Banner
    Raw Milk Fights Back
    By Hank Campbell | February 26th 2013 08:41 AM | 43 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Hank

    I'm the founder of Science 2.0®.

    A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone ever had. Others may prefer Newton or Archimedes...

    View Hank's Profile
    I'm generally critical of raw milk, along with just about every microbiologist and all of the scientists in the CDC and FDA. The reason is simple; it has no beneficial value and foodborne illness plummeted once we started pasteurizing milk and other things.

    I drank raw milk as a kid. I lived on a farm. As a result there were lots of things I was exposed to that would make a city dweller sick. For that reason, and because my anecdote is not evidence, I think raw milk is a bad idea, especially in the hands of those weird fad food people, who are putting kids at risk. We won't let parents harm kids in lots of ways so anyone giving raw milk to a child should be under the same ethical microscope as anyone buying their child cigarettes.

    Yet raw milk proponents have a different take. Vince Hundt, a dairy farmer in Wisconsin, thinks his milk is getting a bad rap.
    although 48 million people were made sick by our spotlessly clean, pasteurized, inspected supermarket food in 2012, the 203 - yes, 203 - individuals supposedly made sick by raw milk in 2012 is a cause for great public alarm. And we just might destroy the entire dairy industry in a flash because someone in Wisconsin might get sick.
    Now, there some emotional landmines in here. He takes a ridiculous 48 million number as fact and then puts a 'supposedly' in front of the 203 people.

    But here is the data, even if it makes him no money; a person has a 150X chance of getting a foodborne illness from unpasteurized dairy products. The FDA does not say no one should drink it ever, just that the risks are not worth it for people with weakened immune systems, older older, children or pregnant women.

    So you can buy raw milk from a vending machine in Switzerland. Well, you can buy cocaine in Colombia too. When did Switzerland lead the world in science? When has Switzerland led the world in medicine? Thanks for the cuckoo clock and all, and I dig the outfits your guys wear when you are guarding Vatican City, but it's no longer the 16th century and if Swiss people make their kids sick, it is their problem. 

    There's no nutritional benefit to raw milk and pasteurizing milk does not cause lactose intolerance or allergies or anything else that people bilking customers for financial gain allege.

    I'd drink raw milk in a minute. I wouldn't let my city-raised kids drink it.

    Comments

    I just want non homogenized milk. Is that asking too much? It makes making butter, cream, and everything else much easier.

    Hank
    I agree, and for the 0.001% of people who make their own butter, okay, but the people claiming mechanical evening causes cancer or that it is in any way nutritionally superior are engaging in another one of those 'paleo fantasies' that are part of wealthy, modern culture, which assumes we were somehow evolutionarily adapted to some ancient environment and that we are not now. 

    By all means, make your own cream but the people claiming a science basis for what is really a cultural preference - half the world does just fine with little dairy at all - is silly.

    You can't buy pasteurized milk that hasn't been homogenized?  Maybe it is too small a market. But I don't know anyone who makes their own butter out here. In Pennsylvania, the Amish make it but they don't pasteurize it either. What state has twice as many foodborne illness outbreaks as states that don't sell raw milk? Pennsylvania - and that is just with a tiny market in raw milk.
    I can buy it if I am willing to drive 220 miles round trip to where I grew up. Russell now distributes his own products because the dairy processors were not paying him enough for his product. There is a large demand for non homogenized milk there as that was where we all grew up on dairy farms. We even had our own private school because the public school refused to change its schedule to reflect the reality of agriculture.

    Hank, you say there is no beneficial value to raw milk with such conviction!! What about the Gabriela Study from Europe?? I'll include a link so you can read about it. http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(11)01234-6/abstract Of course what do those Europeans know!! If there was a drug that could produce these results with similiar risks as raw milk FDA would approve it in a minute don't you think?!?
    Oh and by the way there are also about 1300 raw milk vending machines in Italy too. And re: lactose intolerance, about 80% of those who can't drink processed milk can easily digest raw milk. That is anedotal, but ask any raw milk farmer and you will get the same answer.
    Lastly, according to the CDC's own in depth survey 3% of the US population drinks raw milk (9 million people). There is no research about benefits of raw milk because there is no dairy processor to pay for it and few reseachers want to risk the wrath of the dairy industry. Although there are some brave souls at UC-Davis who are going to make guys like you put up or shut up!!

    Hank
    You're touching on different issues.  A key one is:
    Of course what do those Europeans know!!
    Exactly true. Scientists in Europe would like for Europeans to be a lot more like Americans when it comes to accepting science. The EU science czar stated her number one goal is to get more science acceptance in Europe.  Europeans also think cell phones cause cancer, vaccines cause autism, and that GMOs cause asthma. Not really something we want to emulate.

