If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Unpasteurized milk, which many foodies will tell you is the Greatest Health Drink EVAR, is 150 times more likely to kill you than regular milk. But where's the reward without a little risk, amiright?   (yourlife.usatoday.com) divider line 123
    More: Stupid, EVAR, Emerging Infectious Diseases, mental healths, milk, Centers for Disease Control  
•       •       •

3977 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Feb 2012 at 12:29 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-02-22 09:19:47 AM  
7 votes:
When it comes to evaluating scientific studies to find out if something is a good idea, "health" food proponents are usually about as informed as vaccine deniers. The last time I heard someone defend raw milk they somehow tied "no one died of heart disease before 1900" into their argument.
2012-02-22 09:26:10 AM  
6 votes:

EatHam: 150 * 0 = 0


you do know that the pastueurization process was invented for a reason


of course you don't, that would right an anti-government kook like yourself to learn something and we all know that education is just The Mans way of filing your head with lies, amiright?

Milk collected or stored in unsanitary conditions may harbor a host of disease-causing organisms (pathogens), such as tuberculosis (Mycobacterium bovis), the bacteria Campylobacter (Campylobacteriosis), Escherichia E. coli O157:H7), Listeria (Listeriosis), Salmonella (Salmonellosis), Yersinia (Yersinia enterocolitica), and Brucella (Brucellosis). Pasteurization consistently removes all of these pathogens, though they can be reintroduced if the product is handled carelessly. Thus dairy farms that pasteurize their milk can have unsanitary facilities without the attendent outbreaks of disease that would occur if a raw milk dairy kept its herds in similar unsanitary conditions.

Link (new window)

Campylobacter causes dysentery
Listeria can cause Meningitis and/or farking up featuses
Brucellosis was the first bacteria ever weaponized by the united states
the strain of E coli listed is enterohemorrhagic and often leads to kidney failure in children (and the old)
2012-02-22 02:36:45 PM  
4 votes:

stainedglassdoll: Just out of curiosity, I looked up other foods that are banned in the US. Link (new window)

It seems the majority of reasons for banning foods is due to animal welfare (endangered, cruel, etc).
The next biggest reason seems to be characteristic dangers of the food (sassafras has carcinogens, fugu is poisonous, though I believe fugu is not expressly banned in the US, but requires a license to serve).

It seems only raw milk is banned for contamination reasons, not for any inherent property of the milk itself (aside from its propensity to be contaminated). Just thought that was interesting.

Raw milk isn't banned nationwide. About half the states in the union have laws banning raw milk. The rest regulate its sale to some degree or another.

It should be banned, but I'm very close to giving up on explaining why to people.

I'll try anyhow:

1) Yes, raw milk is more likely to contain deadly pathogens than pasteurized milk.
2) As a result, the sale of raw milk is highly restricted, to prevent dissemination to the population.

Think about it like this. Pasteurized milk causes 100 deaths in a year. Unpasteurized milk causes the same number, but is consumed at 1/150th the rate of pasteurized milk. Thus, if everyone was able to drink raw milk, we'd see 15,000 deaths in a year because of the product.

This is, of course, a purely hypothetical exercise. The actual numbers would vary, but the principle is correct - widespread consumption of raw milk would lead to an increase in the burden placed on the public health system by extremely preventable foodborne illnesses.

And that's the thing - it's a public health issue. So maybe the per capita risk is something like 1/100,000 for raw milk and 1/10,000,000 for pasteurized. Whoop-de-doo, that means nothing to a single consumer. However, iterated out over the entire country, it's a huge difference.

Which leads me to:

3) Your health affects the health of the people around you.

This is increasingly a point which is getting lost on people. When you get sick, you increase the generalized burden on the public health system. You tap finite resources. More people getting sick means the resources are stretched further and further, to the point of breaking. This is why you have to get your farking children vaccinated - I know you can opt out, but you're an absolute mouthbreathing farktard if you do.

But there's an even greater problem. These pathogens are communicable. If you carry around a Salmonella infection, you can spread the organism to places where it wasn't before. The same is true of any bug. You know how smart people open a public bathroom door with a paper towel to avoid getting a cold? It applies to other microbes too, and if you're shedding bacteria, you can get those little buggers everywhere.

So now your decision to drink raw milk (or have your children unvaccinated, let's say) creates a greater chance that you will become a reservoir of disease. Then you'll go around interacting with people, spreading your disease around.

This is how outbreaks start.

And you know what's even worse than all of this? Mycobacterium bovis can contaminate raw milk. That causes bovine tuberculosis. But you know what else it can cause? Human tuberculosis. And in some cases, it can become human-human transmissible after jumping the species barrier. It's also hypothesized that M. tuberculosis just split off from M. bovis. And of course, M. tuberculosis can be found in raw milk.

So no, it's not just your own problem if you drink raw milk. It's my problem too. It's your school's problem. It's your workplace's problem.

And despite the fact that I am objectively correct, raw milk advocates will not change their minds.

It's really not a conspiracy. It's not a government plot. I just don't want people to farking die from diseases that by all rights simply should not be an issue. It's really farking simple. There's no trick to it. I don't get paid enough to matter. There's no shilling here.

It's honestly a bad idea. It's that simple.

/public health microbiologist
2012-02-22 01:21:19 PM  
4 votes:

Wolfy: Does eating raw fish over cooked fish result in a similar increase in risk? Does eating rare or blue steak over well done steak result in a similar increase in risk? Does hiking the high sierra over taking a walk in your local park result in a similar increase in risk? Does drinking a bottle of beer over a glass of water result in a similar increase in risk?


The difference between doing those things and drinking raw milk is that hiking the high sierra doesn't carry a risk that you'll infect your children and co-workers with a serious disease.

You're allowed to do all sorts of stupid, dangerous things as long as the only person harmed is YOU. When you start exposing yourself to communicable disease vectors for stupid reasons you become a danger to the public health, and therefore our public authorities can and should stop you from doing that stupid, dangerous thing before you hurt the people around you.
2012-02-22 12:52:28 PM  
4 votes:
I grew up on a dairy farm. Our milk won quality awards from our dairy for its low bacteria counts.

When we drew out of the tank for milk for the family to drink, we ran it through a home pasteurizer. NOBODY drank the raw milk.

People who drink raw milk are stupid.
2012-02-22 12:36:06 PM  
4 votes:
where are they getting the 150 TIMES from?

FTA: the survey found 121 outbreaks linked to dairy products in which it was known whether the milk was pasteurized or unpasteurized (also called "raw"). Of those, 60% were caused by raw milk and 39% by pasteurized milk.

60/39 = 153%.

PERCENT != TIMES

The lead headline should read "Unpasteurized milk, touted as the ultimate health food by some, is 1.5 times more likely to cause food-borne illness outbreaks than pasteurized milk"
2012-02-22 07:22:31 AM  
4 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: And regular milk's likelihood of killing you is?


I'm guessing 150 times less likely than unpasteurized milk.
2012-02-22 10:09:04 AM  
3 votes:

Kazan: EatHam: 150 * 0 = 0

you do know that the pastueurization process was invented for a reason


of course you don't, that would right an anti-government kook like yourself to learn something and we all know that education is just The Mans way of filing your head with lies, amiright?


My point is that without saying what the regular risk noted, 150 times that risk is completely meaningless.
2012-02-22 09:38:36 AM  
3 votes:

Teknowaffle: If you are over 16 there is no reason to drink milk. Grow up and eat real cheese.


ok flabby

A 2006 study found that for women desiring to have a child, those who consume full fat dairy products may slightly increase their fertility, while those consuming low-fat dairy products may slightly reduce their fertility.[63]

Numerous studies have found that conjugated linoleic acid, found mainly in milk, meat and dairy products, provides several health benefits including prevention of atherosclerosis, different types of cancer, and hypertension and improved immune function.[64][65][65]

There is recent evidence suggesting consumption of milk is effective at promoting muscle growth[66] and improving post exercise muscle recovery.[67]

In 2010, scientists at the Harvard School of Public Health identified a substance in dairy fat, trans-palmitoleic acid, that may substantially reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes. The researchers examined participants who have been followed for 20 years in an observational study to evaluate risk factors for cardiovascular diseases in older adults. During followup it was found that individuals with higher circulating levels of trans-palmitoleic acid had a much lower risk of developing diabetes, with about a 60% lower risk among participants in the highest quintile (fifth) of trans-palmitoleic acid levels.[68]

Link (new window)
2012-02-22 04:26:25 PM  
2 votes:

Wolfy: TheWhaleShark: Think about it like this. Pasteurized milk causes 100 deaths in a year. Unpasteurized milk causes the same number, but is consumed at 1/150th the rate of pasteurized milk. Thus, if everyone was able to drink raw milk, we'd see 15,000 deaths in a year because of the product.

From the CDC:

From 1998 through 2009, 93 outbreaks due to consumption of raw milk or raw milk products were reported to CDC. These resulted in 1,837 illnesses, 195 hospitalizations, and 2 deaths. source (new window)

How to reconcile your claim with the above cited claim?


1) He was using round numbers to demonstrate a theoretical point.
2) Your reading comprehension is abysmal.
2012-02-22 03:25:57 PM  
2 votes:
Just read all this. from the CDC (new window) What's your problem with Food Irradiation? The CDC seems to think as long as the techs doing it don't bypass safety measures it is safe.
2012-02-22 02:47:59 PM  
2 votes:

jagec: TheWhaleShark:
/public health microbiologist

I guess you didn't become a real scientist because you couldn't understand statistics or the concept of acceptable risk, right?

There are so many public health issues that are MUCH more serious than raw milk, and that's the one that you focus on? Give me a break. You could make a far better public health case for banning hard liquor, and God help you if you tried.


Come on, man. I know, Welcome to Fark, and all that, but there's no need to disrespect the guy's profession. If microbiology is not a "real science", I wonder what your qualifications for defining "real science" are. I actually enjoy when people who have professional experience with the topic at hand join the thread and offer some real hands-on perspective on the subject matter. You don't have to agree with it, but at least it's a change from a bunch of us layman speculating about things.

Also you can't really blame him for caring more about raw milk issues over others, such as alcohol; he's a microbiologist, you know, he studies microorganisms. Which is far more applicable to raw milk than booze.
2012-02-22 01:08:35 PM  
2 votes:

jjwars1: The largest reason raw milk is dangerous is because people don't know how to handle it or extract it without contamination. Babies drink raw milk all the time from mother's teat. The "OMG raw milk will kill you crowd" is silly. If people want to drink raw milk let them. The risks are there. Big deal. Driving or riding in a car is more dangerous. Go worry about something else.


That's fine. Now should you be allowed to sell it? How about advertizing that it is perfectly safe and healthier for you?
2012-02-22 01:03:03 PM  
2 votes:
They don't care. Any evidence that it is far more dangerous has an answer, and their anecdote of "I've never gotten sick or known anyone that's gotten sick from raw milk" will trump any amount of scientific evidence that they could make themselves and their kids very, very sick.

I've tried it, but was still worried I could get sick. It's like playing with fire. It can be fun, until you burn down the orchard and outbuilding (in my defense I wasn't playing with fire, but burning the trash as I was told).

And then you've got books like "Nourishing Traditions" out there that advocate raw milk and include a whole bunch of woo regarding teeth health, as well as dismiss the risks associated with eating cow's brains as overblown and not worthy of consideration.
2012-02-22 12:54:16 PM  
2 votes:

talulahgosh: Aphoticamy: What is so great about drinking unpasteurized milk? I like milk, I don't drink a LOT of it, but I like it.

