So, what's up with Raw Milk?

[Raistlin]

[KentaRawr!]

I drink soy milk pretty often, too. It's been a long time since I've had cow milk!

[Bastian]

"Probably" few instances of illness... discomfort is "probably" rare. You are just outright making things up.

My point there was that if raw milk was notorious for killing people, we would have stopped drinking it ages ago. Yet it is a staple.

I read the sources you linked (skimmed). Yes, pasteurizing milk brought down the pathogens to a negligible amount. That's good. And I'm all for that. I would prefer to drink pasteurized milk myself. But that's not what we're talking about here. None of the reports said that people will likely suffer any fatal consequences from it. It might give them diarrhea or stomach aches if the milk has been contaminated by the cow's feces. Might.

This reminds me of when Olestra was demonized because it supposedly gave people "loose stool" and stomach aches. So the FDA had products made with the stuff pulled off the market. It turned out it DIDN'T do that. In fact, it had no adverse health affects at all when eaten in the recommended quantities, and was FAR healthier than any alternative due to its reduced caloric nature.

As for acupuncture and such: I cannot attest personally. But I do have a friend who suffered from fibromyalgia and tried countless medications prescribed by her doctor to no avail. She heard from someone that accupuncture would do the trick. She went. She's pain free now. It may be a placebo, sure (and I would even side with that assumption) but the point is "it" worked where modern science failed. It probably wouldn't work for me, because I'd be skeptical.

[Clo]

As a lactose intolerant, this might KILL ME. I can't even handle a glass of normal whole milk.

[Rye]

I love soy milk!

[Bastian]

As a lactose intolerant, this might KILL ME. I can't even handle a glass of normal whole milk.

Surprisingly, many who identify as lactose intolerant claim that raw milk doesn't affect them.

[Raistlin]

My point there was that if raw milk was notorious for killing people, we would have stopped drinking it ages ago. Yet it is a staple.

This is a non-sequitur; your conclusion does not follow from your premise. First off, you're assuming that anyone criticizing raw milk must be saying that raw milk is so much worse than the rest of the unsanitary, diseased-filled crap people ate and drank for millennia (hence the short lifespan). That's not at all what we're saying. Drinking contaminated water has killed millions over recorded history, too. But like filtered water is considered much, much safer than water from a puddle outside, pasteurized milk is also considered safer than raw milk. Technology tends to do that.

Yes, modern science can be mistaken. The difference is when those mistakes come out, the scientific method works to correct them. The impact of pasteurization and the risks of raw milk seem to have been studied thoroughly over generations -- so your analogy to a modern product (where the mistake was apparently corrected eventually) is highly misleading. It is also interesting to note that there is no equally critical self-examination and study among the "alternative medicine" practitioners.

[rubah]

guys, guys, almond milk.

People were drinking milk for years? Nah, you don't waste milk for drinking. You ferment that into cheese. Lasts a hell of a lot longer. You churn it into butter.

Water and beer are for drinking for millennia, not milk.

[Bastian]

My point there was that if raw milk was notorious for killing people, we would have stopped drinking it ages ago. Yet it is a staple.

This is a non-sequitur; your conclusion does not follow from your premise. First off, you're assuming that anyone criticizing raw milk must be saying that raw milk is so much worse than the rest of the unsanitary, diseased-filled crap people ate and drank for millennia (hence the short lifespan). That's not at all what we're saying. Drinking contaminated water has killed millions over recorded history, too. But like filtered water is considered much, much safer than water from a puddle outside, pasteurized milk is also considered safer than raw milk. Technology tends to do that.

Safer. The question is "is raw milk safe" and the answer is not "no."

That has been my point.

[Raistlin]

People were drinking milk for years? Nah, you don't waste milk for drinking. You ferment that into cheese. Lasts a hell of a lot longer. You churn it into butter.

Water and beer are for drinking for millennia, not milk.

That's a good point, as then people would be less aware of what was causing any illnesses (not that actual studies were done back then anyway).

Safer. The question is "is raw milk safe" and the answer is not "no."

That has been my point.

That point -- from all the evidence I've seen and even looked up and cited -- is pretty clearly wrong. You haven't even given any reasons except anecdotes and imagination.

[Bastian]

Safer. The question is "is raw milk safe" and the answer is not "no."

That has been my point.

That point -- from all the evidence I've seen and even looked up and cited -- is pretty clearly wrong. You haven't even given any reasons except anecdotes and imagination.

If your definition of "unsafe" is "well, it COULD give you diarrhea and/or a stomach" then you're right, it's unsafe. That would not be my definition. When I hear that something is "unsafe" that means I could die or suffer some sort of permanent condition. That's not the case here.

[Bunny]

This argument is getting pretty boring.

When I hear that something is "unsafe" that means I could die or suffer some sort of permanent condition. That's not the case here.