    Europe is obviously a dairy culture but it is just that - culture. Your other points seem to want to imply that Mediterraneans and Asians who don't drink milk at all, much less the raw kind, are less healthy than Europeans and Americans. That is not the case.

    It would be great if germs were predictable and that if you have had raw milk and never gotten sick it must mean raw milk is safe. But it is not safe, any more than smoking is safe because the majority of smokers don't get lung cancer.  The fact remains that raw milk really boosts the foodborne illness risk and most dairy disease outbreaks are directly traced to raw milk. I have no problem with people drinking it - I drank it as a kid, as I have said - but anyone who gives it to infants or young children should be required to attend a microbiology class first. 

    Raw milk has no health benefits, plain and simple. A questionnaire about milk consumption, which is all your linked article is, is not science, so it is not really telling anyone anything about safety. 
    Hank is not interested in science. He is interested in the consensus of scientists, which is way different from science. He wants us to wait 40 years while he and his other conservative scientists, who we are expected to worship and whose perspective we are supposed to adopt without critical thought, decide that enzymes and other nutrients destroyed by pasteurization are accepted by his lamestream colleagues to be health building. Mean while, he and his lamestream colleagues have yet to read the science that already proves that raw milk is beneficial.

    And yes, you have to be very careful with it and make sure that your farmer is testing his cows etc. etc. etc. blah, blah, blah.

    I don't think drinking raw milk is a good idea, I just don't think it's ny of my business if you do. The kind of governmental apparatus that must be erected in order to write and enforce these kids of rules and punish those who break them, does far more damage to humans than an ocean of raw milk.

    Hank
    Well, no. While I admire your libertarian stance, it isn't a practical one when it comes to public health.  We don't let parents give their kids cocaine and it doesn't require 25,000 federal employees to stop it, you just make it illegal and put people in jail if they do.  The current system, where each state can be convinced by lobbyists but then federal taxpayers have to monitor the outbreaks and do the recalls and, now, fund the health care, is far worse.

    Parents can't give their kids cigarettes - but it likely still happens. Because it happens and we can't stop all of it doesn't mean we should make it legal.
    This is decidedly not a public health issue. It is justifiable for the government to intervene if a condition or disease might 1) spread easily and 2) cause severe illness or death. People can catch colds from public restrooms. Should we have a government nanny in every bathroom and fine people who don't wash their hands?

    And while it is true we do not permit sales of cigarettes to children that is evidence of nothing as your claim that "it still happens" makes clear. Just because something is bad is not reason enough to make it illegal.

    rholley
    “Paleo fantasies”
    Recently I came across a book called “The Perfect Health Diet”, by Jaminet 兩夫婦.  Now do not fear, I am not about to start advocating their Paleo diet on Science 2.0.  However, reading the book has raised some thoughts:

    Has the general replacement of saturated fats by polyunsaturated oils rich in omega-6 but lacking omega-3 been at all beneficial?  Or have there been gains and losses on swings and roundabouts?  One concern is that these cheap vegetable oils, when heated for a long time in a fryer such as that in a fish & chip shop, would be far less stable than lard or beef fat.

    What about medium chain fatty acids, such as found particularly in coconut oil?  How do they metabolize?  Do they tend to produce ketone bodies, and are these “good” or ”bad”?

    And — just to throw a bit of sodium on the water — when I looked at what they say about GMO foods, their chief “authority” seems to be Pusztai.  Is there a guide to what his results may actually be pointing up, say a different between his GM and non-GM potatoes that he did not take into consideration?
    Robert H. Olley / Quondam Physics Department / University of Reading / England
    It is not our problem that you, Hank Campbell and just about every microbiologist and all of the scientists in the CDC and FDA, can't understand the value of enzymes and other nutrients that are killed in the pasteurization process. We are NOT going to wait another 40 years waiting for you boffins to figure out that enzymes build health (like we had to wait for multiple vitamins pills, folate, and a host of other nutrients for 40 years while you scientists decided that they had value.) It is not our problem that you-all can't understand that just because you boffins haven't proven something that it still doesn't exist. I know that this will rock your world, but we don't worship at the altar of modern science. Modern science is nice, but we still insist upon thinking and observing for ourselves. And all of your insistance upon us believing you scientists and ONLY you scientists ain't going to happen. And we have a God-given right to think and observe for ourselves and decide for ourselves what we are going to eat.

    Hank
    t is not our problem that you, Hank Campbell and just about every microbiologist and all of the scientists in the CDC and FDA, can't understand the value of enzymes and other nutrients
    I think this sums it up. Everyone else is stupid but crackpots who know nothing about microbiology are able to peel back the layers of a vast Big Pasteurization Conspiracy and know the truth - any microbe anywhere is actually good for you. Enjoy that E. coli.
    It does not require a PhD in microbiology to notice that things get better when one drinks raw milk. Your elitism is showing. You are so close to your subject that you fail to notice the obvious.

