05-01-2011, 05:18 AM
Cows, being warm blooded mammals, can carry various strains of microbes that also affect us. Not the least of these is tuberculosis, which used to kill people by the tens of thousands. It used to be so prevalent that it is a plot element in operas (La Boheme, La Traviata) and other stories. It still exists, and is sometimes brought into the U.S. by travelers. The process of Pasteurization goes back to the late 19th century, and allows people to drink milk without fear of TB being passed along this way. Of course TB is also passed along in other ways nowadays, but the rational approach to TB and other milk borne diseases is, "Why take this chance?"
Of course there are people who think that there is something special in raw food that is lost by cooking. Biochemistry doesn't really support this view -- it seems like 19th century's "vitalism," which postulates some life energy or the equivalent. Nowadays we calculate life energy in the form of ATP and glucose and oxidative metabolism, rather than the stuff that Dr Frankenstein sucked out of a lightning bolt. But some people are devoted to their raw milk and raw vegetables and sea salt.
The question ought to be whether there is some public health issue; in other words, does the selling of raw milk endanger anyone but the person who buys it? You might make an argument that children ought to be protected against its use, but that is a subset of the argument -- children are supposed to be protected against being fed excessive amounts of alcohol or tobacco, but we haven't banned their sale. It is likely that people devoted to raw milk will also feed it to their children, and this forces the children to take a risk that the parents refuse to see.
Unfortunately, raw milk can also carry other pathogens. Brucellosis has been a sometime problem in California raw milk sales, and it has made some people quite ill. See the wikipedia page for its symptoms and long term effects. Raw milk can also carry other microbes, some of which get transmitted to other people on occasion.
I think it's a marginal call. I'm not aware that TB has been spread by Alta Dena Dairy raw milk, but we do know that they have had cows infected with brucella, and the state took action to make sure they were in compliance with health standards.
Of course there are people who think that there is something special in raw food that is lost by cooking. Biochemistry doesn't really support this view -- it seems like 19th century's "vitalism," which postulates some life energy or the equivalent. Nowadays we calculate life energy in the form of ATP and glucose and oxidative metabolism, rather than the stuff that Dr Frankenstein sucked out of a lightning bolt. But some people are devoted to their raw milk and raw vegetables and sea salt.
The question ought to be whether there is some public health issue; in other words, does the selling of raw milk endanger anyone but the person who buys it? You might make an argument that children ought to be protected against its use, but that is a subset of the argument -- children are supposed to be protected against being fed excessive amounts of alcohol or tobacco, but we haven't banned their sale. It is likely that people devoted to raw milk will also feed it to their children, and this forces the children to take a risk that the parents refuse to see.
Unfortunately, raw milk can also carry other pathogens. Brucellosis has been a sometime problem in California raw milk sales, and it has made some people quite ill. See the wikipedia page for its symptoms and long term effects. Raw milk can also carry other microbes, some of which get transmitted to other people on occasion.
I think it's a marginal call. I'm not aware that TB has been spread by Alta Dena Dairy raw milk, but we do know that they have had cows infected with brucella, and the state took action to make sure they were in compliance with health standards.