What are the health benefits? Why is it supposedly such a health drink? I'm just curious.

if it's been tampered with in ANY way, then it's automatically not healthy. non-pasteurized milk is the equivalent of not vaccinating your kids. you just don't get the science behind it and you don't care to get it.


I don't get the benefit of unpasteurized milk. Either the proponents are off on the "natural is automatically better even if its lethal" line of thought, or they don't know the difference between pasteurization and homogenization. Unhomogenized milk is tastier than homogenized because the homogenization process changes the milk fat structure. (To me, 2% unhomogenized tastes richer than homogenized whole milk.) But I think there are a lot of places where you can't get pasteurized unhomgenized milk.
2012-02-22 10:22:44 AM  
2 votes:

EatHam: Kazan: EatHam: 150 * 0 = 0

you do know that the pastueurization process was invented for a reason


of course you don't, that would right an anti-government kook like yourself to learn something and we all know that education is just The Mans way of filing your head with lies, amiright?

My point is that without saying what the regular risk noted, 150 times that risk is completely meaningless.



Actually it's 150 times more meaningless.
2012-02-22 10:04:42 AM  
2 votes:
A family member of mine has made the switch. This also meant going from 2% to whole milk. He wonders why he's gained 15 pounds lately, when his diet and exercise hasn't changed.
2012-02-22 09:58:36 AM  
2 votes:
Chances of pasteurized milk killing you: 0.0000000000001%
Chances of un-pasteurized milk killing you: 0.0000000000015%
2012-02-22 09:56:58 AM  
2 votes:

ytterbium: My friends gives her young kids raw milk. They're also unvaccinated and they have multiple alleries.

A recipe for disaster, it makes me worry.


How Darwinian. Personally, I'd encourage her.
2012-02-22 08:55:02 AM  
2 votes:

Teknowaffle: If you are over 16 there is no reason to drink milk. Grow up and eat real cheese.


Lactose tolerance is a freaky mutation, man. Anybody who drinks milk is a mutie freak.

/Lactose intolerant. Emphasis on intolerant.
2012-02-23 06:04:49 AM  
1 votes:
let me make this clear. bacteria is IN THE MILK. it can come from outside but it is also IN THE MILK.. therefore, any sanitation you provide will do nothing. the bacteria that cause tuberculosis in a cow can also infect you.
2012-02-22 08:07:00 PM  
1 votes:

Wolfy: RexTalionis: Bah. The personal freedoms thing.

Look, you're free to eat anything you want, drink anything you want, whatever. There is no law on the books that controls personal behavior of the consumers to drink raw milk.

I am not free to drink non-pasturied milk if I cannot acquire it. It's like saying I was free to drink coca cola in the Soviet Union when it was explicitly forbidden to be imported into the county. It is illegal to sell it and there by nearly impossible for me to acquire (unless I go through the expenses of raising my own cows- and even than, in Canada, that will get me in trouble).

There are laws, however, controlling the standard of goods that producers sell to the public. This isn't a personal freedoms issue, it's a regulation of commerce issue and public health policy.

I partially agree. Public health policy experts decided that making unpasturized milk legal for sale creates too much risk to society. The decision to make it illegal to sell is based on the fact these expets believe that risks it posses to society greatly outweigh the benefits it will offer to society. I guess this is where I disagree. I think you would agree that alcohol, cars, vegetables and raw meat all pose much greater health threat to society. However, their perceived benefits to society make them allowed legal. Especially in the case of cars and alcohol it would be hard to argue that the health benefits are not counterweighed by "freedom" concerns.


Let's put it this way, can we be in agreement that governments regulate the quality of alcohol, cars, vegetable and raw meat? And that this is a permissible function of the government?

Does the government allow producers to sell substandard alcohol, cars, vegetables and raw meat? Does the government allow producers to make and sell, for example, wine with antifreeze in it? Or cars without seat belts? Or listeria-tainted vegetables? Or rotting meat?

The answer, of course, is no.

Raw milk isn't a product by itself. It's a substandard and potentially dangerous version of consumable milk. While, yes, alcohol is dangerous, the government still has an interest in limiting the dangers to consumers. That's why tainted alcohol or adulterated alcohol isn't allowed to be sold. And no, producers have no personal freedoms to sell something that is deliberately substandard.
2012-02-22 07:11:23 PM  
1 votes:

micah1701: 60/39 = 153%.

PERCENT != TIMES

The lead headline should read "Unpasteurized milk, touted as the ultimate health food by some, is 1.5 times more likely to cause food-borne illness outbreaks than pasteurized milk"


But raw milk drinkers only make up 1% of the population, 99% drink pasteurized (per the article,) so what you really have is (60/39)*99 = 152+ TIMES as likely.

You get it now?
2012-02-22 07:01:46 PM  
1 votes:

Wolfy: The argument about non-pasteurized milk is about the balance of personal freedoms with the dangers to society.


Bah. The personal freedoms thing.

Look, you're free to eat anything you want, drink anything you want, whatever. There is no law on the books that controls personal behavior of the consumers to drink raw milk.

There are laws, however, controlling the standard of goods that producers sell to the public. This isn't a personal freedoms issue, it's a regulation of commerce issue and public health policy.
2012-02-22 05:39:49 PM  
1 votes:

relcec: lokisbong: relcec: has anyone ever tried requiring the farmer to wash the cow tit, then apply an iodine solution, then get a freshly cleaned and steamed suction cup to do the pumping? or do they just require the same procedures used for regular milking? just because something hasn't been attempted that doesn't make it impossible or necessarily even difficult.

All of the practices you mention were being used in the case I linked upthread. A lady ended up paralyzed anyway. The only difference between the raw milk she drank and the pasteurized milk they sold to stores was the skipping of the pasteurization process. It all even came from the same cows on the same milking machines.


I skimmed the link. how do you know what precautions EcoDairy was required to use use and did or did not use? I didn't see the article mention anything about regulations, except that I thought I saw a claim that unpasteurized farmers tend to use loopholes to skirt regulations.

and it was one farm was responsible for getting 16 people sick.

wouldn't it make more sense that this farm had a shiat safety program, or a lax farmhand, than that the farm had a really aggressive safety program and a particulate of dried cow dung just randomly floating through the air happened to land on something a few seconds between the cleaning process and the coupling of the cow to the machine enough times to make at least 16 different people sick enough to report their medical problems to authorities?


I have been to the dairy in question and watched them work. I was there to do some flooring repairs and we had to pass the milking area during the milking process. Since I had never seen how it was done before I stopped for a few and watched. There was no dried dung anywhere. Cow shiat in a dairy farm environment tends to be a soupy mud every where you look. Especially in northern California where it rains a lot.
2012-02-22 05:37:55 PM  
1 votes:

jjwars1: I wasn't trying to compare human milk to other animal milk, but rather pointing out that the milk coming out of the human teat is raw milk as well. The difference, as you pointed out, is cleanliness. Raw milk produced on a farm that uses proper farming and handling techniques is relatively safe, and not reason for people to get so threatened by it. If people want to drink raw milk let them. If you wanted to drink pasteurized milk nobody is stopping you. Too many laws, natural selection, etc, etc


No, it's not. And many upthread have explained why. It is impossible to extract milk in conditions clean enough to make it safe. And even were it possible, infection can still come directly from the cow, through the milk.

jjwars1: Raw milk, in many regards, is healthier


Citation needed. I'll go first, from the CDC:

Does pasteurization change milk's nutritional benefits?

No. Many studies have shown that pasteurization does not significantly change the nutritional value of milk and dairy products. All of the nutritional benefits of drinking milk are available from pasteurized milk without the risk of disease that comes with drinking raw milk.

Is it true that raw milk has more enzymes and nutrients than pasteurized milk?

While it's true that the heating process of pasteurization does inactivate some enzymes in milk, the enzymes in raw animal milk are not thought to be important in human health. Some nutrients are somewhat reduced in raw milk, but the United States diet generally has plenty of other sources of these nutrients. For example, vitamin C is reduced by pasteurization, but raw milk is not a major source of vitamin C.
(new window)
2012-02-22 05:25:23 PM  
1 votes:

jjwars1: The difference, as you pointed out, is cleanliness. Raw milk produced on a farm that uses proper farming and handling techniques is relatively safe, and not reason for people to get so threatened by it. If people want to drink raw milk let them. If you wanted to drink pasteurized milk nobody is stopping you. Too many laws, natural selection, etc, etc


Have you ever been to a dairy farm? I have. They tend to be covered in cow shiat. Cows and everyone who works there walk around in ankle deep shiat all day long. They pasteurize milk because you cannot keep a cow clean enough to be safe without clean room standards and those very expensive and would probably at least double the cost of milk products and reduce production because fully sterilizing a cow would take a lot longer per cow.
2012-02-22 05:20:15 PM  
1 votes:
Just gonna qoute this again for

jjwars1: Sometimes natural selection is a good thing, so I'd prefer we stop creating laws that protect people from themselves. The reason there are problems with raw milk all boils down to proper farming techniques, safe handling, processing/bottling, transportation, storage, etc. Raw milk *can* be safe. Perhaps the better solution would be to allow people to drink/buy raw milk with a warning label, so our freedom/right to put what we want in our body is not infringed upon even more than it already is.


TheWhaleShark: And you know what's even worse than all of this? Mycobacterium bovis can contaminate raw milk. That causes bovine tuberculosis. But you know what else it can cause? Human tuberculosis. And in some cases, it can become human-human transmissible after jumping the species barrier. It's also hypothesized that M. tuberculosis just split off from M. bovis. And of course, M. tuberculosis can be found in raw milk.


So it seems to me it is risking others health also if you drink Raw Milk. You just go on think drinking raw milk can be safe. The research says otherwise.
2012-02-22 05:06:22 PM  
1 votes:

Rent Party: Well, yeah they did eat it raw. And dried, and smoked, and cured. They ate all kinds of disgusting shiat. Lewis and Clark went to great lengths to describe them eating an elk they had felled. They gutted it, and ate the intestines right out of the animal, all zombie like. Are you suggesting that no one ate fish before refrigeration? Because that's what it sounds like, and that's dumb as all hell.

So, what is your point?


Eating raw fish pre-refrigeration is a good way to get parasites. Salmon was not eaten in sushi: As for salmon, it was never used for sashimi or sushi until very recently. The salmon was considered dangerous to serve for its higher chance of having parasites than bonito, and it was never eaten raw in Japan, but this was not true for the Ainu culture that lives in Northern Japan. They understood for centuries that freezing the salmon in the snow for a couple days makes it edible without any chance of stomach problems. Recent scientific studies concluded that all parasites linked to sushi can be killed off by freezing it at a temperature of -20 degrees Celsius (-4 degrees Fahrenheit) for 24 hours. Nothing tastes better than a pre-frozen fresh sashimi, but freeze treatment is often used on other fishes used for sashimi and sushi just to be extra safe about parasites. The good news is that most seafood have to be freezed anyways when they are transported. The question to ask is at what temperature and how long.
2012-02-22 05:06:09 PM  
1 votes:

lokisbong: relcec: has anyone ever tried requiring the farmer to wash the cow tit, then apply an iodine solution, then get a freshly cleaned and steamed suction cup to do the pumping? or do they just require the same procedures used for regular milking? just because something hasn't been attempted that doesn't make it impossible or necessarily even difficult.