    Gerhard Adam
    It does not require a PhD in microbiology to notice that things get better when one drinks raw milk.
    This is precisely the type of anecdotal comment that demonstrates the error.  That statement is patently false, because you don't even bother to qualify it.  Clearly individuals that are lactose intolerant would disagree.  Similarly it does depend on the microbes that are present, so your concept of "better" is simply useless.  It is positively dangerous advice to give to anyone.
    Mundus vult decipi
    It seems you have a few major issues with your consistency factors, Hank. First, you are actually out here in PUBLIC advocating for treating Food as a Narcotic, or controlled substance. Might I point out to you that it is completely beyond the pale of rationality to presume that you, or anyone else, can propose to tell people what they may or may not feed their own children or themselves, much less suggest that giving them raw milk is akin giving them cocaine? The arrogance and tyranny in that stand is unconscionable.

    Secondly, you admit that you drank it, lived, and were exposed to things that your concrete reared children have not been exposed to. Maybe you have noticed that we have a tremendous amount of allergies and asthma in our children in this country? How are people supposed to develop an immune system if they have no exposure to nature?

    Hank, you are an illogical fear monger.

    People are smart enough to decide what they want to eat without you or the FDA telling them what you approve for them. Notice all the FDA approved pharmaceutical lawsuits?

    I would state that if you haven't been "exposed" to nature with all of it's germs and pollen, that you don't go out and drink a quart of raw milk the first time you try it. Start small, like 4 oz or less for children and build your system up over a couple of months.

    Hank
    you are actually out here in PUBLIC advocating for treating Food as a Narcotic
    Never said that but, as I said, true believers in raw food argue by emotion and ignore data. This is an example. 
    Maybe you have noticed that we have a tremendous amount of allergies and asthma in our children in this country?
    Maybe pasteurized milk causes autism and obesity too? Maybe it causes an addiction to reality TV? When you create your own reality based on motivated reasoning, it is easy to find two curves that look similar and declare causation. It is just wrong to do so.
    People are smart enough to decide what they want to eat without you or the FDA telling them what you approve for them.
    While I admire your willingness to trust every drug and remedy that someone trying to make a buck wants to foist off on society, not all people are smart enough to understand double blind controlled trials, like you are. Most people benefit from science and technology and medicine. I am glad you have made it this long without taking any medicine and that you wrote your comment on a stone tablet.
    Thank you Doreen and bachcole for showing us what "fanaticism" is.

    I, too, have drunk raw milk: I'm a farmer, after all, and I'm too lazy to heat milk then cool it for drinking. The key point:

    RAW MILK IS JUST MILK. There are no magical properties that you wouldn't find in pasteurized milk. I've had people tell me raw milk cures everything from allergies to autism. These people are out of their minds.

    Hank's key point is that unpasteurized milk has a higher risk of contamination associated with it. If you drink raw milk and end up with bloody diarrhea, it's your own fault.

    The point, Hank, is that food should not be regulated as a controlled substance, and you repeatedly draw inferences to tobacco and cocaine.

    The stuff that is currently being passed off as food through the approved chain is often very far from beneficial and more often indigestible. Also, the illuminated scientists at the FDA took about 30 years to decide that vitamin c is helpful against the common cold. Brilliant? Not in my estimation. Perhaps I have too high of standards.

    Go ahead and regulate the anonymous consolidated and centralized food chain, but leave those of us who are intelligent enough to decide what we want to eat the ability to access food of our choice from the grower of our choice with no impediment!

    Nothing I said indicated any presence of "trust" in any or every "cure" put out by charlatans or non-charlatans. Those ploys are as old as mankind, and the FDA has been particularly adept at promoting ineffective and dangerous drugs to treat maladies and syndromes. I don't trust them, and there is logic and reason behind that.

    Case in point, John Sheehan of the FDA actually has testified that "raw milk is inherently dangerous and should never be consumed by anyone for any reason". Is that not hyperbolic?

    You are the one being overly emotional here, Hank. Thinking that there is some need to create fear and panic when there is only a need for education about cleanliness and logic is truly a diversionary (and possibly intentionally obfuscating) tactic.

    I'm sorry your children won't benefit from a strong immune system due to your environment. Were I inclined to use your tactics, I might accuse you of child abuse....I'll just say I think it's a bad choice.

