Dr. Mercola October 18 2007 21,697 views
Several prominent American dairies have joined together, forming the Raw Milk Cheesemakers Association, in the hopes of heading off regulation that might ban their products.
The new association’s aim is to come up with guidelines and protocols that would ensure the safety of domestic cheeses made from unpasteurized milk, by helping their members implement safe manufacturing practices.
But, will it be enough?
Currently, the United States Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) regulations allow the production of raw-milk cheese as long as the cheese is matured for at least 60 days. Typically, aged cheeses, which are low in moisture and high in acid, do not provide the conditions that pathogens need in order to survive.
But, according to Richard Koby, an attorney for the Cheese Importers Association of America, the FDA fears the 60-day rule is based on old science that no longer holds up, and a newly created FDA working group is looking into the safety of cheeses of all kinds.
Although the Raw Milk Cheesemakers Association’s goal is to provide assurances of safety, Michael Herndon, an FDA spokesman, said, “For some raw-milk cheeses, there may be no such thing as a set of protocols that will make them safe. It may well be that one outcome for us is that some cheeses will have to be made from pasteurized milk or thermized milk.”
San Francisco Gate September 26, 2007
Isn’t it interesting how, all of a sudden, age-old traditional practices of cheese making may be deemed unsafe for human consumption because it’s an old science?
Raw-milk cheese has been consumed in Europe for ages, and if the science of it posed a health risk, I’m sure we all would have been well aware of the problem by now.
If you’ve read my newsletter for any length of time, you know I’m a major advocate of raw milk (and raw-milk products), despite the fact that I can’t eat or drink it myself – not due to any problem with raw milk in and of itself mind you, but I’ve developed a serious sensitivity, and dairy products just don’t agree with me. But I’ve seen dramatic health improvements in many of my patients who made the switch from pasteurized to raw milk.
Your body is wise, and will give you the feedback you need to make healthy choices, so if raw milk gives you problems, avoid it. But if it makes you feel great, as it often will, then you can rest assured that it’s definitely a healthy food choice.
Pasteurized milk, on the other hand, should be avoided by virtually everyone. For more information about the problems with pasteurized milk, see my previous article Why You Don’t Want to Drink Pasteurized Milk.
Why Raw-Milk Cheese is So Good For You
In addition to the many benefits of raw milk, which I’ve previously written about in depth, raw-milk products are also a great source of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). CLA is an essential fatty acid, and is right up there toward the top of the list – together with omega-3 -- in terms of health potential, due to its anti-cancer and fat-fighting properties.
CLA is actually so potent a cancer fighter that animal studies show as little as 0.5 percent CLA in your diet could reduce tumors by over 50 percent. Other animal studies have shown it can reduce your risk of several types of cancer, including:
CLA has become widely popular in the form of expensive dietary supplements, but beware -- As with all nutrients, it is far better to get them from food than from synthetic supplements, not to mention that CLA supplements can be outrageously expensive.
Even worse, studies show that the type of CLA used in dietary supplements has been associated with an array of negative side effects, including:
Obviously, that’s NOT what you want.
Your best bet for increasing your CLA naturally is to incorporate grass-fed beef into your diet, as well as dairy products from grass-fed cows, including raw milk, raw butter and raw milk cheese. But make sure you’re getting your meat and dairy from grass-fed animals, as they have three to five times more CLA than grain-fed animals.
In addition to being a potent cancer fighter, CLA also helps your body to rid itself of fat. Not only does it appear to reduce body fat, but it does so while preserving muscle tissue. This is why it is so widely sold as a dietary supplement to body builders and dieters alike, but, as I mentioned above, the only safe way to increase CLA in your diet is from grass-fed animal products -- not from supplements.
Other studies suggest that CLA also:
Raw-milk cheese is obviously a vital health food that we should all do our best to keep legally on the market.
Is it a bad thing if the cows are fed corn in season? Do they not then have to have shots? My family has been drinking raw milk for about two months now and am told that they are fed corn in season. What questions should I ask of my farmer?
Thanks
Ben Franklin--
Corn, like everything in life, is good in moderation, bad in excess. Small amounts of corn and grains may be necessary for pastured cattle in colder environments. Grains can provide additional calories and energy that cows might need during poor pasture seasons or during weather extremes. Remember, cattle can't put on a heavier parka when the weather turns bad. For animals, calories = warmth. Unfortunately, pasture is typically poorest when the cows need it most.
That said, it is very possible to cause a "grain overload" in cattle. Cattle rely on rumen bacteria to break down plant material into digestible components. Grain overload will result in a "rumen acidosis" condition, due to the high starch and carbohydrates in the grains. This decrease in pH may cause rapid die off of necessary microorganisms as well as damage to the rumen wall itself. This is obviously not in the cows or dairymans best interest.
The assumptions that feeding any corn or grains to cattle automatically results in acidosis or antibiotic usage are incorrect and ignorant.
Milk sales are regulated by the individual state. Here in TX, we can sell our raw whole milk, skim milk, and cream, but butter is considered a "processed food" and is not covered by our Grade A permit. Kind of silly, since butter is just cream that has been churned. The ingredients list for our butter would read like this: Cream. Nothing else.
Doesn't make any sense, but after years of dealing with various health "experts" that work in the government (I'm a veterinarian) I can tell you there is no limit to their ignorance or arrogance. Remember, these clowns are making about half the money they would make in the private sector. If they knew anything they'd be working somewhere else.
If you're interested in our raw milk products, please check our website: www.mybrowncow.com
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
PS
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.
GregB777 I would be interested to know what other documentable health problems develope in the population because of drinking pasturized milk as compared to raw milk. For instance possibly Crohn's Disease. I admit I don't possess the drive or know-how on where to start to research this type of information. I do know of someone, who has Crohn's that switched to raw Goat's milk and probiotics, that seems to be doing much better now.
Greg...Do you mind if I copy & paste this information as a reason for me to feed my kids raw milk? I wanted to get your permission before I did it. Thanks!
GregB777, you are a statistician after my own heart! Thank you for all that research and the math attending it. VERY useful. I, too would like to copy this to give to friends and family. Tell us what your field is, it would lend even more authority to your findings. And keep doing what you're doing; you are providing a valuable service to your fellow Vital Voters!
I grew up on raw milk, raw cream and raw butter. We had a milking cow on our farm, but now since moving to town to live I will not drink the watery stuff they claim is "full cream" milk. Anyone who has drank raw milk will know what I mean. Actually I hate the term "Raw Milk" and prefer to call it Natural Milk.
Mankind has been using natural milk since the days of the Egyptians and well before I suspect with very little harm to their health. The only time I can think of is in the 1890's when Paris France had problems and Louis Pasteur came to the rescue. The main problem as i see it was not with the milk but the cleanliness of the dairies and the distribution system.
Why is it that regulatory bodies have to re-invent the wheel all the time and not simply look at historical data. If something has been in common usage for a few centuries without adverse effects, surely it must be considered safe to use, or it would no longer be used. I am thinking of some of the practices that have been used in Chinese medicine as well here as well as Stevia.
Just my thoughts.
Gary
Gary,
It is not about the FDA "re-inventing the wheel." These types of regulations imposed by the FDA, which are assaulting us on every front, are about controlling food supplies to prepare the path for controlled food crises (and health crises). What they can't effectively control with shortages through managed weather control and planned adulteration they will do through stopping and/or heavily regulating small food producers, especially those who produce wholesome foods.