Things don't match up OP, because the whole thing is a scam.

reply to post by boncho


Based on the SMALL study the CDC conducted .. this is what they say about ALL Raw milk.

Aren't raw or natural foods better than processed foods?
Many people believe that foods with no or minimal processing are better for their health. Many people also believe that small, local farms are better sources of healthy food. However, some types of processing are needed to protect health. For example, consumers process raw meat, poultry, and fish for safety by cooking. Similarly, when milk is pasteurized, it is heated just long enough to kill disease-causing germs. Most nutrients remain after milk is pasteurized. There are many local, small farms that offer pasteurized organic milk and cheese products.

www.cdc.gov...

They basically say there is no safe Raw milk. All Raw milk is bad and dangerous. ONLY pasteurized milk is safe to drink. Feel free to read it.

Then there is this ..

Pasteurization DOES NOT reduce milk's nutritional value.

Proven lie by the CDC's admission.

Unsafe to Eat
Unpasteurized milk or cream
Soft cheeses, such as Brie and Camembert, and Mexican-style soft cheeses such as Queso Fresco, Panela, Asadero, and Queso Blanco made from unpasteurized milk
Yogurt made from unpasteurized milk
Pudding made from unpasteurized milk
Ice cream or frozen yogurt made from unpasteurized milk

Proven lie by the CDC's admission that ANY cheese even not pasteurized cheese is safe if it's aged 60 days or more.

CDC reported that unpasteurized milk is 150 times more likely to cause foodborne illness and results in 13 times more hospitalizations than illnesses involving pasteurized dairy products.

As I explained, IF that was true then of the 1.3 million dairy related illnesses 960,000 would be caused by Raw milk. Yet the CDC only found a few thousand cases.

Math:
1.3 million illnesses. According to the CDC 60% of these, or 960,000, should be from Raw Milk.

There are 315 million people. 1% consume raw milk products. 3.15 million people.

So 3.15 million people account for 960,000 dairy related illnesses.

This means if the CDC statistics are true, 30% of all consumers of raw milk should get sick on average. (960,000 illnesses / 3.15 million people)

www.fda.gov...

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

Perhaps I am mistaken, which is the point of this thread, but when I run the numbers ... they do not add up to me.

They are saying 1% of the milk produced is raw. The wording is important:

If you consider the number of outbreaks caused by raw milk in light of the very small amount of milk that is consumed raw, the risk of outbreaks caused by raw milk is at least 150 times greater than the risk of outbreaks caused by pasteurized milk.

The 150 number is entirely based off of how many people are getting sick vs how much is consumed.

Although warning labels and signs
or government-issued permits are prudent where the sale
of nonpasteurized dairy products is legal, they have not
been shown to be effective and, given the results of this
analysis, do not seem to reduce the incidence of outbreaks
involving nonpasteurized dairy products to the degree that
pasteurization does (18)

wwwnc.cdc.gov...

Their answer/solutions are really dumbed down, but they have a point. The entire study is looking for controllable factors in preventing food contamination.

They list post pasteurization contamination as the primary source of dairy illness for pasteurized products, so they can enforce that. They have trouble enforcing if you are treating a cow well. I think it boils down to that.

A cow is sick, does the farmer decide not to milk it? Where is the baseline for that? Pasteurization has a set temperature, a set process…

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

They basically say there is no safe Raw milk. All Raw milk is bad and dangerous. ONLY pasteurized milk is safe to drink. Feel free to read it.

Only pasteurized milk guarantees that bacteria is killed. That isn't a lie. (They also admit bacteria contamination happens to pasteurized milk during handling processing, after pasteurization)

Proven lie by the CDC's admission that ANY cheese even not pasteurized cheese is safe if it's aged 60 days or more.

All those cheeses are made in under 60 days I do believe.

As I explained, IF that was true then of the 1.3 million dairy related illnesses 960,000 would be caused by Raw milk. Yet the CDC only found a few thousand cases.

You need to compare the total amount of milk consumed. I think this is the number that you are missing.

*I looked for it but I couldn't find it scanning over the study. Essentially, 1% of milk consumed is raw (by their numbers)

1mil gallons vs 10,000 gallons consumed, 10 people get sick in each case, what's the chance of getting sick for both?

boncho
They are saying 1% of the milk produced is raw. The wording is important.