    Hank
    I'm sorry your children won't benefit from a strong immune system due to your environment. Were I inclined to use your tactics, I might accuse you of child abuse....
    If there were any validity to your claim, you would be right to do so. But you make a silly claim with no merit. It's like saying if I don't let my children play with loaded pistols I am denying them the ability to defend themselves in case someone breaks into my house.  There is zero evidence - none - that raw milk improves the immune system of children. The goofy claim you choose to believe is derived from surveys of people who drink raw milk and have asthma.  Do Amish people have less asthma because of raw milk?  Do they have less asthma at all?  We have no way to know but you will cite woo-sociology as fact because it gives you a chance to be smug.

    You basically do want other people to have sick children, so you can say 'I told you so'. This is a real problem among the anti-science food crackpot community.

    And no, I do not agree with your 'I am biologically able to have children so what I do to them is MY choice' shtick.  You shouldn't give them raw milk. If we can ban Big Gulps and plastic bags with a straight face I don't see why something actually dangerous is legal.
    rholley
    Raw milk straight off the farm is one thing: shopped around through cities it is quite another, and many in Victorian England suffered the consequences. 

    And that’s not counting the milk that had been adulterated by dilution with water, or worse.
    Robert H. Olley / Quondam Physics Department / University of Reading / England
    Gerhard Adam
    I'm sorry your children won't benefit from a strong immune system due to your environment. Were I inclined to use your tactics, I might accuse you of child abuse....I'll just say I think it's a bad choice.
    That's a pretty cheap shot.  I might just as well argue that humans didn't evolve to survive on bovine milk, so anyone that doesn't drink human milk is the one ignoring biology.  Would you argue that women that don't breast-feed are abusing their children?
    Go ahead and regulate the anonymous consolidated and centralized food chain, but leave those of us who are intelligent enough to decide what we want to eat the ability to access food of our choice from the grower of our choice with no impediment!
    The "grower of your choice"?  Are you joking?  The overwhelming majority of people have no such access, so besides reeking of elitism, it is simply impractical.  Moreover, I suspect that you aren't nearly that understanding when it comes to your meat products, so unless you're out there slaughtering your own beef, poultry, and pork, you simply don't know what you're talking about.  [The same argument applies to your fruits and vegetables regarding pesticides, etc.].

    What I find so annoying, is that most people would not sit down with a stranger in a restaurant and allow them to casually reach across with a fork and help themselves to their food, nor do the same in return.  Most people obsess over "germs" by using wipes to clean the handle of shopping carts, in addition to possessing numerous substances in their home for the sole purpose of "killing germs".  Yet, you are willing to grant a stranger the free reign to grow food that you and your family will consume, and you think that you should just take their word for it that it is safe and not contaminated?  Naive doesn't even begin to describe it.



    Mundus vult decipi
    Hank, my claim isn't silly, nor is is unscientific. Exposure to bacteria and nature improves the immune system. That is actually scientifically proven. Not sociology, but science. Which is why I said that were you unaccustomed to raw milk, you should start with small amounts and not challenge your body too stridently at first.

    And you again make the thrust exposing your tyrannical leanings espousing a "we know more than you do" by asserting that banning Big Gulps could be done with a straight face.

    And I don't have a "schtick" about my duty to do what I ascertain to be best for my children because I bore them. You certainly cannot know what is best for my children. You don't know them. I'll allow that anyone can have their opinion, but to assert that you have some moral or scientific high ground to make determinations about whether or not other people feed their children raw milk is repugnant.

    Hank
    You certainly cannot know what is best for my children. You don't know them.
    You don't seem to see how silly this is. You don't give them bourbon because of evidence. You don't give them cigarettes because of evidence. You don't let them just eat anything they see in the forest because of evidence. When it comes to raw milk, you then deny the evidence.  Claiming if scientists don't personally interview your children that determinations of harm don't count is silly.
    Gerhard Adam
    Exposure to bacteria and nature improves the immune system. That is actually scientifically proven. Not sociology, but science. Which is why I said that were you unaccustomed to raw milk, you should start with small amounts and not challenge your body too stridently at first.
    Do you realize how silly this sounds?  First of all the hygiene hypothesis has nothing to do with milk.  Secondly, if your milk is contaminated with bacteria to the point of where it can stress your immune system then you are simply crazy.

    More importantly, arbitrary exposure to bacteria or "nature" is simply foolishness, and suggests a deep misunderstanding of both the hygiene hypothesis and what constitutes "nature".  People that expose themselves to bacteria or "nature" without good knowledge are dead people.

    You also illustrate that you don't understand the functioning of your immune system, since it isn't exposure to bacteria, but the bacteria themselves that are necessary for proper immune system development.  So, if your immune system isn't up to par, introducing bacteria later in life, under the illusion that it will make your immune system stronger, will simply make you sick.  You cannot "fix" it, after the fact.
    Mundus vult decipi
    It never ceases to amaze me how "men of science" have no trouble trashing raw milk when the CDC itself says the incidence of food borne illness from it is well below the numbers from pasteurized milk. And where is your trashing of standard everyday food found in the grocery stores? How many recalls have there been this week for Lysteria or salmonella? A criminal number to be sure.

