The "To Figure This Out, You Had To Do A Freaking STUDY?" category


rocktivity

rocktivity

The trouble is that a lot of people don't know that unpasteurized milk causes far more incidents of GI illnesses than pasteurized. In fact, to hear the raw milk advocates, you'd think that raw milk was far better for you. Then, when you're puking your guts out, you might reconsider.

States that have strict laws regarding raw milk do much better in terms of this.

but pasteurization with other produce often kills beneficial bacteria your GI can make use. So there are pros and cons to pasteurization of foods.

I didn't mention any other foods.

Pasteurization essentially cooks the milk. Proteins, vitamins, and enzymes are denatured. The taste is changed significantly.

there would be no science like that which developed pasteurizing nor an FDA to make sure our food is safe.
Thanks to liberals over the decades we have advanced as a culture but that isn`t always profitable for a few so they want to undo it.

is a good case of the shits.
Seeing how that is what they are full of it may actually help them.

Most of the people who defend raw milk are "progressives," the same people who asked for those things.

Isn't that irony?

You should probably not drink any, then.

I have the opportunity. There is really no comparison.

nt

Because this sounds like absolute bullshit.

At least that's how I'm reading it.

The allegation that pasteurized milk causes autism comes from "Dr." Joseph Mercola, who is walking proof that medical degrees really do come in corn flake boxes.

Mercola is a quack, pure and simple.

http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2011/12/273-joseph-joe-mercola.html

They are effing with the Amish and that's where I get majorly pissed. Leave them Amish alone!

This is about how a few farmers, some of which are Amish, sell raw milk and both seller and buyer are in denial about the risks.

You don't have to be buying raw milk from the back of somebody's van in order to get sick. That's rather the point.

There is no comparison, the risks are minimal and I'm more than willing to take them. After using only raw milk, the store's milk is undrinkable.

I once had cleaver as a kid. I was able to lift a car.

Seeing as I have seen raw milk in multiple stores within the last week.

I grew up on raw milk. Store bought is not the same...and out of old habit, I still shake the store milk.

anything store bought. There are risks in everything, this is one I gladly take on.

Why I avoid many posts on DU about health, and food.
Easier to hang out at organic farming and farmer market web sites, than to deal with ridicule here.

Duh.

Homogenization of the milk, and it is left much purer than all the contaminates that Americans are drinking with each glass, the rates of heart attack are lower.

The Danish people have one of the most dairy intensive diets on the face of the earth. But there, the milk doesn't endanger their hearts due to the fact that the Danish don't allow homogenization process to be part of the picture.

Here's what homogenisation is about:

Homogenization is a process that came about in the Twentieth Century and some people say it is "the worst thing that dairymen did to milk." Whenever milk is homogenized, the product is squeezed through very fine filters at pressures exceeding 4,000 pounds per square inch. Here is the most important aspec t to consider regarding the process: during this process, the fat globules are made smaller by a factor of ten times or more. These fat molecules then become evenly dispersed throughout the milk.

It is the fact that the dairy particles are made so small that offers the particles the ability to affect our heart muscles. Without homogenisation, our nation would probably have rates of heart attack is line with those of the Danish people.

For starters, yes, milk is homogenized in Denmark. Also, there's no such thing as "dairy particles", and they aren't passed directly into your bloodstream. Milk is broken down in the intestines just like everything else.

Lastly, you have absolutely no source for that text you just quoted, and there is zero scientific evidence that homogenization has anything to do with rates of heart disease or heart attack.

Them read into the record of the United Nations, get back to me.

Two Connecticut cardiologists, Oster and Ross, researched the consumption of milk, and its impact and adverse effects on the body and what they discovered is this: that Bovine Xanthene Oxidase (BXO) survived long enough to compromise every one of three hundred heart attack victims over a five-year period.

Their findings were confirmed, and published in 1981 in the Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine (vol. 163:1981):

"It has been shown that milk antibodies are significantly elevated in the blood of male patients with heart disease."

My father kept a few cows, and he sold the cream to a local dairy. The skim milk was fed to the pigs, and a little whole milk was kept for our family's use.

I do not like milk as a beverage, and once I was old enough to refuse, I never willingly drank it. But I remember the unhomogenized milk from our cows that had the flecks of cream floating on top. I was a somewhat picky eater, and that repulsed me. I think that is why I never liked milk.