All of the practices you mention were being used in the case I linked upthread. A lady ended up paralyzed anyway. The only difference between the raw milk she drank and the pasteurized milk they sold to stores was the skipping of the pasteurization process. It all even came from the same cows on the same milking machines.


I should have mentioned all those practices are used on the commercial pasteurized milk cows also.
2012-02-22 05:03:27 PM  
1 votes:

relcec: has anyone ever tried requiring the farmer to wash the cow tit, then apply an iodine solution, then get a freshly cleaned and steamed suction cup to do the pumping? or do they just require the same procedures used for regular milking? just because something hasn't been attempted that doesn't make it impossible or necessarily even difficult.


All of the practices you mention were being used in the case I linked upthread. A lady ended up paralyzed anyway. The only difference between the raw milk she drank and the pasteurized milk they sold to stores was the skipping of the pasteurization process. It all even came from the same cows on the same milking machines.
2012-02-22 04:49:05 PM  
1 votes:

inner ted: lokisbong: inner ted: exactly: where is the problem??? if farmers adhere to strict protocols of safety (just like these nice folks irradiating things) then why can't their product be "safe" as well??

there will always be those who cut corners and cheat. you just seem to think that this only applies to raw milk farms. i don't share that notion.

Irradiated food is not radioactive! So what's the danger? The only danger is to the people working in the plant if they side step safety protocols which would be like drinking raw milk...Stupid to the extreme. Raw milk can have every safety step taken and still be dangerous so I still don't see where you are coming from.

if every safety step is followed, then raw milk would not pose a threat. your (& others) examples stem from one or more of those safety measures being ignored or followed incorrectly.

you are making it out as something it is not.

as for irradiating food: some (including myself) view that as the nutritional equivalent to eating cardboard. it is a food product devoid of most or all of its nutritional qualities.


As has been stated upthread "Unless you actually decontaminate the cow and milk them in a cleanroom, you'll get environmental cross-contamination. It's a farm. There's shiat everywhere. Literally. The fecal-food contamination route is well-understood in the restaurant industry - it exists in all food production chains." Which would be extremely expensive! Thank you TheWhaleShark for wording that so well
2012-02-22 04:48:29 PM  
1 votes:

inner ted: lokisbong: inner ted: exactly: where is the problem??? if farmers adhere to strict protocols of safety (just like these nice folks irradiating things) then why can't their product be "safe" as well??

there will always be those who cut corners and cheat. you just seem to think that this only applies to raw milk farms. i don't share that notion.

Irradiated food is not radioactive! So what's the danger? The only danger is to the people working in the plant if they side step safety protocols which would be like drinking raw milk...Stupid to the extreme. Raw milk can have every safety step taken and still be dangerous so I still don't see where you are coming from.

if every safety step is followed, then raw milk would not pose a threat. your (& others) examples stem from one or more of those safety measures being ignored or followed incorrectly.

you are making it out as something it is not.

as for irradiating food: some (including myself) view that as the nutritional equivalent to eating cardboard. it is a food product devoid of most or all of its nutritional qualities.


[citation needed]

And as I said before, unless you milk your cows in a cleanroom, no amount of safe handling practices will reduce the rate of raw milk contamination below that of pasteurized milk. The lack of a kill step means that any environmental cross-contamination will get into the milk. And also remember that a cow can harbor an infection - and thus shed organisms into the milk - that you might not be noticing. Without pasteurization, you'll have nothing between you and the infected cow.

Pasteurization is a condom for milk.
2012-02-22 04:44:24 PM  
1 votes:

The_Homeless_Guy: There is evidence that the irradiation process can impact the food. Vitamins A + C seems to be easily degraded. There was the case of cats in Australia getting a demyelination disease from eating a diet that included cat food that had been extensively irradiated.


If this is the case it is easy enough to label the food as having less of the vitamins mentioned than unirradiated versions. Also telling is the phrase I bolded. If I understood what I have read on the subject our food wouldn't undergo such an extensive irradiation process. The article you linked also states "We think it is extremely unlikely that [irradiated food] could become a human health problem," Duncan explains. "We think it is species specific." Still not nearly as bad as being permanently paralyzed from raw milk
2012-02-22 04:19:48 PM  
1 votes:
As much as I hate to offend the sensibilities of some here (well, not really) I must point out that certain food regulations were put into place for damn good reasons.

Mainly, to not catch any diseases which had been killing off folks for generations.

That's also why we don't fertilize crops with cheap, readily available, human sewage. In most cases, treated human sewage -- melorganite (SP) -- is not allowed either. There are versions which are considered safe, but after the treatments, they aint so cheap.

Until fairly recently, you COULD safely eat raw meat, except pork, because the global demand had not pushed slaughter houses into over drive. (Though, it wasn't unusual for such places to sweep up the leavings from the floors and sell them -- dirt and all -- to companies for potted meat products. In the early 1900's.) Nor had American meat become so obnoxiously expensive that we had to import a large percentage from other nations with less concern over safety.

Until sometime in the 70's, cows milk was nearly considered a miracle food, especially after the FDA agreed to the addition of various supplements, like Vit D. When everyone went insane over cholesterol, that changed. Eventually healthy milk, whole or skimmed, was removed from the food pyramid and replaced with bottled water. Beef was replaced with fish.

Until the FDA came along, farmers would plant on contaminated land and sell the produce. Especially in areas around lead mines and those polluted with Mercury, which once was heavily used as a debarking agent in lumbering.

The Citrus tree is the ONLY plant that I know of which naturally filters contaminated water through it's roots, enabling growers to tap into major drainage ditches for irrigation.

Many food laws were enacted to keep us from killing ourselves. 'Organic or Natural' is NOT always healthy.

Plus, the booming global population means even greater chances of infecting the food supply unintentionally. More folks means more waste and more disease and increasingly less good farm land.
2012-02-22 04:11:03 PM  
1 votes:
Also, if you're interested in raw milk taste without the risk, you should look into high pressure processing:

HPP

From what I understand, the technology is expensive to implement on the small farm level.
2012-02-22 04:05:04 PM  
1 votes:

inner ted: exactly: where is the problem??? if farmers adhere to strict protocols of safety (just like these nice folks irradiating things) then why can't their product be "safe" as well??

there will always be those who cut corners and cheat. you just seem to think that this only applies to raw milk farms. i don't share that notion.


Irradiated food is not radioactive! So what's the danger? The only danger is to the people working in the plant if they side step safety protocols which would be like drinking raw milk...Stupid to the extreme. Raw milk can have every safety step taken and still be dangerous so I still don't see where you are coming from.
2012-02-22 04:02:34 PM  
1 votes:

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Very odd. This site is usually keyed-up to scream bloody murder at the mention of prohibition. "NANNY STATE!!! SNOWFLAKE!!!". But here, with what has to be the least important food-related danger of all time, it gets quite a bit of support.

/I once gave a man a glass of raw milk, just to watch him DIE!!!


See TheWhaleShark's posts. It isn't just a threat to you, but to others.
2012-02-22 03:58:11 PM  
1 votes:

jagec: TheWhaleShark:
Um, we do have handwashing laws. We have an incredible number of laws regulating food producers in the US, especially when it comes to restaurant cleanliness and employee handling practices. You know those signs that are all "Employees must wash hands" and such? Yeah, those are laws.

I mean, no, we can't make laws about handwashing in your homes or at work. But, I mean...you should really be washing your hands thoroughly. That's something that we try to communicate as hard as possible, and it still doesn't work.

I'm all about mandatory exercise in public schools. Gym class should be required, and the students should have to be physically active. There are lots of studies showing that physical activity actually improves academic performance. And while I can't really think of a way to get adults to do it, it's possible that encouraging that level of physical activity in kids will translate to better habits as adults.

So, we regulate what we reasonably can (farm level production) and otherwise engage in widespread informational campaigns to try to improve public health and reduce the burden of disease.

For what it's worth, by the way, almost all biologists (and many many chemists) are engaged in some manner of public health research. "Public Health" is a very applied field, this is true. But it's something that everyone really cares about, whether they know it or not.

Hey now, I already apologized for my dickish comment, now you're just rubbing it in. :-p

But I still think that there is a difference between the requirements for children (who don't have as many rights or as good judgement), food service employees (whose work will affect many people beyond themselves, and which often occurs behind the scenes where customers can't decide whether their sanitation standards are adequate), and regular ol' you and I (who should have a certain amount of leeway over the risks that we take).

OK, that was a horrible sentence, but try this. My current PI's ...


You did apologize, and I caught that. I was just writing a wall of text while you posted yours, so I didn't get to see it. You know how those walls of text go. :P

My actual primary problem with raw milk is the demographic of consumption. In many many cases, we see parents buying raw milk and feeding it to their children, who have no control over their own diet. The parents erroneously believe that the raw milk is healthier, and wind up subjecting their children to a wildly preventable chance of dying. I'm talking 5 year old kids dying or being permanently paralyzed. Fetuses being aborted. Stuff like that.

The decision there also poses an unreasonable danger to other children.

I mean, honestly, if an adult wants to OD on heroin, whatever. But subjecting a child or another person to an unreasonable risk of contracting a foodborne illness that carries a not-insignificant chance of dying is just, well, unacceptable.

We do also try very hard to control this by disseminating information and educating the public. It's not working. Flatly. Raw milk consumption is rising, and the burden of foodborne illness has shifted with it. We've actually virtually eliminated the majority of problems in meat - now we're looking at fresh produce and dairy as the biggest vectors.

It's an ever-changing field of study, too. The organisms we're dealing with are evolving as we're trying to figure out how to fight them. So the problematic foods change every few years, and we wind up chasing after them, trying to prevent people from dying.

I agree that some government regulations are stupid. The raw milk thing? That's really not a stupid regulation.
2012-02-22 03:51:06 PM  
1 votes:
I know of a gentleman that would sample the raw milk arriving at a cheese plant because "that's the way he always did it on the farm growing up". I also know that this gentleman contracted a horrible infection in his mouth.

While possibly unrelated - I tend to think otherwise.

/Pasteurization makes milk safer - period.
2012-02-22 03:42:45 PM  
1 votes:
Also, RE: raw milk cheeses and the 60-day aging process:

The 60-day requirement was an arbitrary thing set by the FDA a long time ago. At the time, there had been no reported illnesses from raw milk cheeses aged at least that long, so they figured "what the hell" and set the limit there. This is how science often works.

As we developed better investigative technologies, we've actually started finding organisms that survive the 60-day aging process. Which, by the way, is really freaking cool from a microbiological standpoint. Some of these bugs can persist for years in amazingly inhospitable environments.

The Malt-O-Meal company had a Salmonella contamination problem back in 1994 or so. They did a cleanup and continued production. In 2008, an outbreak of salmonellosis was traced to Malt-O-Meal, and it turns out that the strain in 2008 was the exact same strain that caused the 1994 outbreak. They scoured their entire facility until they discovered a reservoir of the bug hidden inside a concrete wall. It had seeped in through a crack and stayed there for 14 years.

Bacteria are amazing.