    When my kids were little and one of their friends got chicken pox or measles there was a call put out for a slumber party. The germs got spread around that way and no vaccine was needed, no epidemic declared. We exposed our children to bacteria and they did not die. It has only been, in recent decades, that childhood diseases have been made into plagues due to a faulty and failing, dirty indeed, food system ( and dare I say it, the medical machine and pharmacueticals) the vertical integration of food growers, manufacturers and processors using genetically modified organisms. These things are where the true food safety risk lies and it seems to me that you would be better served taking up those causes rather than bludgeoning people for drinking wholesome raw milk.

    Hank
    Please tell me you vote Republican.
    Gerhard Adam
    It never ceases to amaze me how "men of science" have no trouble trashing raw milk when the CDC itself says the incidence of food borne illness from it is well below the numbers from pasteurized milk.
    Interesting use of the CDC, since there is no large scale population metrics that can relate the food borne exposure of raw milk.  However, your claim is not what the CDC actually says.
    Among dairy product-associated outbreaks reported to CDC between 1973 and 2009 in which the investigators reported whether the product was pasteurized or raw, 82% were due to raw milk or cheese. From 1998 through 2009, 93 outbreaks due to consumption of raw milk or raw milk products were reported to CDC.
    http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-questions-and-answers.html#hurt
    Before the invention and acceptance of pasteurization, raw milk was a common source of the bacteria that cause tuberculosis, diphtheria, severe streptococcal infections, typhoid fever, and other foodborne illnesses.  These illnesses killed many people each year, especially young children.  In the 1900s many mothers recognized this risk and would boil milk (bringing it to a temperature of 212°F) before giving it to their infants and young children. 
    http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-index.html
    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. Because not all cases of foodborne illness are recognized and reported, the actual number of illnesses associated with raw milk likely is greater.
    http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-questions-and-answers.html#hurt
    When my kids were little and one of their friends got chicken pox or measles there was a call put out for a slumber party. The germs got spread around that way and no vaccine was needed, no epidemic declared. We exposed our children to bacteria and they did not die.
    Well, that's the problem, isn't it.  If you can't really distinguish between viruses and bacteria, then I'm not clear on why you should be considered credible with any of your other claims.

    After all, your viewpoint is that there are no such things as diseases, since "spreading them around" is the cure for these problems and therefore no vaccines are necessary.  The corollary to that perspective is that everything that has addressed these diseases is simply a money-making scheme to deny people their freedom of action.

    Sorry, but that's just foolishness.  There is plenty wrong with businesses, pharmaceuticals, and government, but there is even more wrong with people that think that they understand the ramifications of biology better than the people that have actually suffered through it.  Just the notion that you would intentionally expose children to measles indicates how seriously flawed your reasoning is. 

    I realize that you think I'm probably fear-mongering, but let's consider your viewpoint and examine it for the real-world consequences.  Suppose that for every 100,000 children there is one death from measles.  Are you really that cocky that you think that the children you're exposing are not part of that number?  Are you really prepared to tell the parent of that child that ... too bad ... I guess your child's immune system wasn't up to the task?  That is what you are advocating.

    ... and if you want to continue to argue about the risks, just consider that no matter what number you pick as a statistic, there will be someone that suffers the consequence.  While you can presume that such a situation can't happen, the only way for that to be true is if there were no diseases.  Since there are such diseases, then SOMEONE will become the victim, so we can clearly conclude that the immune system is not capable of stopping all infections.  So whose child do you think it is reasonable to play bacterial/viral Russian Roulette with?

    [NOTE: I only made up that statistic, so don't quote me on this as representing the actual rate of exposure or death].
    Mundus vult decipi
    Ah, but the thing is, statistics aside, all will die, all. Just like my sister who contracted leukemia in 1960 after taking the first polio vaccine. 'twas luck of the draw on that because my brother and I took it at the same time.

    I'm not advocating for anything other than less government interference in my food choices. I don't want to eat food that has had the goodness of it cooked right out of it by pasteurization. I don't want to eat food that shares DNA with something out of its genus. And I sure as hell will not take a vaccine that is incubated in Army Caterpiller ovary cells.

    Gerhard Adam
    What government interference?  You're free to grow your own food and do with it as you please.  You want to raise your own cattle, you're free to do so. 

    The government is involved in the role it is supposed to play, which is to ensure that any interaction between a food producer and consumer is subject to standards.  This is precisely the role that the majority of people want and expect from the government.