(My mother pasteurized the milk before it was consumed by our family.)

Family attended. It tasted totally different from the "store bought" milk I got.

I drink very little milk, usually only in coffee, but ice cream is a big favorite of mine.

I am curious, though: do how remember how your mom pasteurized the milk?

I think informed consumers should be able to buy whatever they want but arguments like that only hurt the cause. jeebus take a science class.

Do you have ANY idea how digestion works?

years ago. 1st it should be noted that homogenization is not disease prevention. It just keeps the cream from separating and rising to the top (mmmm!)

It was noted that young men killed during the Korean war showed advance arterial scaring and plaque build up. Homogenization breaks the membrane of the fat globules. One theory is that this released enzymes that caused the scaring of the blood vessels giving the plaques a toe hold.

I never heard about the Danes but that is interesting to say the least.

via weight. Pasteurization = killing harmful bacteria.

Without smoking heart disease would probably be at a modicum in our nation.

And forties are having record numbers of deaths due to fast and aggressive lung cancers. Most of these women weren't smokers.

Anyone ever think the Glade, Febreeze and other air sprays might be the problem? Maybe perfumes too? The other factor could be that living in a big city means your lungs receive the damage of a pack and a half of cigarette smoke every single day.

I was talking about heart disease.

there is a new type of aggressive lung cancer that seems to affect younger women, who have never smoked.

Thousands of women are suffering from this aggressive lung cancer each year. And many succumb to the disease.

Yet it is barely mentioned in our news media. On the other hand, this article that the OP came from focuses on 113 cases of illness (in a nation of 303 million people) regarding a product, that is, raw milk, that is extremely hard to even purchase.

What is wrong with this picture?

Not many people have access to raw milk, so of course cancer > raw milk. Listeria can kill though, as can salmonella. As for the lung cancer, honestly, if you live in a smog infested city, this is inevitable for some of the population who are sensitive to it. I do not think I would put frebreeze and lysol as the likely candidates, but I agree wholeheartedly that smog and such pose a real health risk.

http://grist.org/food-safety/2011-02-10-what-will-the-fda-do-about-the-60-day-aging-rule-for-raw-milk/

Has there been a serious jump in illnesses from raw-milk cheese recently? You might think so if you’ve read recent major pieces in The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/business/05cheese.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper and The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/05/AR2011020502210.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2011020503601 — or the study put together by product liability law firm Marler Clark, http://www.marlerblog.com/legal-cases/the-raw-milk-beat-goes-on-a-look-at-the-literature-and-the-60-day-raw-milk-cheese-aging-rule---updat/ which documented 54 illnesses attributed to raw milk cheese in 2010.

The FDA is certainly concerned. It has been considering significantly tightening the rule that allows producers to sell unpasteurized cheeses to the public, so long as they have been aged 60 days. Major changes to the 60-day rule could severely damage the growing artisanal cheese industry, some of whose products command $20 to $25 a pound. What none of these sources discussed is how the illnesses attributed to raw milk cheese last year compared to other years. The 60-day aging rule for raw milk cheese has been in effect since 1949, partially in response to outbreaks of typhoid attributed to raw milk cheese. All of which prompts this question: Have illnesses from raw milk cheeses been a serious public health problem since then?

Since none of the articles or the Marler Clark study addressed that question, I decided to do some searching through the data. I examined the data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) from 1973 throgh 2008 — a period of 36 years. For data covering 1998-2008, I used the online CDC database http://wwwn.cdc.gov/foodborneoutbreaks/Default.aspx on foodborne illnesses, and scrolled through all the reported illnesses year by year, beginning in 1998 (the first year covered) looking for those attributed to unpasteurized and pasteurized milk cheeses. I didn’t count those attributed to queso fresca, a soft cheese that isn’t aged and thus isn’t legal under FDA regulations. For data going back to 1973, the CDC provided a table http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/cdc-foodborne-i.pdf on illnesses from raw milk and associated products in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund http://www.ftcldf.org/ in 2007.