Anyhow, there have been recent outbreaks associated with raw milk cheeses aged 60+ days. We don't have a lot of information on this right now, though, since we haven't actually been looking at these cheeses for a long time. So all we know is that it's possible to contract a severe foodborne illness through aged raw milk cheese. Previously, we thought it didn't happen.
2012-02-22 03:40:24 PM  
1 votes:

namegoeshere: inner ted: lokisbong: Just read all this. from the CDC (new window) What's your problem with Food Irradiation? The CDC seems to think as long as the techs doing it don't bypass safety measures it is safe.

that is precious.

so as long as the correct safety measures are followed, the product should be safe???

are there 'irony' tags for posts?

Do you have [legit] info that irradiation is not safe? Because if so, I would be very interested in reading about it.


Radiation is scary, therefore food irradiation is dangerous.
2012-02-22 03:38:11 PM  
1 votes:

inner ted: lokisbong: Just read all this. from the CDC (new window) What's your problem with Food Irradiation? The CDC seems to think as long as the techs doing it don't bypass safety measures it is safe.

that is precious.

so as long as the correct safety measures are followed, the product should be safe???

are there 'irony' tags for posts?


Yeah that really answered my question. Stop being a douchebag and answer the question. This is taken directly from the CDC page I linked.
"Medical sterilization facilities have been operated in this country for more than 30 years, without a fatal accident. Over 100 such facilities are currently licensed, along with at least that many medical radiation treatment centers, and bone marrow transplant centers (which also use Cobalt 60 to irradiate patients). No events have been documented in this country that led to exposure of the population at large to radioactivity. In other countries, a small number of fatal incidents have been documented in which a worker by-passed multiple safety steps to enter the chamber while the source was exposed, resulting in a severe or even lethal radiation injury to themselves. "
The food system is essentially the same as the medical system so where is the problem?
2012-02-22 03:35:22 PM  
1 votes:

inner ted: TheWhaleShark: jagec: TheWhaleShark:
/public health microbiologist

I gues

stainedglassdoll: TheWhaleShark:

...
.


too long to quote apparently - but did you just advocate Irradiating all our food as a safety precaution???

if i read that incorrectly - my apologies.

if i read that correctly - i await your apology for suggesting something that freaking stupid. and go ahead and make that a 'double apology' for being an educated person suggesting something so dumb.


Yes, I am advocating food irradiation as a food safety precaution. I've studied the technology extensively. I've been to several international conferences about food safety technology, where I've read research from experts on the subject as well as attended lectures from those experts. I've had the chance to question them, too.

Food irradiation is harmless, and the benefits it provides are staggering. There is literally no reason not to do it. No, it does not make your food radioactive.

couldn't you just like, require raw milk producers to keep cow shiat off the f*cking milking apparatus, or something?


Actually, we do. The problem is that the nature of commodity makes it more prone to contamination anyhow.

Unless you actually decontaminate the cow and milk them in a cleanroom, you'll get environmental cross-contamination. It's a farm. There's shiat everywhere. Literally. The fecal-food contamination route is well-understood in the restaurant industry - it exists in all food production chains.

This is actually a really fascinating field of study when you get into it. Food production is amazingly complex and intricate. It's a farking crime that farmers in this country aren't earning a living wage - those guys are trying to do more for your health than you probably realize.
2012-02-22 03:19:43 PM  
1 votes:

lokisbong: relcec: couldn't you just like, require raw milk producers to keep cow shiat off the f*cking milking apparatus, or something?

In California where I used to live they had very strict regulations on keeping everything clean while milking and a lady still ended up Paralyzed from bad raw milk. So It seems just keeping things clean isn't enough to make sure its safe? I say ban the shiat but the nutjobs will freak out about taking away their freedoms.


The actual cow frequently harbors the disease (i.e. TB), though one should be able to tell if a cow is sick/not milk a sick cow. Still mistakes happen, which is why pasteurization is nice.
2012-02-22 03:19:42 PM  
1 votes:
I've only had whole milk in cheeses, but they certainly seemed to be tastier to me. Amongst all of the CDC reasons in their FAQ for not drinking it, they didn't once touch on taste differences. Since it sounds like most bacteria don't survive a 60 day aging process in a saline environment, I'd say that's on the safer side of things.



Kazan: Numerous studies have found that conjugated linoleic acid, found mainly in milk, meat and dairy products, provides several health benefits including prevention of atherosclerosis, different types of cancer, and hypertension and improved immune function.[64][65][65]

There is recent evidence suggesting consumption of milk is effective at promoting muscle growth[66] and improving post exercise muscle recovery.[67]

In 2010, scientists at the Harvard School of Public Health identified a substance in dairy fat, trans-palmitoleic acid, that may substantially reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes. The researchers examined participants who have been followed for 20 years in an observational study to evaluate risk factors for cardiovascular diseases in older adults. During followup it was found that individuals with higher circulating levels of trans-palmitoleic acid had a much lower risk of developing diabetes, with about a 60% lower risk among participants in the highest quintile (fifth) of trans-palmitoleic acid levels.[68]
Link (new window)


Brought to you by www.morrisvetcenter.com


The Angry Hand of God: I f*cking love milk. That is all.


Me too. More importantly, milk never tastes better than when it is stored in a glass vessel just slightly above freezing.

Evil Mackerel: Good thing that was shishimi sashimi.


FTFY. If you're gonna correct someone, don't Rotsky it.
2012-02-22 03:18:11 PM  
1 votes:

jagec: stainedglassdoll:
Come on, man. I know, Welcome to Fark, and all that, but there's no need to disrespect the guy's profession. If microbiology is not a "real science", I wonder what your qualifications for defining "real science" are. I actually enjoy when people who have professional experience with the topic at hand join the thread and offer some real hands-on perspective on the subject matter. You don't have to agree with it, but at least it's a change from a bunch of us layman speculating about things.


Well, fair enough, maybe I was a little too trollish there. But to answer your question, I will post this comic, and note that within biology, any sort of "public ___" focus tends to be considered "softer" by those of us who do straight research. Maybe we're just jealous that they actually help people.

[math.sfsu.edu image 640x266]

But seriously, if you're going to ban milk, you might as well start making handwashing laws and mandating exercise.


Um, we do have handwashing laws. We have an incredible number of laws regulating food producers in the US, especially when it comes to restaurant cleanliness and employee handling practices. You know those signs that are all "Employees must wash hands" and such? Yeah, those are laws.

I mean, no, we can't make laws about handwashing in your homes or at work. But, I mean...you should really be washing your hands thoroughly. That's something that we try to communicate as hard as possible, and it still doesn't work.

I'm all about mandatory exercise in public schools. Gym class should be required, and the students should have to be physically active. There are lots of studies showing that physical activity actually improves academic performance. And while I can't really think of a way to get adults to do it, it's possible that encouraging that level of physical activity in kids will translate to better habits as adults.

So, we regulate what we reasonably can (farm level production) and otherwise engage in widespread informational campaigns to try to improve public health and reduce the burden of disease.

For what it's worth, by the way, almost all biologists (and many many chemists) are engaged in some manner of public health research. "Public Health" is a very applied field, this is true. But it's something that everyone really cares about, whether they know it or not.
2012-02-22 03:15:23 PM  
1 votes:

relcec: couldn't you just like, require raw milk producers to keep cow shiat off the f*cking milking apparatus, or something?


In California where I used to live they had very strict regulations on keeping everything clean while milking and a lady still ended up Paralyzed from bad raw milk. So It seems just keeping things clean isn't enough to make sure its safe? I say ban the shiat but the nutjobs will freak out about taking away their freedoms.
2012-02-22 03:11:06 PM  
1 votes:

Carth: TheWhaleShark: And, uh, raw milk is definitely regulated in Europe. The whole issue is a topic of much debate in places like France and the UK. What you see much more of in Europe is a proliferation of soft-ripened raw milk cheese.

And they actually have higher incidences of gastrointestinal disease than we do.

It is also worth noting that most of these countries have some kind of widely-available health care and robust public health systems. The public health system in the US is sort of a joke.

The Official EU position (new window) is that raw milk is safe for human consumption and additional regulations are not required but allowed by individual countries.

When I was in France and Spain raw milk (and cheese) were readily available at just about any grocery store. If raw milk posed as great a risk as you're saying wouldn't countries with public health care systems be more likely to ban it? Why would they want to continue to sell things that place such a burden on the state run system.


Let me ask you this.

Does Europe have the same mega chains that Americans largely get their food from?

Do they have a system that rewards cutting corners and doles out minor punishments for health code violations/transgressions?

Do they have a tradition of buying a month's worth of food in one go?

Do they eat a large amount of cold cereal with milk?

Do European families pasteurize or otherwise cook that raw milk before serving it?

There are huge demographic differences between American and European consumers that render any comparison difficult at best.
2012-02-22 03:08:42 PM  
1 votes:

enad58: In Wisconsin the debate has been about farmers being able to drink their own milk that their farm produces. Right now a farmer can't legally go out and grab a cup of milk from their cows and add it to their pancake batter.

It has always been framed as a civil liberty issue to me.


Yes they can, nobody cares. The reason why they are fighting over it is that a farmer tried to be a smart ass and sell shares in his cows/farm. Thus he wasn't selling unpasteurized milk, he was simply giving it away to co-owners.

The state doesn't give a shiat if you drink your own milk/won't come after you. Try to sell it to someone else and they do.
2012-02-22 03:05:37 PM  
1 votes:

lokisbong: namegoeshere: Eh. It's legal in my state, sold on the farm only, with posted notice.

I dunno. Having nearly lost babby to foodborne e-coli, watching her scream and writhe in pain, filling diaper after diaper after diaper with bloody shiat, kidney function tests every 12 hours... There's a big part of me who thinks this should be banned. Because just as there are idiot anti-vaxers, there will always be idiot parents who will insist on feeding it to their children. And while you can blood test for alchohol, there is no way to prove that a parent did or didn't feed the kid raw milk.

/did not feed babby undercooked meat or raw milk.
//was careful with food prep before
///is now completely neurotic about it
////not 100% sure where it came from, most likely she touched something touched by someone with it on their hands, and put her hands in her mouth, as kids do.

Sorry about your kid getting so sick! That's gotta be damn scary. I posted a link way upthread about a lady who was paralyzed from drinking raw milk she got at a legal dairy after signing a liability waiver. I wouldn't drink that stuff if it was the only thing to drink in a ten mile radius. They were able to figure out what caused her illness so I say if a kid got sick and they could prove it was from raw milk Jail the idiots who fed the poor kid raw milk for child endangerment and abuse.


Tks. She's 8 now, no lasting effects, so it's all good. I do have an extended family member whom they sometimes visit who drinks the shiat. I have made it known that there will be slow, painful murder if raw milk gets anywhere near a child of mine.
2012-02-22 03:04:44 PM  
1 votes:

TheWhaleShark: stainedglassdoll: Just out of curiosity, I looked up other foods that are banned in the US. Link (new window)

It seems the majority of reasons for banning foods is due to animal welfare (endangered, cruel, etc).
The next biggest reason seems to be characteristic dangers of the food (sassafras has carcinogens, fugu is poisonous, though I believe fugu is not expressly banned in the US, but requires a license to serve).

It seems only raw milk is banned for contamination reasons, not for any inherent property of the milk itself (aside from its propensity to be contaminated). Just thought that was interesting.
Raw milk isn't banned nationwide. About half the states in the union have laws banning raw milk. The rest regulate its sale to some degree or another.

It should be banned, but I'm very close to giving up on explaining why to people.

I'll try anyhow:

1) Yes, raw milk is more likely to contain deadly pathogens than pasteurized milk.
2) As a result, the sale of raw milk is highly restricted, to prevent dissemination to the population.