    So, you can pursue whatever food choices you like, but (1) you cannot make those choices for others [i.e. as a producer] and (2) you cannot require that someone else assume the liability for your choices.  The latter situation occurs if you do get sick from a food producer.  So, unless you're also willing to state that you give up all your rights to litigate, your choices regarding government intervention don't mean much [of course, this is quite pertinent if you truly believe it's all just the "luck of the draw"].
    Mundus vult decipi
    Gerhard, your convoluted at best. You think the "government" ensures "standards" that are above what people selling directly to each other food that they personally produce and consume can and do? The FDA admits they inspect 1% of the produce imported. The USDA on meat allows about 45 additives that are not even required to be listed on the label! People are sick continually from your "standards", which don't even list what is actually in the "food". And that you define as "safe"....

    We can and do butcher. If we haven't raised it, we buy from someone else that raises their animals in a way similar to how we do it and have it custom butchered. Keeps the finances in the local economy as well. Willful negligence is a crime already, and liability is a personal accountability issue.

    Life should come with a label...."This Activity Leads to Death. Proceed With Caution."

    Gerhard Adam
    You think the "government" ensures "standards" that are above what people selling directly to each other food that they personally produce and consume can and do?
    I never said that.  If you can personally buy directly, then there's no problem with "standards" nor with your freedom to purchase and consume whatever you choose.

    However, even that basic sentiment is foolish since there are literally millions of items on store shelves that originate in distant locations and other countries.  There is simply no possible way for you to interact directly with the producer, so to suggest that these items don't need any regulation or standards is simply naive. 

    Despite your claims, the overwhelming majority of people cannot and do not have access for such direct purchases.

    So, can I assume that you never go to restaurants or buy food anywhere other than what you have personally prepared?  Because if that's not true, then your argument against government standards is foolish. 
    Mundus vult decipi
    rholley
    Gerhard says:
    so unless you're out there slaughtering your own beef, poultry, and pork
    Especially in Europe!  (picture: http://www.muperman.de/pferdefleisch/)


    (rough translation: we have to do this now, in order to comply with labelling regulations.)
    Robert H. Olley / Quondam Physics Department / University of Reading / England
    Name calling is the last refuge of those who have nothing to say. Just because you are a microbiologist does not automatically mean that you have read all of the papers and does not mean that you care enough about your own health to try to look outside the box in order to make sure that you are healthy. "Crackpot", I really like that one. Hank, surely you can do better than that; if by any chance you did, I didn't read it because I didn't get past the word "crackpot". And Hank, did you bother to read the Constitution? I know, the Constitution is not microbiology, but it still has some really good ideas in it. Like, freedom. When will you support our freedom, Hank, when they come for you and take away your freedoms?

    People just exactly like you called Galileo, Elizabeth Kinney, Alfred Wegener, et. al. crackpots. The word "crackpot" only tells us that you are a prisoner of the box in your head.

    Hank
     And Hank, did you bother to read the Constitution?
    I'm no constitutional scholar but it seems you know as much about law as you do science. Please note where it says you have the right to poison your children.
    People just exactly like you called Galileo, Elizabeth Kinney, Alfred Wegener, et. al. crackpots. 
    Uhhhh, no. Elizabeth Kenny's physical therapy idea was not accepted until she visited America and showed the American medical community. Galileo was jailed by religious people who didn't like his science -  you instead are the one who does not like science, but calling your belief in raw milk religious-based is not helping your case. Alfred Wegener was also not derided by scientists, that was religion again.  

    You are claiming something settled should be controversial; that science is all wrong despite the evidence. It is faith-based belief despite the overwhelming evidence.   

    Hank, what about handwashing by physicians. How many years did it take those brilliant minds to admit they were spreading disease from patient to patient?? (about 30 or 40)

    What about parents who feed their children deli meats one of the most dangerous ready to eat foods. Why aren't deli meats banned? They cause far more food borne illness than raw milk. (By the way in 2007 the CDC did an indepth study of raw milk consumption and came to the conclusion that 3% of the population drinks raw milk on a regular basis, that's about 9 million people)

    Lastly, I just read a study that identified 700 bacterial species in human breast milk. http://news.yahoo.com/breast-milk-contains-over-700-bacteria-species-134... Sounds like you need to do some more reading Hank. I am guessing we need these diverse bacteria to thrive. What do you think? You don't want to look like a Crackpot!!!

