Feds sting Amish farmer selling raw milk locally

[rjmacs]

Acer wrote:
Why not just pasteurize raw milk for safety, then leave it otherwise intact?

This is really a consumer question - my guess is that you can purchase less-processed, pasteurized milk at a premium from high-end grocery stores like Whole Foods. I don't drink a lot of milk (it's expensive!), but with the large number of organic and boutique dairies in operation, my guess is that these products are out there, but less common and more expensive.

[haikuman]

I think more people die in Auto accidents and from drinking Alcohol than raw milk. I am just guessing.
I bet using white sugar and white flour and white rice are very unhealthy also and relate to hypertension, diabetes and other maladies. I must say I am rather ignorant about these epidemics you have cited relating to Raw Milk .... *(:>* I drank Raw milk from the Alta Dena Dairy from early childhood. The dairy was just miles from my home.

Salmonella has been found in lettuce and other ag. products me thinks *(:>* ~!~

Did you know that going to the Hospital could kill you , going to work might also kill you. Medication
can be dangerous ... on and on ...Ad infinitum and ad nausea

You might find this an interesting read:
http://www.realmilk.com/untoldstory_2.html

More about Raw Milk here *(:>*

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Raw+Milk&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[Acer]

Very few people drink raw milk these days, so comparisons to ubiquitous automobiles and alcohol don't mean much. For epidemics, we'd have to go back to records before the age of widespread pasteurization.

Just to grab a wikipedia factoid:
According to a 2009 review, milkbourne disease outbreaks made up approximately 25% of all food and water contamination disease outbreaks in 1938; pasturization is largely credited for a dramatic decrease in milkbourne disease outbreaks, which made up less than 1% of food and water contamination disease outbreaks by 2005.(1)

(1)^ a b c Lejeune JT, Rajala-Schultz PJ (January 2009). "Food safety: unpasteurized milk: a continued public health threat". Clin. Infect. Dis. 48 (1): 93–100. doi:10.1086/595007. PMID 19053805.

It seems to me there's significant risk. The safety of your raw milk depends upon the practices of the farmer. Whether that risk needs to be removed from the food supply entirely, or be left up to a properly informed consumer is a wider question. Personally, I've seen modern milking operations first hand, and I am content with pasteurization.

(Homogenization is another aspect of milk processing, and I don't see any problem with selling unhomogenized milk, if milkfat is your thing.)

[rjmacs]

haikuman wrote:
I think more people die in Auto accidents and from drinking Alcohol than raw milk. I am just guessing.
I bet using white sugar and white flour and white rice are very unhealthy also and relate to hypertension, diabetes and other maladies. I must say I am rather ignorant about these epidemics you have cited relating to Raw Milk .... *(:>* I drank Raw milk from the Alta Dena Dairy from early childhood. The dairy was just miles from my home.

Salmonella has been found in lettuce and other ag. products me thinks *(:>* ~!~

You might find this an interesting read:
http://www.realmilk.com/untoldstory_2.html

I'm quite sure you're right about the relative deaths caused by auto accidents, alcohol, hypertension, and diabetes, Rudie. But the argument about pasteurization is about simple actions that can be taken to prevent illness. E. coli, salmonella, listeria, and other bacteria can be effectively controlled in the milk supply by pasteurization, according to the CDC and FDA, and despite reading the page you linked to, i don't see convincing evidence to the contrary.

Here's a CDC link with a lot of information about raw milk: CDC Raw Milk Q&A

If there were an easy and affordable way to pasteurize the risk out of cars and trucks, the toxicity out of alcohol, or the blood-pressure and insulin-depleting effects out of salt, fat, and sugar, then the phenomena would be comparable. Food-borne illness is a real problem. I agree with the page you linked in that we inadequately screen meat and some vegetables for dangerous microorganisms; there should be fewer cases of e. coli and salmonella from beef, chicken, and produce. But we shouldn't eliminate hygiene requirements and testing so that consumers can have choice about whether to risk buying hamburger or lettuce that might be pathogenic.

