I think this study is important to point out as a point of concern. On the other hand - and I say this from a TB control perspective, where TB-contaminated raw milk is absolutely a vector, particularly for Mycobacterium bovis; I've treated such cases - we don't know if ingesting H5 is as risky for humans. It doesn't seem like a good idea, though, and there are plenty of other things spread by raw milk that definitely can make you ill (enteric bacteria in particular). I go through about three gallons of milk a week personally, but it's pasteurized and off-the-grocery-shelf.
Because free adults should be allowed to choose whether or not they want their milk pasteurized. Obviously it needs to be labeled so people can make an informed decision, but otherwise there's no problem.
Free adults make decisions for children, and there is a long precedent( imo well justified ) of regulating decisions wrt to children: see vaccinations and mandatory schooling.
No, it was made more popular because of new technologies - the internet. The decentralization of information meant that idiots could be pastors.
It's not just raw milk - we're seeing this populist phenomena with everything. Anti-vax, moon landing is fake, QAnon, flat earth, crystals, sacred geometry, and on and on.
You tell people "The Establishment" serves one principal that's bad, but THEY serve an opposite principal, and you can get people to believe just about anything.
There's a whole culture and subsection of society who believes things purely because they think it's contrary to what "The Establishment" wants them to think. They reject anything with evidence or backed by institutions - that means medicine, food, policy.
This new-wave populism is fueled by our new communication technologies.
I disagree. The phenomenon is reactance and people declaring flat-earthers a serious epidemic only made it far more popular. It is assumed that the same happened with vaccination and other topics as well. And people that like freedoms are especially vulnerable, because some start to demand to ban flat-earthers, which certainly creates an understandable reaction because of a vast horizon of implications.
This is a problem with communication, but the medium is irrelevant. That people tend to dislike smart asses is a factor here.
RFK, who is backed by our president elect, is an anti-vaxxer. Our soon to be head of the department of energy doesn’t believe in climate change.
The medium matters a lot. Any idiot can get on a soapbox now. Decentralized communication to the masses like never before.
You can see the spark of populism after each new medium. The printing press, radio, television - all accompanied with a populist movement of their time.
"The internet" is just a network. What did they say on the internet? "Raw milk is so good, our evil lying disreputable government doesn't want us to have it."
And the printing press is just a stamp. This is an incredibly disingenuous take. The internet opened up the world. It's been a groundbreaking technology. However, it has also lowered the barrier of entry to spreading stupid ideas to large audiences, and we are seeing the consequences of that.
The addition of search engines and recommendation algorithms is significant too. It's not just the ability to spread arbitrary information at zero cost, there's also a strong feedback loop where any information a user/rube engages with will become an increasingly large portion of what's presented to them.
Perhaps, but California generally doesn't look fondly on personal agency, especially on non-liberal topics like gun ownership/self defence, not participating in public education system, using gas vehicles, not getting vaccinated, etc.
I’ve lived in California and Indiana for 20 years each and recently discovered this explanation isn’t satisfactory.
You’re right in how you describe California; however they do look fondly on personal agency for liberal topics like birth control, abortion, marriage, drug usage, pissing on sidewalks in SF, etc.
I’ve concluded that different states value different forms of agency, but for some reason when people start pointing fingers they claim the other state doesn’t value agency.
it is highly regulated, but legal in some states. The inspection process for the dairies is pretty intense as well. I would not buy it to drink, but I have used it to make some really good yogurt (and I pasteurized the milk myself).
Raw milk is like tap water without fluoride. In the context of America people talk like it's an affront to civilization itself, yet in much (not all) of Europe its available with various restrictions and regulations.
Edit for factual context: In the 19th century before the advent of pasteurization and refrigeration, raw milk used to kill lots of kids. But raw milk in America wasn't banned in America until 1987 and 1991 in Canada. Refrigeration made raw milk mostly safe (albeit still gross, IMHO) and most consumers chose pasteurized milk anyway without the government forcing them to. People who think raw milk should obviously be banned like to talk about the Victorian era but not the (far more relevant) 1980s.