    Gerhard Adam
    ...what about handwashing by physicians. How many years did it take those brilliant minds to admit they were spreading disease from patient to patient?? (about 30 or 40)
    Hindsight is wonderful, but it isn't as if the population were promoting greater cleanliness.  It was the germ theory of disease the created the need to wash hands; not popular opinion.
    ...the CDC did an indepth study of raw milk consumption and came to the conclusion that 3% of the population drinks raw milk on a regular basis...
    The CDC also warns about the higher risk of food borne illness, so it isn't about the number of people but rather the risk.  The CDC hardly advocates drinking raw milk.
    ...I just read a study that identified 700 bacterial species in human breast milk.
    ..and how is this relevant to drinking raw bovine milk?  You don't truly believe that human and bovine milk contain the same bacterial varieties, do you?
    Mundus vult decipi
    I am surprised that you are still here, Hank; I would be embarrassed after that crackpot remark. And the fact that you equate raw milk with poison, that really is embarrassing. Have you told your mother that her milk for you was poison. I bet that would also be a very awkward moment.

    Hank, you are becoming a joke. There are plenty of studies extant that prove that raw milk is health building. You are what we call a patho-skeptic, someone who wishes to maintain their skepticism even at the cost of not actually looking at any opposing evidence. It is sort of like hoarders and anorexics. They can carry on normal conversations, except that they are completely bonkers. Read the studies, and then get back with us.

    bachcole, signing off.

    Hank,

    Much of what passes for science is actually pretty subjective. Much of what the FDA passes off as “safe” is not. Look at their webpage that describes the 100,000 people per year who die from pharmaceuticals, all FDA approved. All “scientifically” verified as “safe.” I never hear the “scientists” comment on that.

    On the other hand, we are not aware of anyone ever having died from drinking raw milk in this country.

    What is science other than the careful observation of processes, outcomes, procedures? The difference between “anecdotal evidence” and “scientific evidences” is where it is observed. If observed in real life, it’s called anecdotal. If observed in a laboratory it’s called scientific.

    Anecdotal is just as valid as laboratory. Double blind studies included.

    Here’s a strong piece of anecdotal evidence about the value of raw milk: if it is a scintilla as “dangerous” as the “scientific community” claims, where are the dead bodies? I have yet to find a “scientist” who will address this question. Perhaps you have the honesty to. Perhaps not. If A then B. If milk is dangerous, lethally dangerous, then death will necessarily be the result. But….it’s not. If it were, we would not be having this exchange. Humanity would have died off with the first generation of raw milk drinkers. I’ve never found a “scientist” who will address that directly either. Will you?

    To the person who disdains the therapeutic quality of raw milk for asthma sufferers. Have you actually ever spoken with someone whose asthma symptoms disappear when they drink raw milk? I have. A wealth of real life evidence exists on that, many, many people whose various ailments have mitigated or disappeared after starting on raw milk. This is valid “scientific” evidence that some who call themselves scientists will not accept. Why not? Can you address that also?

    Deborah Stockton, Executive Director
    National Independent Consumers and Farmers Association

    Hank
    You make a good point about bias, plenty of commenters here (and you also) exhibit it - and obviously there is a reason I linked to the guy's article, namely that he made some good points that needed to be addressed.  On your points, 2 people dying from raw milk in 20 years is not none, you can simply choose to deny it was raw milk, the way tobacco companies can claim the lung cancer from a smoker was not due to tobacco. That is your choice. 

    You can also choose to deny that the 100% of hospitalizations and other illnesses due to raw milk and dairy products are due to raw milk.  Really, it's easy. Just say, 'no one can prove for certain that the contaminants the CDC found in the raw milk caused the same contamination in the hospital patients' and you would have a point; people crazy enough to drink raw milk are likely crazy enough to engage in lots of other risky behavior.

    No snowflake in an avalanche takes the blame so a person who eats raw sprouts, raw milk, raw whatever can have those advocacy groups foisting off blame on someone else. 

    No, I have not spoken with anyone who had asthma disappear from raw milk but I have read comments on this site claiming it; I have also had people claim that homeopathy, going gluten-free and not eating GMO food caused their asthma to disappear.  The human body is mysterious and we have the Placebo Effect for a reason; but it's not a basis for making health decisions.

    By all means, drink raw milk if you want - I smoke cigars on occasion. I think it should be a licensed product unavailable to children, just like cigars, and it should have a warning label for pregnant women the same way cigarettes and alcohol do. Because it is risky, plain and simple. Just because it won't kill you does not make it safe, or we wouldn't have any food testing for E. coli at all.
    Hank,

    Everyone who posts here is biased – you, me, everyone. It is our nature. How honest we are is what is relevant. When you wrote “The human body is mysterious and we have the Placebo Effect for a reason,” in response to the apparent cause/effect of raw milk, homeopathy, etc… you reveal your bias and your non-understanding of the placebo effect. Placebos are used in double blind studies and refer to a non-active substance given to participants who think they are getting the real test substance (medication or nutrient or whatever, usually it’s medication). In the raw-milk instances – or the homeopathy, gluten-free, non-gmo instances you mention, those are not placebos. In essence you are saying, “I cannot accept those claims as real, I will dismiss them as the placebo effect,” when I guess what you mean is that they are psychosomatic and not the result the person claims.

