The Raw Milk Debate Reaches the New York Times and the Washington Post

re: The Raw Milk Debate Reaches the New York Times and the Washington Post

james16 — Tue, 19 May 2009 12:44:27 GMT

I am still not sure that raising the TB risk to the nation for this small benefit is completly nessesary... does anyone else have any information on this.

The risk of a TB pandemic from unpsturized milk is the reason for Increased Goverment scrutiny.

Those who forget the past ...

re: The Raw Milk Debate Reaches the New York Times and the Washington Post

Dan Vincent — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 06:27:51 GMT

Anyone interested in some of opposition thats out there, toward raw milk or any dairy products for that matter? If so check out this quys website...http://www.notmilk.com. I am starting to get confused because this has some compelling cons against milk products in general.

I just had me a glass of raw milk to wash down some Mercola Complete Probiotics, it was very good and I don't feel sick. Just quite full.

re: The Raw Milk Debate Reaches the New York Times and the Washington Post

wilyelder — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:58:21 GMT

Interesting article. I've known for years that commercial cooked milk was unhealthy. I switched twenty years ago to soy milk. Then I found out soy milk was unhealthy. I switched to almond milk. I live in Ocala, Florida. A friend told me I could purchase raw milk in Gainsville. I will probably do so soon.

-Wily Elder

re: The Raw Milk Debate Reaches the New York Times and the Washington Post

GregB777 — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:25:13 GMT

Hello:

I have been considering starting on raw milk, but have been unsure as to its safety, so I started some research. These are my results, for those who care. All of this is based on data from the CDC and USDA.

I’m a scientist by training, so I’m always looking at data. Here’s some that I came up with.

I found this on the CDC website:

” From 1998 to May 2005 CDC identified 45 outbreaks of foodborne illness that implicated unpasteurized milk, or cheese made from unpasteurized milk. These outbreaks accounted for 1,007 illnesses, 104 hospitalizations, and two deaths. The actual number of illnesses was almost certainly higher because not all cases of illness are recognized and reported.”

(note that they say “implicated” and not “laboraatory confirmed.” But I’ll assume this means “confirmed.” And also, you can make this argument about under-reporting for ALL food–borne illnesses, so that last comment is a boondoggle.)

That is about 6 outbreaks a year, with 143 people getting sick each year from drinking unpasteurized milk. At first, it’s tough to tell what that means, because there aren’t that many people drinking raw milk in the US.

The more important piece of data would be what percentage of people who drink raw milk get sick. It’s tough to tell, because it’s tough to tell how many actually drink raw milk. I finally DID find this info, in a very roundabout way! Keep reading!!!

I compared this to the CDC data on overall “food-borne illnesses.” In 2006, 17,252 “laboratory-confirmed cases” of food borne infections were counted in a cohort of 15% of the US population. Extrapolating from this, that would indicate that there were about 115,103 cases of food-borne illnesses in the US in 2006 alone. From the other CDC data, 143 of these cases came from drinking unpasteurized milk.

(Note this are only LAB-CONFIRMED cases. According to another CDC website, “Approximately 76 million Americans suffer from a foodborne illness every year, and 5,000 deaths each year are attributed to foodborne illness,” said Cecil B. Wilson, M.D., American Medical Association Trustee.)

143 cases of raw milk borne illness compared to a total of 115,103 cases of food borne illness. That is about one tenth of one percent of all food borne illnesses about 1 in 800.

Still, it’s tough to tell what the “real” risk is since I didn’t know the percentage of americans that driink raw milk. If 5% drunk raw milk, then the percentage of illness is very small. If only 1 out of 100,000 drink raw milk, then the percentage of illness is very high. THAT is the DATA I wanted!

But FINALLY I found some DATA!

The data I found for what I wanted was for the pathogen Listeria. Very interesting information. I just realized this ALSO will allow me to estimate how many servings of raw milk are consumed in the US per year! Then I can go back to calculate estimates for the above data. THIS I think you’ll really like!!!!

Here’s the link. Scroll down to page 25, Summary Table 4

www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/Slides_092806_JSofos.pdf

This table gives total cases of listeria in the US as well as their food source. Most interesting, it estimates the total number of cases per serving of that food eaten. THAT is the data I wanted.