Here’s what I found:

Remarkably, from 1973 to 1999, a period of 26 years, there’s not a single report of illness from either raw milk or pasteurized milk cheeses. It’s only in 2000 that we see the first illnesses from raw milk cheese — one outbreak in 2000 that sickened 18, then two outbreaks in 2001 leading to 31 illnesses, and one outbreak sickening 18 in 2003.


Thereafter, the pace of illnesses picks up, though sporadically. After no illnesses were reported in 2004 and 2005, the data in 2006 show 121 illnesses from raw milk cheese, and in 2007, the number has increased to 162. Then, there were no reported illnesses in 2008. Interestingly, illnesses from pasteurized milk cheese begin showing up in recent years as well. In 2006, there were 41 illnesses from pasteurized milk cheese, and 161 in 2007. In 2008, when there were no illnesses from raw milk cheese, there were 45 from pasteurized milk cheese. Pulling it all together, the CDC data show 350 illnesses from raw milk cheese over the nine years from 2000-2009, or an average of 39 per year. (If you average the number out over the entire 36-year period, the average goes down to nine per year.) While there were fewer illnesses from pasteurized milk cheeses during that same nine-year period — 247 — there was one death.

snip


---------------------------------------------------------------

my take:

According to the regulations in the European Union (including here in Sweden) all raw milk products are "legal" and considered "safe for human consumption", and can be sold without any price, variety or quantity restrictions. However, the European countries are free to add certain requirements, usually special sanitary regulations and frequent quality tests (at least once per month) are mandatory.

http://www.reading.ac.uk/foodlaw/f-eu-law.htm

Your FDA (Obama-appointed Michael Taylor of MONSANTO is your food safety czar, ffs! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/youre-appointing-who-plea_b_243810.html ) works in tandem with big agra/pharma businesses to enforce a corporate facistist model of state control that crushes the small and medium sized business, well exempting the large multi-nationals from much-needed oversight. The so-called 'safe' mainstream products from these corporate overlords are oftentimes worse in terms of long-term effects and basic outcomes than many natural or unprocessed products. Disgusting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.preventcancer.com/consumers/general/milk.htm

Why is American Milk Banned in Europe?

American dairy milk is genetically-modified unless it’s labeled “NO rBGH”
Genetically-engineered bovine growth hormone (rBGH) in milk increases cancer risks.
American dairy farmers inject rBGH to dairy cows to increase milk production.

European nations and Canada have banned rBGH to protect citizens from IGF-1 hazards.

Monsanto Co., the manufacturer of rBGH, has influenced U. S. product safety laws permitting the sale of unlabeled rBGH milk. (Monsanto would lose billions of dollars if rBGH were banned in America.)

Q. Is there any milk not contaminated with rBGH and IGF-1?
A. Yes. Milk that is clearly labeled “NO rBGH” is free of rBGH and does not contain excess levels of IGF-1.

Q. What about cheeses?
A. American-made cheeses are contaminated with rBGH and excess levels of IGF-1 unless they’re labeled “NO rBGH”. Imported European cheeses are safe since Europe has banned rBGH.

Frequent is more like once per batch or multiple times per day. Acceptable might be once per production day per product. If you are only testing once per month, you are missing a lot and people could be sick before you realize that you have a serious problem.

but my own grandfather and I pulled the teats and filtered it for the entire family.

New filters, sterilized buckets, all good--

it is the best, creamiest stuff on earth. From grass-eating cows. Two or three at most-good milkers-no kickers.

I would not buy it, though, without doing it myself.

You take the cream from the top, add salt and turn it into butter, with a little work.

You don't know what you are missing--but if I had kids-I sure would not buy that stuff, process unseen.

I was saying that if done correctly, raw milk is safe. If not-not safe.

Again--I would not feed raw milk to my family.

On your crusade against raw milk, surely you would be one who know the answer.

Them there days are gone

Healthy stuff.

remember that the milk we sold was regularly tested to make sure it was not from a cow that was sick - especially with TB. I do understand the desire to be able to get raw milk to make cheese and such as we did that on our farm for years. I am interested in knowing how much fact there was in our fear of TB from raw milk? Is there evidence from a reliable source for this?

Food related illnesses at this time, which rarely get mentioned, except in terms of selling a person a drug.