[haikuman]

I understand you want everyone to be protected I do agree we have to be safe. I feel the Raw Milk
issue is overstated, exaggerated, over legislated and over regulated. Establishing high standards, testing and allowing Raw Milk producers to have the same rights as beef, poultry and pork producers would be more equitable me thinks. < rjmacs > I do want to say I admire your kind persistence and politeness with in this discussion. Please pass the Raw Milk I am thirsty now *(:>*

Rudie *(:>*

[rjmacs]

haikuman wrote:
I understand you want everyone to be protected I do agree we have to be safe. I feel the Raw Milk
issue is overstated, exaggerated, over legislated and over regulated. Establishing high standards, testing and allowing Raw Milk producers to have the same rights as beef, poultry and pork producers would be more equitable me thinks. < rjmacs > I do want to say I admire your kind persistence and politeness with in this discussion. Please pass the Raw Milk I am thirsty now *(:>*

Rudie *(:>*

Sure thing, Rudie - there's plenty of room to agree to disagree, without being disagreeable. I'll stick to my coffee with ultrapasteurized half & half, but we can still toast to our mutual health! -D

[Ca Bob]

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.

[Chakravartin]

Ca Bob wrote:
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...

Sure it does. Pasteurization doesn't kill harmful organisms just by waving a wand. It involves heating the milk just to the point where those organisms die, but not so much that there's much of a measurable loss in nutritional value.

Heat does affect the nutritional content. Proteins get denatured, B-vitamins are labile and some minerals may precipitate out.

But they do so in insignificant amounts in pasteurization and a lot of milk has supplements added which typically puts in a lot more nutrients than might have been lost in the processing.

If anything, we should be concerned with the fat, hormones, pesticides and heat resistant pathogens in milk rather than the potential loss of a decimal point's worth of folate from pasteurization.

And frankly, I'd rather have a half a percent less folic acid in our milk than have typhoid and diptheria plaguing American children.

[haikuman]

Next you might expound the sky is falling *(:>* ...Crying wolf has its own liabilities *(:>*

Both my parents lived to be 78... My dad and I drank a lot from the Jugs of Raw Milk of course we wiped the lipstick off before the company arrived *(:>*

In Washington State I bought 1 Gal Mason jars of fresh raw milk for $1:00.

You develop a taste for the milk.

As a X Ray Tech I worked for the Osteoporosis Society of Hawaii. I tested many women in Hawaii for Bone Density. The only women who had denser bones than me were Samoan... thats signifgant because Samoans in General are known for very high bone Density. In Portland Oregon I got my Raw Milk from the Friends Food Co Op South East Portland, I forget the exact name Circa 1970. Raw milk is good and good for you.... Stuff you consume , work next to and people you know can be hazardous to your health *(:>*

enough said ....

Rudie

[haikuman]

Chakravartin wrote:
[quote=Ca Bob]
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...

Sure it does. Pasteurization doesn't kill harmful organisms just by waving a wand. It involves heating the milk just to the point where those organisms die, but not so much that there's much of a measurable loss in nutritional value.

Heat does affect the nutritional content. Proteins get denatured, B-vitamins are labile and some minerals may precipitate out.

But they do so in insignificant amounts in pasteurization and a lot of milk has supplements added which typically puts in a lot more nutrients than might have been lost in the processing.

What a bag of fecal material *(:>*

If anything, we should be concerned with the fat, hormones, pesticides and heat resistant pathogens in milk rather than the potential loss of a decimal point's worth of folate from pasteurization.

And frankly, I'd rather have a half a percent less folic acid in our milk than have typhoid and diptheria plaguing American children.
Narrow minded assumptions my friends wrap all your science up in a disposable napkin..
it changes faster than Moore's Law *(:>*

Reality is in the living examples not paranoia and over regulation.....

Just my .00002cents

Rudie