As we can see, unpasteurized milk is actually the fourth highest risk for listeria illness, with 7.1 EXP(-9) illnesses per serving. However, take a note that the HIGHEST risk is deli meats, which have ten TIMES the rate of listeria illness per food serving, at 7.7 EXP(-8)

To put that in perspective, for every serving of deli meat you eat, you have a TEN TIMES GREATER RISK of getting sick from listeria than from drinking a glass of raw milk. However, one should note that raw fluid milk has a seven times greater illness per serving rate than pasteurized fluid milk does. So there is increased risk compared to pasteurized milk. But compared to deli meats—which are served without question millions of times a day in restaurants, grocery stores, and Yankee Stadium— raw milk is only 10% as dangerous on a per serving basis.

THAT is the data that I was looking for. On a per serving basis, YES, raw milk is more dangerous than pasteurized milk when it comes to listeria infection, but DELI MEATS are TEN TIMES MORE DANGEROUS than raw milk is!!!!

In summary, according to that chart, cold hotdogs, deli meats, and pate have a higher risk on a per serving basis for contracting listeria illness than drinking raw milk. Smoked seafood (like lox, from bagels and lox) and pre-cooked shrimp have about the same rate as raw fluid milk.

So why is everyone up in arms about drinking raw milk? Especially when the rate of illness (at least for listeria) is TEN TIMES GREATER for deli meats!!

You’re putting your children at a TEN TIMES greater risk for contracting listeria by giving them a bologna sandwich for lunch than by giving them a glass of raw milk!!!!

Would they be “safer” by giving them pasteurized milk? Yes, when it comes to listeria. That is what the data says. I can’t argue with it. Yes, drinking raw milk is more dangerous when it comes to contracting listeria than drinking pasteruized milk.

That is a FACT.

However, they are not really unreasonable odds—espcially when you weigh the health benefits. When you add the questionable health “benefits” of deli meats with their listeria infection rate, I’d say salami and bologna are MUCH more dangerous than raw milk is. And especially since folks eat salami, pate, cooked shrimp, and lox every day without thinking twice.

Why isn’t the USDA going after Oscar-Mayer?!??! TEN TIMES greater listeria illness rate in per serving basis in deli meats than raw milk, and 77 TIMES greater than pasteurized milk!!!!

Seems very unfair.

Think about that.

Now, from this data, I can ALSO calculate how many servings of raw milk are served per year in the US. There were 3.1 cases of listeria from drinkng raw milk per year, according to that chart. There alse were 7.1EXP(-9) ilnesses per serving. From this I can reverse calculate that the USDA ESTIMATES there are a total of 437 million servings of raw milk consumed in the US per year. (I can do the same thing for pasteruized milk. From that I conclude that there were 9,080,000,000 servings of pasterized milk drunk in the US per year. That is NINE BILLION servings. That is 20 times the number of servings of raw milk, which leads me to conclude about 5% of the population, more or less, are drinking raw milk, and 95% drinking pasteruized.)

Out of a total of 437 million servings of raw milk in the US per year, 137 people got some sort of illness. On a per serving basis, that is 3.14 EXP(-7). That means you would have to drink 3.18 million glasses of raw milk before you might expect to get an illness of any kind due to that milk. (It is actually HIGHER than that, because those 137 illnesses also included raw cheese, not just raw milk.)

Let’s even assume that the CDC is correct in that all the raw milk borne illnesses were NOT reported. In fact, let’s assume that 90% of them WEREN’T reported. Then there were 1370 who got ill per year instead of 137. In fact, let’s even assume that 99% of them weren’t reported. That is, only ONE PERCENT of the people who got sick from drinking raw milk bothered to report it. Then 13,700 people would be getting sick every year from drinking raw milk. EVEN IF THIS WERE THE CASE (which I highly doubt), you would still have to drink 31,800 glasses of raw milk before you would expect to get some sort of sickness because of it. Assuming you drink a glass a day, that is 87 YEARS of drinking raw milk before you would expect to get sick from it a single time.

Is there a chance? Yes. Many people get food-borne illnesses per year. There is always a chance.