    An honest scientist, an honest person, observes, “Person a drank raw milk and her asthma symptoms disappeared, she stopped drinking raw milk and her symptoms returned. She resumed drinking raw milk and her symptoms again disappeared,” and would stop there. This phenomenon has happened many, many times to diverse people, with many symptoms and conditions besides asthma. If you dismiss these experiences as psychosomatic, on what verifiable basis do you draw that conclusion? An honest scientist has to have a verifiable basis for drawing a conclusion. This is where bias comes in and where much of the conflict in this “issue” resides. Conclusions drawn that have no basis.

    You did not, at all, address any of the questions I posed, so I repose them and ask you to address them, not dismiss them:

    1. the 100,000 annual deaths from FDA approved, scientifically verified safe pharmaceuticals
    2. the survival of the human species that has been drinking (and continues to drink) raw milk since known history (you might include all the billions of babies and baby animals who manage to survive their mother’s raw milk also)
    3. the experiences of individuals who have experienced real healing of a variety of ailments and symptoms after stopping industrial dairy and starting raw milk

    I said there have been no deaths from raw milk, you say there have been 2 in 20 years. I am not aware of them, but even if that is true it is still statistically zero. I do not dismiss these deaths, au contraire, human life is sacred from the moment of conception, but they do not mean raw milk is inherently dangerous. Any sufficiently contaminated food eaten by someone who is vulnerable can be lethal. And yes, people have gotten sick from overly contaminated raw milk – and all kinds of other overly contaminated foods (I’ve gotten sick from fast food restaurants numerous times). No one I know who advocates raw milk would say otherwise.

    Licensing a product does not make it free of the possibility of harm. See the comment about the 100,000 deaths from pharmaceuticals above. Licensing or regulating raw milk would not change the nature of raw milk. Nor make it what you would call “safer.”

    Get honest, aside from all the other people, like myself, who practically live on raw milk, look at the societies that do, for instance the traditional Amish. And yes, they have a very low incidence of asthma and chronic degenerative disease. Those Amish communities who forsake their traditional diets experience a population explosion in their cemeteries. This has happened in real time in communities in the Lancaster, PA area.

    I hope you will honestly address the three points above and the overarching point about the bias of drawing non-substantiated conclusions.

    Hank
    An honest scientist, an honest person, observes, “Person a drank raw milk and her asthma symptoms disappeared, she stopped drinking raw milk and her symptoms returned. She resumed drinking raw milk and her symptoms again disappeared,” 
    You are getting it all wrong. A scientist will examine if pasteurization or anything else about raw milk causes asthma. When that is shown to be false, they move on. A zealot insists it must have some magical benefit that outweighs all of the harm.

    Basically, you accuse anyone of dishonesty who doesn't agree with your beliefs. That is not how things work.
    Gerhard Adam
    2. the survival of the human species that has been drinking (and continues to drink) raw milk since known history (you might include all the billions of babies and baby animals who manage to survive their mother’s raw milk also)
    Well, that's a bit disingenuous.  Raw milk has only been available since the domestication of such livestock, so it is hardly all of human history.  As for mother's milk ... you aren't advocating for that, you're advocating drinking raw bovine milk. 

    Show me the biology of animals that uniformly drink other species milk and then you might have a point.
    An honest scientist, an honest person, observes, “Person a drank raw milk and her asthma symptoms disappeared, she stopped drinking raw milk and her symptoms returned. She resumed drinking raw milk and her symptoms again disappeared,” and would stop there.
    No they wouldn't.  The point would be to find out what component is responsible for these symptoms appearing or disappearing.  In addition, one would have to consider whether symptoms are gone or merely be suppressed or disguised.

    Specifically it would be hard to believe that raw milk would have an effect on an autoimmune issue, since that is generally a bacterial response.  So, the important question would be whether it was the milk, or the bacteria that it contained that makes a difference.  A rather important question.

    So, if the scientist stopped simply because of symptoms disappearing, they would be irresponsible and negligent and have learned nothing about the biology at work.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Hank,
    You STILL are dodging the bullet..... though only one of these two deaths in twenty years can be named by the FDA, BOTH were attributed to Queso Fresco, or "Bathtub Cheese". For the sake of argument I will concede there have been 2 deaths in the past 20 years attributed to raw milk.
    2.
    Let me repeat what you said: "Two deaths in the past twenty years"
    Your words Hank.
    Own them!
    Own them like you own all your other rhetoric!!
    2 deaths in twenty years.
    Have I made YOUR point sufficiently clear yet?
    TWO people have died from this product in TWENTY YEARS!!!
    2 deaths.
    Twenty years.
    And you think we should buy the argument that it is akin to Cocaine?