Quite true. So I will revise my wording to reflect this.

There are 1.3 million illnesses. According to the CDC 60% of these are caused by Raw milk .. so 960,000.

It is impossible to determine how many people or the percent of people drinking Raw milk that should become sick.

We still MUST have 960,000 Raw milk related illnesses for the CDC to be correct. Yet they only found several thousand in their outbreak study.

reply to post by boncho


Post milking testing. Something does not have to be pasteurized to be tested. In fact they talk about this on the CDC website. They say even if the farm DOES do testing their Raw milk is still unsafe.

However my main point is the CDC claims 60% of the illnesses are caused by Raw milk. This does not seem to be the case. It seems to be they cherry picked data points to inflate the problem, and did not differentiate between pasture fed and industrial penned cows, yet claim both are unsafe.

Edit: I double checked, the CDC study was not just milk, it was ALL dairy products and included cheeses etc.. This means it is 100% valid when compared to the larger study with dairy illnesses.

I also googled it and found the CDC indeed DID cherry pick data .. and it included illnesses from outside the US even it seems.

www.westonaprice.org...

I just read this, and I actually thought a lot of this would be true from reading the exceptionally shoddy CDC study.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

Quite true. So I will revise my wording to reflect this.

There are 1.3 million illnesses. According to the CDC 60% of these are caused by Raw milk .. so 960,000.

The smaller study is entirely different and you cannot extrapolate that information. 60% of outbreaks were related to raw milk (!!!)

Which means 100,000 gallons could have been drank in the state and only 1,000 gallons of raw milk drunk, but the incidence of infection was higher with raw milk.

We still MUST have 960,000 Raw milk related illnesses for the CDC to be correct. Yet they only found several thousand in their outbreak study.

Not when 99% of the milk being drunk is pasteurized.

Pill (a) causes diarrhoea (x) more than pill (b)

10 pill (a) were consumed by party goers, 1000 pill (b) were consumed. Diarrhoea was reported by 20 party goers, 5 took pill (a) and 15 took pill (b).

(b) has a greater number of diarrhoea but also higher consumption, only 1.5% of pill (b) takers hit the toilet, pill (a) on the other hand saw 50% smear their underwear. You are 33 times (roughly) more likely to get the poops if you take pill (a).

Look at the exact wording in the study:

Nonpasteurized products caused
a disproportionate number (≈150× greater/unit of product
consumed) of outbreaks and outbreak-associated illnesses
and also disproportionately affected per

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

There are 1.3 million illnesses. According to the CDC 60% of these are caused by Raw milk .. so 960,000.

Actually it would be somewhere closer to 9,600 cases related to raw milk, because only 1% of the milk consumed is raw.

boncho
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

There are 1.3 million illnesses. According to the CDC 60% of these are caused by Raw milk .. so 960,000.

 

Actually it would be somewhere closer to 9,600 cases related to raw milk, because only 1% of the milk consumed is raw.

Incorrect. It's not 60% of the 1% .. it's 60% of the total. That is how they arrive at the "fact" Raw milk is 150 times more likely to cause illness.

1% of all dairy is from Raw milk, yet 60% of ALL illness is Raw milk related. That is their claim.

So my initial figure is accurate, 960,000.

I will prove it with CDC figures.

We found 121 outbreaks for which the product's pasteurization status was known; among these, 73 (60%) involved nonpasteurized products

121 total.
73 Raw milk. 121*.6
48 Pasteurized. 121*.4

This is how the CDC arrives at Raw milk being 1% of all milk sold yet 60% of all illness is from raw milk, and the risk of illness 150 times greater. Let's use these figures on the larger study.
1.3 million illnesses
960,000 Pasteurized. 1.3m*.6
340,000 Pasteurized. 1.3m*.4

So yes, according to the CDC figures the 1% of milk sold as Raw milk SHOULD account for 960,000 illnesses.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

Incorrect. It's not 60% of the 1% .. it's 60% of the total. That is how they arrive at the "fact" Raw milk is 150 times more likely to cause illness.

No it isn't. That's impossible. It's simply impossible because they do not get consumed at equal amounts.

Whether it's a cross section of 2 outbreaks or 200. The first study only took into account 121 outbreaks. Of which 60% were attributed to raw milk. No matter what you cannot have an equal amount of raw milk/pasteurized consumption to use that comparatively to the larger study.