Think about it like this. Pasteurized milk causes 100 deaths in a year. Unpasteurized milk causes the same number, but is consumed at 1/150th the rate of pasteurized milk. Thus, if everyone was able to drink raw milk, we'd see 15,000 deaths in a year because of the product.

This is, of course, a purely hypothetical exercise. The actual numbers would vary, but the principle is correct - widespread consumption of raw milk would lead to an increase in the burden placed on the public health system by extremely preventable foodborne illnesses.

And that's the thing - it's a public health issue. So maybe the per capita risk is something like 1/100,000 for raw milk and 1/10,000,000 for pasteurized. Whoop-de-doo, that means nothing to a single consumer. However, iterated out over the entire country, it's a huge difference.

Which leads me to:

3) Your health affects the health of the people around you.

This is increasingly a point which is getting lost on people. When you get sick, you increase the generalized burden on the public health system. You tap finite resources. More people getting sick means the resources are stretched further and further, to the point of breaking. This is why you have to get your farking children vaccinated - I know you can opt out, but you're an absolute mouthbreathing farktard if you do.

But there's an even greater problem. These pathogens are communicable. If you carry around a Salmonella infection, you can spread the organism to places where it wasn't before. The same is true of any bug. You know how smart people open a public bathroom door with a paper towel to avoid getting a cold? It applies to other microbes too, and if you're shedding bacteria, you can get those little buggers everywhere.

So now your decision to drink raw milk (or have your children unvaccinated, let's say) creates a greater chance that you will become a reservoir of disease. Then you'll go around interacting with people, spreading your disease around.

This is how outbreaks start.

And you know what's even worse than all of this? Mycobacterium bovis can contaminate raw milk. That causes bovine tuberculosis. But you know what else it can cause? Human tuberculosis. And in some cases, it can become human-human transmissible after jumping the species barrier. It's also hypothesized that M. tuberculosis just split off from M. bovis. And of course, M. tuberculosis can be found in raw milk.

So no, it's not just your own problem if you drink raw milk. It's my problem too. It's your school's problem. It's your workplace's problem.

And despite the fact that I am objectively correct, raw milk advocates will not change their minds.

It's really not a conspiracy. It's not a government plot. I just don't want people to farking die from diseases that by all rights simply should not be an issue. It's really farking simple. There's no trick to it. I don't get paid enough to matter. There's no shilling here.

It's honestly a bad idea. It's that simple.

/public health microbiologist


Thank you
2012-02-22 03:01:56 PM  
1 votes:

namegoeshere: Eh. It's legal in my state, sold on the farm only, with posted notice.

I dunno. Having nearly lost babby to foodborne e-coli, watching her scream and writhe in pain, filling diaper after diaper after diaper with bloody shiat, kidney function tests every 12 hours... There's a big part of me who thinks this should be banned. Because just as there are idiot anti-vaxers, there will always be idiot parents who will insist on feeding it to their children. And while you can blood test for alchohol, there is no way to prove that a parent did or didn't feed the kid raw milk.

/did not feed babby undercooked meat or raw milk.
//was careful with food prep before
///is now completely neurotic about it
////not 100% sure where it came from, most likely she touched something touched by someone with it on their hands, and put her hands in her mouth, as kids do.


Sorry about your kid getting so sick! That's gotta be damn scary. I posted a link way upthread about a lady who was paralyzed from drinking raw milk she got at a legal dairy after signing a liability waiver. I wouldn't drink that stuff if it was the only thing to drink in a ten mile radius. They were able to figure out what caused her illness so I say if a kid got sick and they could prove it was from raw milk Jail the idiots who fed the poor kid raw milk for child endangerment and abuse.
2012-02-22 03:01:19 PM  
1 votes:

RexTalionis: Carth: Raw milk is legal and unregulated throughout much of Europe. Why don't they see the level of deaths and disease transmission you're describing?

Hasn't there been documented outbreaks of diseases with high mortality like listeriosis that were often linked with consumption of raw milk and raw milk products in Europe?


plus it's not true that europeans don't pasteurize their milk. what is this, the 18th century?? they pasteurize their milk. they pasteurize their apple juice. yes, maybe some farmer over in europe doesn't pasteurize his own milk, but in general everyone does it.
where did you even get the idea that europeans don't pasteurize?

sanitation, it's what makes a country developed.
2012-02-22 02:58:28 PM  
1 votes:
And, uh, raw milk is definitely regulated in Europe. The whole issue is a topic of much debate in places like France and the UK. What you see much more of in Europe is a proliferation of soft-ripened raw milk cheese.

And they actually have higher incidences of gastrointestinal disease than we do.

It is also worth noting that most of these countries have some kind of widely-available health care and robust public health systems. The public health system in the US is sort of a joke.
2012-02-22 02:54:13 PM  
1 votes:

jagec: TheWhaleShark:
/public health microbiologist

I guess you didn't become a real scientist because you couldn't understand statistics or the concept of acceptable risk, right?

There are so many public health issues that are MUCH more serious than raw milk, and that's the one that you focus on? Give me a break. You could make a far better public health case for banning hard liquor, and God help you if you tried.


Hard liquor only kills you. If you decide to get into a car when you're totally blasted, and kill a bunch of people, that's not the liquor's fault, that's your fault for being an idiot.

Raw milk is hazardous by its very nature. Simply drinking it exposes other people to a greater risk of contracting fatal diseases.

And, by the way, public health scientists engage in risk assessment studies constantly. In fact, risk assessment is the primary focus of public health science, and it's rarely the focus of "real" science. There are different well-educated and well-researched opinions about just what constitutes "acceptable" risk, and these differing opinions come together to advise the public all the time.

But, y'know, not being a real scientist, I'm just making shiat up.

Oh, and the whole, "There are bigger problems to worry about, so go do something about them" is a logical fallacy of amazingly idiotic proportions. You can make that argument about any field of study.

stainedglassdoll: TheWhaleShark:

...

3) Your health affects the health of the people around you.

....

I mean, I totally understand and agree with you in principle. I'm not really a raw milk advocated, and I'm not hung up on the risks, (like I said, they are risks I'd never personally take), but more on the civil liberties thing. As a public health microbiologist, you're probably the right person to ask: where do you draw the line regarding banning raw milk, eggs, meat, leafy greens, sprouts, and other well known sources of salmonella, e. coli, and listeria? Is it that the risk for tuberculosis in raw milk is that much greater? I am genuinely curious, and since you are far more knowledgeable/experienced in the subject than I, I'll defer to your judgement.


Well, you can solve the eggs, meat, leafy greens, sprouts, and other produce problems easily: cook the food. Cooking is a kill step that greatly reduces the bacterial load in a product.

The problem with raw milk is that it skips pasteurization. Hence, there is no kill step applied. And the whole point of raw milk is that people (wrongly) think that pasteurization makes it less wholesome, so they don't want a kill step.

Also, if I could ban the consumption of raw sprouts, I would. Seriously, they're bad news. Don't eat sprouts.

But what's far more likely to work is 1) a nationwide focus on public health education to get consumers adequately prepared to handles these issues and 2) food farking irradiation.

If your food was all irradiated, I would probably not have a job.
2012-02-22 02:53:58 PM  
1 votes:

lokisbong: namegoeshere: lokisbong: stainedglassdoll: People should be able to eat whatever they want. That being said, there needs to be a clear warning label on raw dairy products that denotes the risks.

I fully support this idea. I will keep drinking my milk pasteurized and if some one wants to take the risks of drinking raw milk Let em. Just don't complain near me when you raw milk drinkers end up in a hospital dieing from some nasty bug in your raw milk or paralyzed like the lady in the article I linked to earlier.

What about the parents who will insist on feeding it to their children?

An age limit like alcohol? I think drinking unpasteurized is absolutely idiotic at any age. But if people are gonna biatch about personal freedoms I guess really large warnings on the containers and an age limit thing?


Eh. It's legal in my state, sold on the farm only, with posted notice.

I dunno. Having nearly lost babby to foodborne e-coli, watching her scream and writhe in pain, filling diaper after diaper after diaper with bloody shiat, kidney function tests every 12 hours... There's a big part of me who thinks this should be banned. Because just as there are idiot anti-vaxers, there will always be idiot parents who will insist on feeding it to their children. And while you can blood test for alchohol, there is no way to prove that a parent did or didn't feed the kid raw milk.

/did not feed babby undercooked meat or raw milk.
//was careful with food prep before
///is now completely neurotic about it
////not 100% sure where it came from, most likely she touched something touched by someone with it on their hands, and put her hands in her mouth, as kids do.
2012-02-22 02:53:03 PM  
1 votes:

Carth: Raw milk is legal and unregulated throughout much of Europe. Why don't they see the level of deaths and disease transmission you're describing?


Hasn't there been documented outbreaks of diseases with high mortality like listeriosis that were often linked with consumption of raw milk and raw milk products in Europe?
2012-02-22 02:48:44 PM  
1 votes:

Splinshints: TheWhaleShark: /public health microbiologist

You'd think a public health microbiologist would be more aware of things like odds....

Seriously, man, I know the raw milk people are complete and utter 'tards, but come on. If you want to go on a rampage against idiots who are putting the rest of us at risk, I'll bet worrying about the morons who don't wash their hands after they use the restroom are a much more concerning public health problem than the raw milk boneheads.


Surprisingly, humans are excellent multi-taskers and can focus on several different things during the course of their days.
2012-02-22 02:46:05 PM  
1 votes:

lokisbong: namegoeshere: lokisbong: stainedglassdoll: People should be able to eat whatever they want. That being said, there needs to be a clear warning label on raw dairy products that denotes the risks.

I fully support this idea. I will keep drinking my milk pasteurized and if some one wants to take the risks of drinking raw milk Let em. Just don't complain near me when you raw milk drinkers end up in a hospital dieing from some nasty bug in your raw milk or paralyzed like the lady in the article I linked to earlier.

What about the parents who will insist on feeding it to their children?

An age limit like alcohol? I think drinking unpasteurized is absolutely idiotic at any age. But if people are gonna biatch about personal freedoms I guess really large warnings on the containers and an age limit thing?


Problem is, in my experience the raw milk drinkers don't want that label on the stuff, because they know it will turn people off. Then in the next breath they will rant about how we don't label foods with GMO ingredients as having GMO in them.

Difference being, we have scientific evidence that raw milk can be harmful, but last I looked, evidence that GMO corn and soy can be harmful to humans has not been found despite scientists studying their effects. And yes, scientists are looking at this, despite what you hear from the anti-GMO crowd.
2012-02-22 02:40:31 PM  
1 votes:

TheWhaleShark: stainedglassdoll: Just out of curiosity, I looked up other foods that are banned in the US. Link (new window)

It seems the majority of reasons for banning foods is due to animal welfare (endangered, cruel, etc).
The next biggest reason seems to be characteristic dangers of the food (sassafras has carcinogens, fugu is poisonous, though I believe fugu is not expressly banned in the US, but requires a license to serve).

It seems only raw milk is banned for contamination reasons, not for any inherent property of the milk itself (aside from its propensity to be contaminated). Just thought that was interesting.
Raw milk isn't banned nationwide. About half the states in the union have laws banning raw milk. The rest regulate its sale to some degree or another.

It should be banned, but I'm very close to giving up on explaining why to people.