But to me, it seems as if the chance— and that is according to the CDCs and the USDA’s OWN DATA, their OWN DATA, MIND YOU!!!!— is pretty small.

Plus, you can probably increase your safety level if you go only to very careful and reputable sources.

Just thought I’d share my investigations so far.

-Greg

Just to give some perspective, 16.5% of all broiler chickens tested by the FDA in 2006 contained salmonella bacteria. The cases of human salmonellosis in the us was 14,7 cases per 100,000 people in 2004. This is about 4200 people who have salmonella poisoning in the US per year. Since 16% of the poultry have confirmed salmonella bacteria in them, one might assume that a lot of those cases come from eating chicken. But we don’t hear a big uproar about that, do we? The USDA hasn’t banned people from eating chicken.

At first this seems like a lot of people. But then again, I bet 70-80% of Americans eaat chicken at least three times a week– so the percentage of likelihood of getting sick from salmonella for any PARTICULAR chicken meal is probably pretty low.

re: The Raw Milk Debate Reaches the New York Times and the Washington Post

energymaster — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:38:51 GMT

Curious 7, this is a bit late, but I'm with you. Drink a raw bodily fluid from an animal? No way, especially not from a cow! They are parasite factories. Homogenization is the biggest problem after that, it breaks down the milk proteins into tiny particles that attach to the cardiovascular system and clog the arteries. Very few know of this problem with 'homo' milk. I love my oatmilk, it tastes better and is healthier than any other smoothie or cerial liquid out there.

re: The Raw Milk Debate Reaches the New York Times and the Washington Post

wetherbee333 — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:56:28 GMT

Hello!- I've missed you all. I was diagnosed with west nile and spotted fever. They wanted me to take antibiotics, but I didn't want to kill the good bacteria in my gut, so I drank my cows raw colostrum. I glad to say I feel about completely well now. No one can convince me raw milk isn't good for you!

re: The Raw Milk Debate Reaches the New York Times and the Washington Post

75chick — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:05:49 GMT

On the Weston Price website link for finding your own milk I see some of the places do VAT pasteurization. This is at a lower temp. and is not supposed to destroy as many nutrients. The milk is also from grass fed organic cows and is non-homogenized. I am wondering if anyone knows if it truly does retain some of the nutrients or if raw is the only way to go??

re: The Raw Milk Debate Reaches the New York Times and the Washington Post

ls_night — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:40:25 GMT

Dr. Mercola's comment about voting with our dollars is right on the mark. I remember how liitle organic products weres available years ago and it's been only by our continual requesting and purchasing of it is it more widely available now. We made a difference with organics, now we have to force the raw dairy issue. The difference between raw dairy and pasturized/homoginized is amazing. Besides the health benefits the taste of raw dairy is incredible. You have never had cream until you've had raw cream. The same goes for butter. Besides coconut oil and olive oil, raw butter is all I use now. It is phenominally good! I deifinitely recommend joining the Weston A. Price foundation. Not just to find out how to buy the dairy but for all of the great information available. A great book is Sally Fallon's Nourishing Traditions.

re: The Raw Milk Debate Reaches the New York Times and the Washington Post

Mr Dan — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 22:40:58 GMT

During the nine months that my wife was pregnant, I became somewhat obsessed with our future son's nutrition. Extensive research led us to raw milk as a critical component in the transition off of *** milk around the one-year mark. Perhaps she just compliments everyone, but our doctor says that our son is one of the most alert and active boys she's seen in several years. She tells others about him and now actually recommends raw milk (we're in CA). Obviously there are many factors that go into his health- sleep patterns, socialization, organic foods, the filtered water system in our home, no sugar, etc. My entire family has made the switch to raw WHOLE milk (no more non-fat). All of us feel much healthier and stronger- and I've somehow shed 5 lbs- in spite of the increased fat intake. Just thought our story may be of help to someone out there on the fence.

re: The Raw Milk Debate Reaches the New York Times and the Washington Post

HappyDaze — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 04:13:42 GMT

My parents used to have a dairy farm. If I was drinking raw milk I'd definitely want to know that there were regulations in place to avoid Tubercullosis (TB) and other illnesses. It is the nature of some people to be rather slack, and try to save costs, when they know they can make money out of a "trend".