There are now record numbers of people using anti acids and drugs like Prilosec to deal with digestive issues. Record numbers of people being affected by the body's inability to deal with the RoundUp-saturated geneticlly modified grains - the rice, corn and wheat now produced in our nation. These grains are forbidden by law to go to other nations,a s those other nations don't want it, so we Americans have become the guinea pigs for the GM manufacturers.

People whose esophagal tissues are being wrecked by acid reflux. Often, if the damage continues, the person is at a very high risk of having esophagal cancers and stomach cancers.

We are talking about hundreds of thousands of people that have the grains in their diet hurting them. Yet here is this "news worthy" item, focusing on 113 illnesses, that is designed to make us all paranoid of a substance that is almost impossible to even buy!

I live in the country, and yet, the local health food stores are not carrying the raw milk products. Unless you own your own cows, you can't get the raw milk stuff.

Raw milk is produced and marketed by very small operations that don't generate billions in sales and have trade associations and lobbyists that cost millions dedicated to crushing any and all competition.

I have no problems with non-FDA approved food being sold in the US if the food is extremely well labeled.

so yes, I agree with you.

Put the warnings clearly on it. I prefer raw milk. I buy it from underground farms when I can, but wish I could buy it in stores. I take the risks on. It is worth it to me.

The report is here:
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/18/3/pdfs/11-1370.pdf

What the report doesn't say is that much of the risk from "raw milk" actually comes from queso fresco which is being made illegally (and usually from raw goats milk) from within immigrant communities. So first of all, if you're not eating cheese made from raw milk, your 'risk' drops significantly.

If you dig into the report, you'll see that from drinking raw milk, 930 people became sick and 71 were hospitalized. This is over a 13 year period. So on average, per year, 71 people get sick and 5.5 are hospitalized. About 9 million people per year consume raw milk. This means you have about a 2 million to 1 chance of becoming seriously ill from raw milk in any given year. You are 451 times more likely to be injured mowing your lawn. You are 83 times more likely to be injured by fireworks. You are 733 times more likely to die from slipping in the shower or bathtub.

Keep in mind by the time that the government is paying millions for all the studies they commissioned, the people they are paying doing the investigations and enforcement all in an effort to keep you safe from raw milk. That certainly makes me feel safe when I go to bed at night knowing the government is doing such a great job looking after me.

I loved it growing up, none of us ever got sick from it. Yeah, I know, anecdotal and all...we had a good kind of co-op going on with a group of teachers from my father's school where he taught. Everyone traded...veggies, raw milk, meat etc...all home grown, all natural, organic...no chemicals and crap. We were rarely sick growing up.

I just thought that it was RonPaul pandering to the crazies. But some folks that I thought were pretty sane were going off about how they should be allowed to drink raw milk. Frankly, if you want to drink milk straight from the cow's udder, knock yourself out. Enjoy your E. Coli cocktail with your freedom from Big Government.

Come shill away, come shill away, come SHILL away at me...LAD!

If someone wants to drink raw milk, they should be able. They can choose to assume the risks.

sheeple like you consume dairy in factory farms. Raw milk is produced in family settings. That is why "they" (Illuminati) want so desperately to shut them down. Anything that produces health within the body is very much against their agenda. So either you're shilling for the CIA or are just part of the brainwashed masses. Baa!

9 million people in the US are drinking raw milk every year yet only 5.5 people on average are going to the hospital and in 13 years nobody died from it. If you run the numbers you'll find you have a LOT more to worry about from drowning in your bathtub.

See post #76 for a detailed explanation of what's really going on.

Can't wait to go home and eat it.

The government is full of banana oil, they lie and suck. The end!

The government just didn't want the masses getting thin and healthy so they took it away.

the two?

It took the government over 20 years to pull Fenfluramine/phentermine from the market.

Do you work for the FDA? Why are you such an authoritarian suck up?

But, I have been drinking raw millk since late 1981. We also had raw milk when we had our own family cow during the 50's. My younger brother would ingest nothing else for several months. The only time that I have had intestinal problems was when I went on Omeprezol for my heartburn. My theory is that the omeprezol stops the acid in the stomach and therefore allows germs/bacteria that would normally be killed by the stomach acid to go on through the gut. No scientific evidence, just my own feelings. I just got told that I can no longer get the raw milk from the local farmer. That fucking sucks. I don't like the flavor of pasteurized (bastardized) milk. It is way too sweet tasting. We had goats from 1981 til 1999 and then cow raw milk since then. Bastardization kills off the very enzymes needed to digest the milk. Oh, and I'm in my late 60's and in pretty darn good health.