I'll try anyhow:

1) Yes, raw milk is more likely to contain deadly pathogens than pasteurized milk.
2) As a result, the sale of raw milk is highly restricted, to prevent dissemination to the population.

Think about it like this. Pasteurized milk causes 100 deaths in a year. Unpasteurized milk causes the same number, but is consumed at 1/150th the rate of pasteurized milk. Thus, if everyone was able to drink raw milk, we'd see 15,000 deaths in a year because of the product.

This is, of course, a purely hypothetical exercise. The actual numbers would vary, but the principle is correct - widespread consumption of raw milk would lead to an increase in the burden placed on the public health system by extremely preventable foodborne illnesses.

And that's the thing - it's a public health issue. So maybe the per capita risk is something like 1/100,000 for raw milk and 1/10,000,000 for pasteurized. Whoop-de-doo, that means nothing to a single consumer. However, iterated out over the entire country, it's a huge difference.

Which leads me to:

3) Your health affects the health of the people around you.

This is increasingly a point which is getting lost on people. When you get sick, you increase the generalized burden on the public health system. You tap finite resources. More people getting sick means the resources are stretched further and further, to the point of breaking. This is why you have to get your farking children vaccinated - I know you can opt out, but you're an absolute mouthbreathing farktard if you do.

But there's an even greater problem. These pathogens are communicable. If you carry around a Salmonella infection, you can spread the organism to places where it wasn't before. The same is true of any bug. You know how smart people open a public bathroom door with a paper towel to avoid getting a cold? It applies to other microbes too, and if you're shedding bacteria, you can get those little buggers everywhere.

So now your decision to drink raw milk (or have your children unvaccinated, let's say) creates a greater chance that you will become a reservoir of disease. Then you'll go around interacting with people, spreading your disease around.

This is how outbreaks start.

And you know what's even worse than all of this? Mycobacterium bovis can contaminate raw milk. That causes bovine tuberculosis. But you know what else it can cause? Human tuberculosis. And in some cases, it can become human-human transmissible after jumping the species barrier. It's also hypothesized that M. tuberculosis just split off from M. bovis. And of course, M. tuberculosis can be found in raw milk.

So no, it's not just your own problem if you drink raw milk. It's my problem too. It's your school's problem. It's your workplace's problem.

And despite the fact that I am objectively correct, raw milk advocates will not change their minds.

It's really not a conspiracy. It's not a government plot. I just don't want people to farking die from diseases that by all rights simply should not be an issue. It's really farking simple. There's no trick to it. I don't get paid enough to matter. There's no shilling here.

It's honestly a bad idea. It's that simple.

/public health microbiologist


Thread over.
2012-02-22 02:34:52 PM  
1 votes:

namegoeshere: lokisbong: stainedglassdoll: People should be able to eat whatever they want. That being said, there needs to be a clear warning label on raw dairy products that denotes the risks.

I fully support this idea. I will keep drinking my milk pasteurized and if some one wants to take the risks of drinking raw milk Let em. Just don't complain near me when you raw milk drinkers end up in a hospital dieing from some nasty bug in your raw milk or paralyzed like the lady in the article I linked to earlier.

What about the parents who will insist on feeding it to their children?


An age limit like alcohol? I think drinking unpasteurized is absolutely idiotic at any age. But if people are gonna biatch about personal freedoms I guess really large warnings on the containers and an age limit thing?
2012-02-22 02:10:52 PM  
1 votes:

neuroflare: dahmers love zombie: ytterbium: My friends gives her young kids raw milk. They're also unvaccinated and they have multiple alleries.

A recipe for disaster, it makes me worry.

How Darwinian. Personally, I'd encourage her.

Too bad you can't call CPS for that


It's only a matter of time before the deaths start stacking up. It happened in England when Andrew Wakefield first released his fraudulent findings, and the vaccination rate didn't tick up until a few kids had died and people got some personal experience with the measles or knew of someone that had.
2012-02-22 02:09:55 PM  
1 votes:
infectious bacteria are in the actual milk, not just on the cow or in its shiat. tuberculosis is one example.
2012-02-22 02:07:05 PM  
1 votes:
The food safety laws are there to protect consumers. You want to be an idiot, go ahead. You want to sell you idiocy to others then you get to explain yourself to a jduge.
2012-02-22 02:05:34 PM  
1 votes:

catchow: Wanna know how I know you've never been in a milking parlor? Or a barnyard? Or a pasture? Or even looked at a cow's udders? Or a cow?

Pastured cows shiat constantly as a consequence of their all-grass diet (grass isn't just fibrous, it takes up silica from the soil). Said shiat is more liquid than solid. It annoints their tails and runs down their backsides, the insides of their thights, and their udders. Without rotational grazing, cattle will quickly turn a small pasture or milking yard into a sea of liquid feces. They also crap in streams & farm ponds. While they're chewing their cud, cattle may stand motionless for hours, dragging their udders in waste or soaking them in bacteria-laden water.

Once they get into the milking parlor, even after their udders have been washed and the teats hooked up to the machine, there's nothing to stop them from continuing to shiat all over themselves and each other.

/Non-homogenized, pasteurized chocolate milk is the shizzle.


Thanks for the vivid visual.
2012-02-22 02:03:57 PM  
1 votes:

lokisbong: stainedglassdoll: People should be able to eat whatever they want. That being said, there needs to be a clear warning label on raw dairy products that denotes the risks.

I fully support this idea. I will keep drinking my milk pasteurized and if some one wants to take the risks of drinking raw milk Let em. Just don't complain near me when you raw milk drinkers end up in a hospital dieing from some nasty bug in your raw milk or paralyzed like the lady in the article I linked to earlier.


What about the parents who will insist on feeding it to their children?
2012-02-22 02:03:33 PM  
1 votes:
One of the more famous unpasteurized milk stories.
Henry ford forced his son, Edsel, to drink the stuff from the cows on their family farm.
He died from undulant fever (Brucellosis), a particularly nasty bug that can be found in unpasteurized milk. Once the parasites from this get into you, even if you don't die they are with you for life.

Yeah... cook it.
2012-02-22 02:00:52 PM  
1 votes:

ko_kyi: Rent Party: What did they do before the advent of refrigeration?

A. Not eat it in the summer

B. Lived with the parasites, as most people in the world do.


There are some interesting theories about the correlation between lack of parasites in first-world countries, and the increase in allergies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/health/01iht-01prof.14122951.html?p a gewanted=all
2012-02-22 01:57:45 PM  
1 votes:

stainedglassdoll: People should be able to eat whatever they want. That being said, there needs to be a clear warning label on raw dairy products that denotes the risks.


I fully support this idea. I will keep drinking my milk pasteurized and if some one wants to take the risks of drinking raw milk Let em. Just don't complain near me when you raw milk drinkers end up in a hospital dieing from some nasty bug in your raw milk or paralyzed like the lady in the article I linked to earlier.
2012-02-22 01:57:42 PM  
1 votes:

Rent Party: Nurglitch: PsyLord:

Um, yeah, you know that the sushi, at least, is specially frozen to remove pathogens, right?

What did they do before the advent of refrigeration?

I chill sushi because it is easier to cut when it's cold.


They didn't eat salmon, for one.
2012-02-22 01:56:21 PM  
1 votes:

moops: Slightly related CSB: I stopped eating all dairy products (and all animal products including meat) about six weeks ago. Almost overnight, my respiratory allergies (mostly stuffy nose) disappeared.

Can anyone explain this?


Dairy like milk and cheese stimulate the formation of mucus.
2012-02-22 01:55:45 PM  
1 votes:

Wolfy: All these things are increasing the risks on other people. All these things are taking resources from other people.


None of those things introduce bystanders to Listeria or Salmonella.


Trust me once I have kids they are coming hiking with me in the high sierra. And once my kids come back from school I will not put them in holding zone to isolate me from the scary germs they brought from school.


Neither does going to school.

Hypothetical: Would you be OK with your kid sitting next to someone who came back from Central America with a case of measles? Does the school have a right to prevent kids with known infectious diseases from coming to school? After all, there are already risks associated with going to school, and there's no guarantee that your child will contract the disease from the sick kid.
2012-02-22 01:55:06 PM  
1 votes:
No, people should not just "be able" to get raw milk in the store. People are stupid. Especially people with children.

It might be hard to prove if some dumb mum sickens her child by feeding it raw milk. Charge the mother with law violation like she'd be charged if she smoked her toddler out or got it drunk? Probably not.

So, no, people should not just "be able" to get raw milk. There are food safety laws for a good damn reason in the DEVELOPED WORLD.

/think of the children
2012-02-22 01:52:12 PM  
1 votes:

jagec: Jubeebee:
The difference between doing those things and drinking raw milk is that hiking the high sierra doesn't carry a risk that you'll infect your children and co-workers with a serious disease.

You're allowed to do all sorts of stupid, dangerous things as long as the only person harmed is YOU. When you start exposing yourself to communicable disease vectors for stupid reasons you become a danger to the public health, and therefore our public authorities can and should stop you from doing that stupid, dangerous thing before you hurt the people around you.

So what you're saying is that you're in the habit of eating your co-workers' infected shiat? Do you work in porn?

Because most food-borne illnesses are fecal-oral, and that's easy to avoid unless you're a filthy bastard.


I work with a guy that is proud of the fact that "He doesn't get shiat on his hands when he wipes his ass" so he doesn't wash his hands. He also licks a knife clean in our lunchroom and puts it back in the drawer.

So even if you are not a filthy bastard, others around you might be, and you would never know unless they proclaim it or you catch them in the act.
2012-02-22 01:48:47 PM  
1 votes:

jagec: Jubeebee:
The difference between doing those things and drinking raw milk is that hiking the high sierra doesn't carry a risk that you'll infect your children and co-workers with a serious disease.

You're allowed to do all sorts of stupid, dangerous things as long as the only person harmed is YOU. When you start exposing yourself to communicable disease vectors for stupid reasons you become a danger to the public health, and therefore our public authorities can and should stop you from doing that stupid, dangerous thing before you hurt the people around you.

So what you're saying is that you're in the habit of eating your co-workers' infected shiat? Do you work in porn?

Because most food-borne illnesses are fecal-oral, and that's easy to avoid unless you're a filthy bastard.


Raw milk enthusiast takes a shiat in the bathroom, doesn't use soap when he rinses his hands in the sink afterwards. If you've worked in an office, you know this isn't uncommon. Goes into the cafeteria, sees a tray of cookies someone brought in. He pushes a couple around before grabbing the one he wants. Whoever eats the cookies he touched is at risk of contracting whatever nasty disease he's harboring from the raw milk.

We can't force people to wash their hands properly, but we can shut down food producers who distribute food that serves as disease vectors.
2012-02-22 01:46:34 PM  
1 votes:
: jjwars1 : The largest reason raw milk is dangerous is because people don't know how to handle it or extract it without contamination. Babies drink raw milk all the time from mother's teat. The "OMG raw milk will kill you crowd" is silly. If people want to drink raw milk let them. The risks are there. Big deal. Driving or riding in a car is more dangerous. Go worry about something else.


Does one suck the milk directly from the teat of one specific cow who sees a doctor regularly and is in good health, washes at least daily, shiats in a place far removed from where it stands, and keeps its udder clean under protective garments?