I recollect that there are TWO types of milk... Type A and Type B. They come from different types of cows - genetically different! There are HUGE advantages in drinking one type of milk over the other. However they are blended together commercially..... now ..... where did I put that farmer's magazine article with all that fabulous info? Or did I give it back to my brother who is a farmer?

re: The Raw Milk Debate Reaches the New York Times and the Washington Post

Ms. Shirley Westberg — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 19:27:48 GMT

I am allergic to pasturized/homogenized milk but can use unpasturized/unhomgenized milk without ANY problem. So it seems to me that I am not allergic to milk per se but what "they" have done to it. When I was a child and we used to get milk that was not homogenized (which is something else that is really bad for humans), I was able to use milk all the time without any problems. I can't say whether it was pasturized at that time. Nowadays, you hear about so many people being "lactase" intolerant. That is also a problem that is not present with raw milk. I do know where I can find raw goat's milk, but it is too far to go routinely and since it takes too much time, I just do not use milk. In Maryland raw milk is simply not available. I wish it were.

re: The Raw Milk Debate Reaches the New York Times and the Washington Post

crni_203 — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 18:09:00 GMT

This comment is for Dr. Mercola as well as all. I think there needs to be more emphasis on the source of the raw milk. The consummer needs to know the track record of the farmer, and it is important that the cow is grass fed.

It is also very important on how the milk is handled during collection and after. It can't just be any cow. You need to educate yourself before you drink just any cow raw milk. And...it would also be wise to do some quality control testing before drinking the milk for that lactation period. I have witnessed ignorant folks trusting too much, without doing the research. This where we all get in trouble. CA is so lucky to have a dairy that sells raw milk only, from it's pasture fed healthy cows,Orgainc Pastures. There is lots of good info and many links on their web sight. Please read all the recommended sights from Dr. Mercola before deciding on your source of raw milk. D

re: The Raw Milk Debate Reaches the New York Times and the Washington Post

Solunas — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 17:49:20 GMT

COMMON SENSE IDEA

Raw Milk has been a savior for me and I’ve luckily found a wonderful clean, organic, dairy that grass-feeds their lot. (Town Farm Dairy, Simsbury CT)

The initial fears of raw milk are due to some unscrupulous dairies from many years ago. Now however I believe the unscrupulous ones are the ones trying to dissuade us from buying wholesome, clean raw milk from our local farmers and instead buy only their factory farmed Franken-food dairy products.

With proper milking and sanitation processes contamination worries are extremely exaggerated.

If you are still cautious, I have 2 steps that will give you even further protection.

1) Take a pro-biotic, chlorella or eat yogurt daily. Cultivation of good intestinal flora will make you better prepared if you become infected by any bad bacteria.

2) Taste it and let it sit. I always take a small sip, no more than a tablespoon, immediately upon bringing a new batch of milk home. I wait 8-10 hours to indulge in a full glass. If I were to have any bad reaction from that small sip than I would tread more cautiously or perhaps call my dairy. However in the 7 years I have been drinking it that has not happened.

re: The Raw Milk Debate Reaches the New York Times and the Washington Post

Dr.G — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 13:15:51 GMT

Life is balancing risks, and the comparison between raw milk and fast food is right on. I would love to see the unhealthy ingredients, practices and poor nutritional value of fast food shoved in “the consumer face” on every news paper, television, website, and radio show out there and see what happens. Raw Milk Vs. Milk at all? – the question enters my mind a lot. I wonder why a very specialized mixture, namely cow’s milk, would be good for humans throughout life? Designed to grow and strengthen a calf, milk has hormones and specially tuned nutrition for that animal. Could this not create a risk for humans in regards to cancer, weight control, and many other issues?

re: The Raw Milk Debate Reaches the New York Times and the Washington Post

T_rex — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 04:03:13 GMT

Dr Mercola's comments on raw milk are full of wisdom.

I wonder, will the day come when raw milk will appear on the shelves at my local Whole Foods Market or Trader Joe's ? (I'm in Saint Louis Missouri)