In other words, somewhere you have to *0.01, because only 1% of the milk supply is raw milk.

Directly from the study, this is how they calculated the number!!

To illustrate this point, it is useful if we provide a
hypothetical weighting of the fi ndings in this study by the amount of nonpasteurized and pasteurized dairy products
consumed. Total milk production in the United States in
2010 was estimated at 193 billion pounds, suggesting that
≈2.7 trillion pounds of milk were consumed during the 14
years from 1993 through 2006 (27). If 1% of dairy products
were consumed nonpasteurized, then during these 14
years, 73 outbreaks were caused by the 27 billion pounds
of nonpasteurized dairy products that were consumed and
48 by the 2,673 billion pounds of pasteurized products
that were consumed. Therefore, the incidence of reported
outbreaks involving nonpasteurized dairy products was
≈150× greater, per unit of dairy product consumed,
than the incidence involving pasteurized products. If,
as is probably more likely, ~ 1% of dairy products are
consumed nonpasteurized, then the relative risk per unit
of nonpasteurized dairy product consumed would be even
higher.

wwwnc.cdc.gov...

The 60% figure only comes into play when you compare it against all the milk sold/consumed in total. Which is what I said earlier.

Raw milk from a free range cow is fine and even good for you.

Cows that are on industrial dairy farms are pumped so full of chemicals and messed with so much that the amount of pus, bile, blood and other goodies in the milk would basically kill you if it wasnt pasteurised.

Raw and pasteurised isnt the problem, its the way dairy cows are breed and treated that leads to sickness in humans.... Not to mention how the poor cows live

IkNOwSTuff
Raw milk from a free range cow is fine and even good for you.

Cows that are on industrial dairy farms are pumped so full of chemicals and messed with so much that the amount of pus, bile, blood and other goodies in the milk would basically kill you if it wasnt pasteurised.

Raw and pasteurised isnt the problem, its the way dairy cows are breed and treated that leads to sickness in humans.... Not to mention how the poor cows live

I tend to agree .. although I have not researched it enough to come to that conclusion.

I am more trying to reconcile these two different studies. The only conclusion I can reach is that the CDC 100% cherry picked to get a certain result, and then extrapolated those results to make claims that the cherry picked results don't support.

So I am more looking at the math .. not the propaganda.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

I tend to agree .. although I have not researched it enough to come to that conclusion.

I am more trying to reconcile these two different studies. The only conclusion I can reach is that the CDC 100% cherry picked to get a certain result, and then extrapolated those results to make claims that the cherry picked results don't support.

So I am more looking at the math .. not the propaganda.

If the CDC cherry picked, they did so by omitting recent years as raw milk consumption has increased to ~3% now. Whether or not they had recent data sets available to them would confirm that. Based on the data sets they are using, there are a couple other numbers that are concerning. The fact that there were more problems where raw milk was legal, rather than illegal, and that larger companies were circumventing rules to get more raw milk out there without adequate controls for the health of the animal (subsequently the milk).

Remember propaganda is on both sides. There is a very real, underlying concern. If the entire nation switched to raw milk, production would not be able to keep up. (using the standards that should be used for such a product, since increased demand over 100 years ago led to pasteurization in the first place-and there is certainly more demand now).

Remember that an "organic" sticker automatically boosts a products value sometimes 50% or more. If "raw" is the same thing, it won't be long before people are looking to cash in on it.

Exhibit A: Gary Hirshberg's quest for organic milk. Dairy producers estimate that demand for organic milk is at least twice the current available supply. To quench this thirst, the U.S. would have to more than double the number of organic cows -- those that eat only organic food -- to 280,000 over the next five years. That's a challenge, since the number of dairy farms has shrunk to 60,000, from 334,000 in 1980, according to the National Milk Producers Federation. And almost half the milk produced in the U.S. comes from farms with more than 500 cows, something organic advocates rarely support.

What to do? If you're Hirshberg, you weigh the pros and cons of importing organic milk powder from New Zealand. Stonyfield already gets strawberries from China, apple puree from Turkey, blueberries from Canada, and bananas from Ecuador. It's the only way to keep the business growing.

www.businessweek.com...

Be careful what you wish for.