Because otherwise there is no comparison.
2012-02-22 01:44:15 PM  
1 votes:

jjwars1: The largest reason raw milk is dangerous is because people don't know how to handle it or extract it without contamination. Babies drink raw milk all the time from mother's teat. The "OMG raw milk will kill you crowd" is silly. If people want to drink raw milk let them. The risks are there. Big deal. Driving or riding in a car is more dangerous. Go worry about something else.


Mom's teat is safe because mom doesn't have Listeria (Listeriosis). Well, unless she's been drinking raw milk. Then, yes, her teat may be poison.

It's an interesting question how far the government needs to go to protect people from themselves. But that's WHAT THE FDA DOES. For backstory, look back to the days of patent medicine, where like 60% of the products on the shelf had no active ingredients (snake oil, still exists as "homeopathic medicine"), 30% were cocaine, alcohol, or amphetamine being sold as medical cures for "whatever", and 10% were just plain poisonous and could do things like destroy kidneys or the liver with alarming consistency.

I do not doubt there's a basis for a mandate for the government to protect people from themselves. How far to take it is up for debate. But the danger of raw milk is well documented, whereas the purported benefits are not.
2012-02-22 01:41:49 PM  
1 votes:
Not if it's Tuscan Whole Milk, 1 Gallon, 128 fl oz

That drink will change your life, man.
2012-02-22 01:40:04 PM  
1 votes:

catchow: iheartscotch: Ok; put me squarely down in the meh camp. If someone wants to drink raw/unpaturized milk; let 'em. It's their own damn fault if they get sick.

Also, as long as the cow isn't standing in her own shiat, her utters were washed beforehand and the milk is stored in a clean, cold vessel; the risk is minimial.

If you're getting the milk from bessy out in the barn; it's ok. But, if you're getting it from a commercial dairy; it's not.



Wanna know how I know you've never been in a milking parlor? Or a barnyard? Or a pasture? Or even looked at a cow's udders? Or a cow?

Pastured cows shiat constantly as a consequence of their all-grass diet (grass isn't just fibrous, it takes up silica from the soil). Said shiat is more liquid than solid. It annoints their tails and runs down their backsides, the insides of their thights, and their udders. Without rotational grazing, cattle will quickly turn a small pasture or milking yard into a sea of liquid feces. They also crap in streams & farm ponds. While they're chewing their cud, cattle may stand motionless for hours, dragging their udders in waste or soaking them in bacteria-laden water.

Once they get into the milking parlor, even after their udders have been washed and the teats hooked up to the machine, there's nothing to stop them from continuing to shiat all over themselves and each other.

/Non-homogenized, pasteurized chocolate milk is the shizzle.


My first jobs were in dairy. I would like to not thank you for taking me back to the good old days.

Cows are filthy, stupid beasts happy to wallow in their own shiat.
2012-02-22 01:39:13 PM  
1 votes:
People should be able to eat whatever they want. That being said, there needs to be a clear warning label on raw dairy products that denotes the risks. I personally would never drink raw milk straight (mildly lactose intolerant, anyways, so I drink whole fat Lactaid), although I will buy a small amount of raw-milk Parmigiano-Reggiano for grating once in awhile. Arbitrary? Perhaps. I never get less than whole fat dairy, though, blech.

I'm more saddened about the risks involved with alfalfa/clover sprouts. They are SO delicious raw on sandwiches, but I rarely feel truly comfortable eating them, since there always seems to be some recall out there. Apparently, it's suspected that the contamination gets into the seeds from different seed lots, so the cleanliness of the growing operation makes no difference, which makes me even more uneasy. :(
2012-02-22 01:32:03 PM  
1 votes:

Russ1642: Rapmaster2000: Rent Party: jagec: Russ1642: Next up will be a movement of people not fully cooking hamburgers. Grab you unpasteurized buttered popcorn and sit back for the show.

Actually, medium-rare hamburgers are DELICIOUS. But I don't try to pretend that they aren't more likely to make me sick than the boring fully cooked kind.

If you want rare, order a steak. Ground beef is the assholes and elbows of the cow, generally. I want mine burned all the way through.

Ground beef certainly is because it's nondescript. You can't go wrong with ground sirloin or ground chuck though.

Ground sirloin is ground beef.


In the technical sense. In the butcher sense, ground sirloin is ground meat from the short loin which could include but is not limited to strip, filet, etc. Ground chuck is shoulder (a lower grade - higher fat), and ground round is from the upper thigh (even lower). Ground sirloin and ground chuck are frequently done in the supermarket - even in a midlevel supermarket like Publix. Ground beef is everything that isn't good enough to be used as whole cuts for sale - re: anything. It's done at a meat packing facility.

Processing raw foods is dangerous not just because of the meat but all the equipment involved needs to be kept super clean. Cooking meat eliminates most of the hazards that come up during the processing, packaging, distribution, and storage of meat.

Yeah yeah. I don't worry about it.
2012-02-22 01:31:50 PM  
1 votes:

Rent Party: What did they do before the advent of refrigeration?


A. Not eat it in the summer

B. Lived with the parasites, as most people in the world do.
2012-02-22 01:29:44 PM  
1 votes:

filter: Inlaws run a dairy operation - I have seen plenty of bucket milk head straight to the kitchen. No one died from it yet.


One of my friends once jumped off a hotel balcony into a swimming pool and didn't die. Since it's clearly safe, I encourage you to try it.
2012-02-22 01:25:15 PM  
1 votes:

jagec:
Rapmaster2000: They do it for taste and not for health, Chachi.

The sane ones do it for taste and not for health, but trust me, there are plenty of loony people out there who think that cooking food is somehow bad for you, and responsible for the downfall of society.


I was referring to "foodies".

Of course, that relies on my interpretation of what foodies are and not some other interpretation of what a foodie is. Of course, a foodie would never admit to being a foodie. See also: hipster.
2012-02-22 01:24:45 PM  
1 votes:

micah1701: where are they getting the 150 TIMES from?

FTA: the survey found 121 outbreaks linked to dairy products in which it was known whether the milk was pasteurized or unpasteurized (also called "raw"). Of those, 60% were caused by raw milk and 39% by pasteurized milk.

60/39 = 153%.

PERCENT != TIMES

The lead headline should read "Unpasteurized milk, touted as the ultimate health food by some, is 1.5 times more likely to cause food-borne illness outbreaks than pasteurized milk"


Unless they are also including the percent of consumed milk that is raw compared to pasteurized.

If, for ease of math, exactly 50% of dairy related disease outbreaks are attributable to unpasteurized and 50% to regular but for every ounce of raw milk consumed we on average consume 150 ounces of pasteurized milk then per serving raw milk is 150 times more dangerous.

/I assume that's what they were doing.
2012-02-22 01:24:10 PM  
1 votes:

moops: Slightly related CSB: I stopped eating all dairy products (and all animal products including meat) about six weeks ago. Almost overnight, my respiratory allergies (mostly stuffy nose) disappeared.

Can anyone explain this?


Milk stimulates mucus production?
2012-02-22 01:24:08 PM  
1 votes:

iheartscotch: Ok; put me squarely down in the meh camp. If someone wants to drink raw/unpaturized milk; let 'em. It's their own damn fault if they get sick.

Also, as long as the cow isn't standing in her own shiat, her utters were washed beforehand and the milk is stored in a clean, cold vessel; the risk is minimial.

If you're getting the milk from bessy out in the barn; it's ok. But, if you're getting it from a commercial dairy; it's not.



Wanna know how I know you've never been in a milking parlor? Or a barnyard? Or a pasture? Or even looked at a cow's udders? Or a cow?

Pastured cows shiat constantly as a consequence of their all-grass diet (grass isn't just fibrous, it takes up silica from the soil). Said shiat is more liquid than solid. It annoints their tails and runs down their backsides, the insides of their thights, and their udders. Without rotational grazing, cattle will quickly turn a small pasture or milking yard into a sea of liquid feces. They also crap in streams & farm ponds. While they're chewing their cud, cattle may stand motionless for hours, dragging their udders in waste or soaking them in bacteria-laden water.

Once they get into the milking parlor, even after their udders have been washed and the teats hooked up to the machine, there's nothing to stop them from continuing to shiat all over themselves and each other.

/Non-homogenized, pasteurized chocolate milk is the shizzle.
2012-02-22 01:22:40 PM  
1 votes:

Rapmaster2000: Rent Party: jagec: Russ1642: Next up will be a movement of people not fully cooking hamburgers. Grab you unpasteurized buttered popcorn and sit back for the show.

Actually, medium-rare hamburgers are DELICIOUS. But I don't try to pretend that they aren't more likely to make me sick than the boring fully cooked kind.

If you want rare, order a steak. Ground beef is the assholes and elbows of the cow, generally. I want mine burned all the way through.

Ground beef certainly is because it's nondescript. You can't go wrong with ground sirloin or ground chuck though.


Ground sirloin is ground beef. Processing raw foods is dangerous not just because of the meat but all the equipment involved needs to be kept super clean. Cooking meat eliminates most of the hazards that come up during the processing, packaging, distribution, and storage of meat.
2012-02-22 01:19:57 PM  
1 votes:

Evil Mackerel: Nurglitch: PsyLord:

Um, yeah, you know that the sushi, at least, is specially frozen to remove pathogens, right?

Good thing that was shishimi.


The same fish is flash frozen to kill or forestall bacterial growth.
2012-02-22 01:19:46 PM  
1 votes:
There should be a very strong "buyer beware" statement, similar to those attached to alcohol and tobacco products. But if somebody really wants raw milk, for whatever dietary reason they can think of, they should be able to get it.
2012-02-22 01:19:15 PM  
1 votes:

Rent Party: jagec: Russ1642: Next up will be a movement of people not fully cooking hamburgers. Grab you unpasteurized buttered popcorn and sit back for the show.

Actually, medium-rare hamburgers are DELICIOUS. But I don't try to pretend that they aren't more likely to make me sick than the boring fully cooked kind.

If you want rare, order a steak. Ground beef is the assholes and elbows of the cow, generally. I want mine burned all the way through.


Places that will cook a burger med-rare usually use higher quality ground beef. Some places will actually GRIND UP FILET and make a hamburger out of it. Something about that seems a bit sacrilegious to me, but I guess no one looks down on steak tartare, right?

Rapmaster2000: They do it for taste and not for health, Chachi.


The sane ones do it for taste and not for health, but trust me, there are plenty of loony people out there who think that cooking food is somehow bad for you, and responsible for the downfall of society.
2012-02-22 01:16:13 PM  
1 votes:

jagec: Russ1642: Next up will be a movement of people not fully cooking hamburgers. Grab you unpasteurized buttered popcorn and sit back for the show.

Actually, medium-rare hamburgers are DELICIOUS. But I don't try to pretend that they aren't more likely to make me sick than the boring fully cooked kind.


I had a very undercooked hamburger once. They were having a cookout at work and the burgers were really thick. They were taking too long to fully cook so we just ate them. And yes, they taste fantastic, but it isn't worth it.
2012-02-22 01:14:20 PM  
1 votes:

machoprogrammer: ^ This. Raw milk is consumed much less, which makes those numbers even scarier. Anyone who drinks raw milk over pasteurized is a retard. There is no health benefit to raw milk over unpasteurized, unless getting violently ill is a health benefit.


You are right everyone who drinks raw milk over pasteurized milk is subject to a higher risk of a number terrible diseases. Yet, should that be a reason to ban it?