[Raistlin]

... according to who? Your imagination again? You seem to not bother even reading any evidence to the contrary, so apparently I'm just wasting my breath. One last post:

Raw milk is a well-documented source of infections from Salmonella, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Campylobacter, Listeria, Mycobacterium bovis, and other pathogens (2--6). In 1938, before widespread adoption of milk pasteurization in the United States, an estimated 25% of all foodborne and waterborne outbreaks of disease were associated with milk (7). By 2001, the percentage of such outbreaks associated with milk was estimated at <1% (7). During 1998--2005, a total of 45 outbreaks of foodborne illness were reported to CDC in which unpasteurized milk (or cheese suspected to have been made from unpasteurized milk) was implicated. These outbreaks accounted for 1,007 illnesses, 104 hospitalizations, and two deaths (CDC, unpublished data, 2007). Because not all cases of foodborne illness are recognized and reported, the actual number of illnesses associated with unpasteurized milk likely is greater.

As an illustrative example of the importance of pasteurization, milk-borne almonellosis was a particular health problem in Scotland during the period from 1970 to 1982 when more than 3500 people fell ill and 12 died. After the introduction of milk pasteurization in Scotland in 1983, milk-borne salmonellosis virtually disappeared and can now only be found among those in the farming community who continue to drink raw milk.

My patient was a victim of a recent outbreak in Pennsylvania, but similar outbreaks of infectious disease due to unpasteurized milk products are a recurring headache for public health officials. Between 1973 and 1993 there was an average of 2.3 milk born disease outbreaks per year. That number increased to 5.2 per year between 1993 and 2006. Whatever the numbers are, there is no question that the increasing consumption of raw milk is a genuine threat to public health.

Since 2005, several outbreaks of disease, including salmonellosis, campylobacteriosis, and E. coli O157:H7 infection, that were related to consumption of unpasteurized milk or dairy products have been reported. During the end of 2005, 18 cases of infection with E. coli O157:H7, mostly among children aged <14 years, occurred in Oregon and Washington states. Five patients, aged 1–13 years, were hospitalized, 4 with hemolytic uremic syndrome. Laboratory and risk factor analyses linked the cases to raw milk from a dairy participating in a cow‐share program in Washington [38]. In 2007, 29 cases of S. enterica serotype Typhimurium infection were associated with consumption of raw milk or raw‐milk products in Pennsylvania. A S. typhimurium strain isolated from a dairy selling raw milk to consumers at the farm matched the outbreak strain isolated from the case patients by PFGE. Sixteen of the 29 case patients were aged <7 years [39]. At least 87 people became ill in Kansas in 2 separate outbreaks of campylobacteriosis during the end of 2007. In both outbreaks, illness was associated with consumption of raw milk or raw‐milk products [40]. In 2008, an outbreak of campylobacteriosis in California was associated with consumption of unpasteurized milk supplied from a farm operating a cow‐share program.

No, raw milk will not kill everyone that drinks it. It won't even make everyone sick. But over decades of observation it has been causally linked with potentially dangerous bacteria which can be severely harmful, and continue to actually seriously harm and even kill people today. Based on your bizarre application of "unsafe," the flu isn't particularly unsafe either, since it just makes the vast majority of people in the developed world uncomfortable for a few days.

I'm not sure if you just really, really want raw milk to be ok or you just hate anything scientists say. Your conclusions range from baseless to demonstrably wrong.

[Bastian]

No, raw milk will not kill everyone that drinks it. It won't even make everyone sick. But over decades of observation it has been causally linked with potentially dangerous bacteria which can be severely harmful, and continue to actually seriously harm and even kill people today.

Skimming the studies you linked I didn't see any mention of fatalities. Clearly I overlooked them. Seeing that raw milk has caused deaths, I'm not sure why it's still legal.

Based on your bizarre application of "unsafe," the flu isn't particularly unsafe either, since it just makes the vast majority of people in the developed world uncomfortable for a few days.

Except that the flu has been known to kill.

Before knowing that raw milk has been linked to deaths, I would deem it "safe enough" if all it could potentially do was give you a stomach ache.

I mean, nearly any potato salad at a picnic can be deemed "unsafe" I suppose? The government isn't likely to outlaw picnic potato salad. :/

I'm not sure if you just really, really want raw milk to be ok or you just hate anything scientists say.

Neither of those are true. Like I said, I would never drink the stuff. I just take issue with people getting up in arms over pointless things just because some supposed study or some repeatedly failing government organization deems something "unsafe" when the consequences are usually negligible. It turns out that's not exactly the case here, so I stand corrected.

[Clo]

As a lactose intolerant, this might KILL ME. I can't even handle a glass of normal whole milk.

Surprisingly, many who identify as lactose intolerant claim that raw milk doesn't affect them.

Well, too bad it's not worth it. There's a little thing called soy milk which is a better option.