Nt

Who cares?

Let people eat what they want to eat... jeez.

The CDC and the FDA have been on a crusade against raw milk for some time now. Why? Well even though raw milk represents only about 3% or less than the market share, it's a growing market. Therefore it's a threat to the dairy industry. The dairy industry is huge. Seen those "got milk?" ads? Brought to you by the dairy industry. The dairy lobby is huge, and the price of milk is highly regulated by a scheme that heavily favors the dairy industry. Read about how this innovator was crushed by big dairy...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/09/AR2006120900925.html

Read about how the dairy industry crushes competion from soy milk...
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/04/dairy-lobby-tries-ban-soy-milk

The dairy industry contributes millions to politicians and most of that goes to Republicans...
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=a04

So now the dairy industry is going after raw milk. By reading this article, you might walk away with the conclusion that raw milk is a very unsafe product, but is it really? Try doing a web search on the 10 riskiest foods and you won't find raw milk. You'll find things like sprouts, oysters, lunchmeat, tomatoes, potatoes, and ice cream (made from pasteurized milk).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33183857/ns/health-food_safety/t/riskiest-foods-america/

But, but, but, what about this article the OP posted? Go look at the article and dig a little deeper. Click on the actual report (which leaves a lot of information out, suspiciously), but let's look at what it does say. Over 13 years almost half of the cases of people getting sick from unpasteurized milk products were from cheese. Unpasteurized cheese also resulted in almost twice the number of hospitalizations and all of the deaths compared to unpasteurized whole milk (131 vs 71 hospitalizations). Why is that? Something called queso fresco (and it's cousin queso Oaxaca). It's often made by unlicensed producers(from goats milk usually), or in other words in the kitchens of poor immigrant communities who make it for resale. Almost all the illnesses caused by unpasteurized cheese products can be traced back to illegal Mexican style cheese operations.

So take Mexican style cheese out of the equation and what do you have? Well, you wind up with 903 illnesses, 71 hospitalizations, and zero deaths over a 13 year period from raw milk. Divide 71 by 13 years and you get an average of 5.5 hospitalized each year from the consumption of liquid raw milk. Keep in mind that about 9 million people in the US are consuming unpasteurized dairy products. The chances of getting seriously ill are almost statistically zero. Sound unsafe to you?

But, but, but, what about pasteurized milk? Pasteurized milk makes more people sick and puts more people in the hospital. According to the report, pasteurized dairy made 2842 people sick of which 37 were hospitalized and 1 died.

So if pasteurized dairy is making more people sick, why doesn't the CDC and the FDA go after them too? Well you might say that since pasteurized milk has a lower risk (due to much more volume), that's why they are getting a pass. I would say, what difference does that make? There are plenty of foods that are much riskier than raw milk that the CDC and FDA is NOT going after. If the government were really interested in public health (as they should be), they should be going after the products that are making the most people sick, shouldn't they?

Well, it turns out there's a really good reason why the government is not going after pasteurized milk. The reason is because pasteurized milk is a very safe food product. Damn safe even. So when you compare the risk of pasteurized milk to unpasteurized milk, unpasteurized milk loses, but that doesn't mean it's inherently unsafe. It's kinda like comparing a Volvo to a Prius. The Volvo might be safer, but that doesn't mean the Prius is unsafe.

Over 100,000 people in the US are hospitalized with foodborne illnesses each year. 3,000 of those people die. So why is the CDC and the FDA have a full court press going on against liquid raw milk that only manages to hospitalize 5.5 people each year and kill no one? Keep in mind that once you count up the money spent on these studies and the amount of people the government has employed in enforcement actions adds up in the millions of dollars (tax dollars). Kinda makes you go, hmmmmm. At least it does me anyway. Looks like the dairy industry is getting a bit of payback for the $4.8 million they spent in the 2008 election cycle.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/lobbying.php?cycle=2012&ind=a04

I work near a very old farm where I buy organic meats, cheeses and milk. Incidentally the farm is directly behind Gillette Stadium where the Patriots play.

If you are from MA/RI check out Lawton's family form sometime.