Does eating raw fish over cooked fish result in a similar increase in risk? Does eating rare or blue steak over well done steak result in a similar increase in risk? Does hiking the high sierra over taking a walk in your local park result in a similar increase in risk? Does drinking a bottle of beer over a glass of water result in a similar increase in risk?

I don't want anyone to tell me not to eat sushi, delicious bloody steak, drink beer or go hiking in the high sierra. The government is responsible to help educate the population about risks they would not otherwise know... Even ensure some standard of hygiene... But lets be smart about this, and allow people to make their own informed decisions about how they live their life.

/For the record I have had raw milk only a few times in my life. It is far richer and more delicious than regular whole milk. However, I wouldn't drink it often. Once in a few years is an acceptable risk in my mind.
2012-02-22 01:13:31 PM  
1 votes:

Jubeebee: You don't see a difference between a baby drinking its mother's milk, and an adult of one species drinking the milk of another species? You think the risks of disease are the same in both cases?


Especially if the latter milk was collected in a bucket on the ground next to a shiatload of cows.
2012-02-22 01:12:46 PM  
1 votes:

jagec: Russ1642: Next up will be a movement of people not fully cooking hamburgers. Grab you unpasteurized buttered popcorn and sit back for the show.

Actually, medium-rare hamburgers are DELICIOUS. But I don't try to pretend that they aren't more likely to make me sick than the boring fully cooked kind.


There are two kinds of hamburgers I am willing to eat: Medium-rare ones, and well-done ones cooked by people who aren't me.
2012-02-22 01:10:45 PM  
1 votes:

jagec: Russ1642: Next up will be a movement of people not fully cooking hamburgers. Grab you unpasteurized buttered popcorn and sit back for the show.

Actually, medium-rare hamburgers are DELICIOUS. But I don't try to pretend that they aren't more likely to make me sick than the boring fully cooked kind.


If you want rare, order a steak. Ground beef is the assholes and elbows of the cow, generally. I want mine burned all the way through.
2012-02-22 01:09:47 PM  
1 votes:

Nurglitch: PsyLord:

Um, yeah, you know that the sushi, at least, is specially frozen to remove pathogens, right?


Good thing that was shishimi.
2012-02-22 01:09:09 PM  
1 votes:

Russ1642: Next up will be a movement of people not fully cooking hamburgers. Grab you unpasteurized buttered popcorn and sit back for the show.


Actually, medium-rare hamburgers are DELICIOUS. But I don't try to pretend that they aren't more likely to make me sick than the boring fully cooked kind.
2012-02-22 01:08:33 PM  
1 votes:

Rent Party: Nurglitch: PsyLord:

Um, yeah, you know that the sushi, at least, is specially frozen to remove pathogens, right?

What did they do before the advent of refrigeration?

I chill sushi because it is easier to cut when it's cold.


They probably ate it on the boat or on the dock the same day they caught it. I don't think people were shipping fresh unpreserved fish very far inland in those days.
2012-02-22 01:07:42 PM  
1 votes:
www.notablebiographies.com

"Are you people farking stupid?"
2012-02-22 01:03:21 PM  
1 votes:

jayhawk88: Man, I'm gonna drink me some raw milk.

*Six days of violent illness*

Hey, I lost 10 pounds! Raw milk is a wonder!


I'm staring at a bottle of raw milk right now. Could this be my new diet plan?

I was a victim in the Great Jalepeno Salmonella Outbreak of '08. I lost 20 lbs in a most unpleasant manner, so I might just head back to the gym instead.
2012-02-22 12:58:35 PM  
1 votes:

karmaceutical: I don't know about "Foodies" but it seems like the whole raw-milk thing has a lot more overlap with the anti-government nutball circles.


Ding.

The same people who crusade for the freedom to kill themselves are the first ones to sue the government for allowing it when one of their number succeeds.
2012-02-22 12:57:36 PM  
1 votes:
Look, my ancestors spent thousands of years developing the mastery of fire and trying to stave off disease.

I for one am not going to go around disrespecting their achievement by drinking unpasteurized milk, or eating uncooked meat!

/smile
2012-02-22 12:56:35 PM  
1 votes:
People forget how many people died prior to the 20th century due to bad milk.

I don't know why people think that since we have such a advanced society that we are somehow immune to the problems of the past. Unpasteurized milk can seriously F**k your whole world up.

Same thing with measles, pox, rabies, flu, plague, etc. We discount their severity because efforts from our scientific efforts have worked very well to all but eliminate. Every one of them will F**k you up....very bad juju.
2012-02-22 12:54:22 PM  
1 votes:
PsyLord:

Um, yeah, you know that the sushi, at least, is specially frozen to remove pathogens, right?
2012-02-22 12:45:15 PM  
1 votes:

Loaf's Tray: micah1701: where are they getting the 150 TIMES from?

FTA: the survey found 121 outbreaks linked to dairy products in which it was known whether the milk was pasteurized or unpasteurized (also called "raw"). Of those, 60% were caused by raw milk and 39% by pasteurized milk.

60/39 = 153%.

PERCENT != TIMES

The lead headline should read "Unpasteurized milk, touted as the ultimate health food by some, is 1.5 times more likely to cause food-borne illness outbreaks than pasteurized milk"

I believe that's an adjustment for the fact that "raw" milk only accounts for 1% of total consumption in the US.

//Not a stats guy...


^ This. Raw milk is consumed much less, which makes those numbers even scarier. Anyone who drinks raw milk over pasteurized is a retard. There is no health benefit to raw milk over unpasteurized, unless getting violently ill is a health benefit.
2012-02-22 12:45:12 PM  
1 votes:
I don't know about "Foodies" but it seems like the whole raw-milk thing has a lot more overlap with the anti-government nutball circles.
2012-02-22 12:43:37 PM  
1 votes:

Aphoticamy: What is so great about drinking unpasteurized milk? I like milk, I don't drink a LOT of it, but I like it.

What are the health benefits? Why is it supposedly such a health drink? I'm just curious.


if it's been tampered with in ANY way, then it's automatically not healthy. non-pasteurized milk is the equivalent of not vaccinating your kids. you just don't get the science behind it and you don't care to get it.
2012-02-22 12:38:32 PM  
1 votes:

ytterbium: My friends gives her young kids raw milk. They're also unvaccinated and they have multiple alleries.

A recipe for disaster, it makes me worry.


Why? Less brats for you to pay taxes to feed and educate.
2012-02-22 12:37:12 PM  
1 votes:
Drinking unpasterized milk is not the type of risk that I would want to take. However, eating these items raw, let me at them.

images.agoramedia.com

varietyhealthyfood.com
2012-02-22 12:02:12 PM  
1 votes:
Well, hell, let's just give up all of our scientific progress? I think if people die from this, it's a Darwinian success story.
2012-02-22 10:34:51 AM  
1 votes:
Anyone who claims that raw milk is superior in any way to pasteurized has never had to drink the nasty stuff! I would almost rather drink milk from the bull.


/spend your entire life trying to move out of the sticks and these artisanal, holistic jackasses want to drag you right back.
2012-02-22 10:22:06 AM  
1 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: And regular milk's likelihood of killing you is?


For me? I'd say there's a good 40% chance of death if I started drinking milk regularly.

Last time I drank a liter of it, I literally shiat out the contents of my stomach within a half hour of consumption for the rest of the day. That's NOT healthy.
2012-02-22 09:47:19 AM  
1 votes:
My friends gives her young kids raw milk. They're also unvaccinated and they have multiple alleries.

A recipe for disaster, it makes me worry.
2012-02-22 09:45:50 AM  
1 votes:

Earpj: CapnBlues:
Maybe I'll experiment.

i can't make promises on that. it's just something my BIL told me. though he's one smart son of a gun.

Eh. I don't have anything better to do.


:) i like your attitude, friend.
2012-02-22 09:39:49 AM  
1 votes:

Earpj: CapnBlues:
also, grapefruit juice apparently blocks the metabolism of caffeine, prolonging the effects of it. i have no citations for these claims, but feel free to experiment on your own. personally, i'd rather be sleepy than have to taste grapefruit juice.

I love grapefruit juice.

Maybe I'll experiment.


i can't make promises on that. it's just something my BIL told me. though he's one smart son of a gun.
2012-02-22 09:11:45 AM  
1 votes:

RexTalionis: CapnBlues: RexTalionis: Teknowaffle: If you are over 16 there is no reason to drink milk. Grow up and eat real cheese.

Lactose tolerance is a freaky mutation, man. Anybody who drinks milk is a mutie freak.

/Lactose intolerant. Emphasis on intolerant.

did you know that there isn't much (if any) lactose in heavy whipping cream? so you can put it in your coffee without problems. (i do exactly this). i've heard that using heavy whipping cream makes the caffeine easier to absorb into your bloodstream, too, so you get a better high out of it. I don't know if this is true, though i use heavy cream because it tastes awesome.

also, grapefruit juice apparently blocks the metabolism of caffeine, prolonging the effects of it. i have no citations for these claims, but feel free to experiment on your own. personally, i'd rather be sleepy than have to taste grapefruit juice.

I put cream in my coffee and I have had no problems with this, although I chalked this up mostly to the fact that I put a small amount of cream in the coffee (no more than a half-jigger.


cream? or half-and-half? half-and-half has some lactose, but you're right. There's probably not enough in there to really give you problems. still, you might feel even better if you went with heavy cream rather than half-and-half.
2012-02-22 09:03:24 AM  
1 votes:

CapnBlues: RexTalionis: Teknowaffle: If you are over 16 there is no reason to drink milk. Grow up and eat real cheese.

Lactose tolerance is a freaky mutation, man. Anybody who drinks milk is a mutie freak.

/Lactose intolerant. Emphasis on intolerant.

did you know that there isn't much (if any) lactose in heavy whipping cream? so you can put it in your coffee without problems. (i do exactly this). i've heard that using heavy whipping cream makes the caffeine easier to absorb into your bloodstream, too, so you get a better high out of it. I don't know if this is true, though i use heavy cream because it tastes awesome.

also, grapefruit juice apparently blocks the metabolism of caffeine, prolonging the effects of it. i have no citations for these claims, but feel free to experiment on your own. personally, i'd rather be sleepy than have to taste grapefruit juice.


I put cream in my coffee and I have had no problems with this, although I chalked this up mostly to the fact that I put a small amount of cream in the coffee (no more than a half-jigger.
2012-02-22 08:58:26 AM  
1 votes:

RexTalionis: Teknowaffle: If you are over 16 there is no reason to drink milk. Grow up and eat real cheese.

Lactose tolerance is a freaky mutation, man. Anybody who drinks milk is a mutie freak.

/Lactose intolerant. Emphasis on intolerant.


did you know that there isn't much (if any) lactose in heavy whipping cream? so you can put it in your coffee without problems. (i do exactly this). i've heard that using heavy whipping cream makes the caffeine easier to absorb into your bloodstream, too, so you get a better high out of it. I don't know if this is true, though i use heavy cream because it tastes awesome.

also, grapefruit juice apparently blocks the metabolism of caffeine, prolonging the effects of it. i have no citations for these claims, but feel free to experiment on your own. personally, i'd rather be sleepy than have to taste grapefruit juice.
2012-02-22 08:43:56 AM  
1 votes:
www.myhousecallmd.com
2012-02-22 07:47:59 AM  
1 votes:
150 * 0 = 0
2012-02-22 07:12:56 AM  
1 votes:
And regular milk's likelihood of killing you is?
 
Displayed 123 of 123 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report