And, for the purposes of liquid milk, those restrictions are pretty tight [1] .
In most countries there are a _very_ small number of licensed suppliers and raw milk may not be sold in conventional distribution networks. Raw milk is used by the French for some cheeses but I'm not sure about liquid milk. With respect to cheese, those made in France with raw milk are, according to wikipedia, "the major source of staphylococcal food poisoning".
I mention this not because I'm sure that raw milk is always bad in all circumstances, I don't know enough to say, but to point out that the degree to which it's available within EU+UK is really quite limited.
> In most countries there are a _very_ small number of licensed suppliers and raw milk may not be sold in conventional distribution networks.
So it is also in the American states which permit it. It's a very niche product which is subject to numerous regulations, in some states harsher than others. Generally it's not allowed to be sold in normal stores, you have to go to farms or special dairy stores to get it, state agencies regularly test it (hence this recall), etc.
Because it demonstrates some raw things are fine, and some raw things kill you? Like... duh?
I mean what are you really arguing here? We eat some raw stuff so that means anything raw, including milk, is perfectly safe to drink?
Just on it's surface that's such an absurd argument that I honestly doubt any human beings on Earth believe that. We're all well aware many raw substances are dangerous.
I'm arguing that if you find "raw" milk gross, then raw fruits and vegetables are gross too. washing them (i.e. splashing them with cold water for a few seconds under the sink) doesn't eradicate the bacteria crawling all over.
I don't understand why do you and the other poster sperg out about raw meat. I never said a damn thing about raw meat. no one eats raw meat, but millions of people drink "raw" milk. we drank "raw" milk for a few thousand years. "raw" milk is just milk.
and people died of dysentery and cholera and brucellosis and tuberculosis and typhoid and listeria and and anthrax and scarlet fever for those thousands of years. Then, we figured out that bacteria causes those diseases, we can kill that bacteria with a process, and now there's milk that is safe to drink, and milk that is not safe to drink, creating the concept of raw milk and pasteurized milk. raw meat is pink and cooked meat isn't but unfortunately for us, raw milk and pasteurized milk are both white
as far as eating raw meat, I ate sushi a few days ago.
I don't drink raw milk because it weirds me out, but if other people want to I'm not going to tell them they can't. I'm not going to drink raw eggs like Rocky, but if somebody else wants to they can have at it as far as I'm concerned. And I certainly don't think the sale of raw eggs should be banned to stop them.
Absolutely WILD response. Its easy to was the dirt off a fruit or vegetable. Drinking raw milk is like eating fruit or vegetable with feces on it still.
We call this island the United States. Just kidding.
On a serious note, I see this kind of anti-intellectualism and skepticism to science frequently in developed countries. As someone who grew up in a developing country I always believed that education and advanced sciences will show improve people's knowledge on these matters. For example, I've met only a negligible amount of people in India who have been against public vaccinations. Meanwhile the number of highly educated peers I've had over the last few years who question vaccinations as an aspect of societal healthcare has been very demoralizing.
You're right, but there are a couple of key points you are missing:
1. (And this is the most important) we literally have a solution to it not being safe.
2. When things are unsafe, we (generally) make sure that people are properly educated about the risks. The people pushing raw milk are doing the exact opposite.
3. When something is unsafe, we try to figure out how to make it safe or find an alternative (see 1)
I had been largely oblivious to raw milk until just a few weeks ago when someone suggested I look into it.
From what I can tell, raw milk per se is not likely to be problematic, but problems can get injected if the cows and/or general milking operation are not handled well. Pasteurizing milk could plausibly be seen as a quick fix to not have to deal with such things well. On the other hand, who would I trust to actually handle raw milk with excellence?
Sounds to me like low-temperature pasteurization might be the best compromise? Kills off what is harmful, but supposedly retains more of the original nutrients?
Part of the issue is that the current farms doing it are heavily regulated and also specialize in this product. If there's deregulation, you're going to see a free for all in states with light regulation.
I personally think the whole thing is very stupid, and considering all of the raw milk illnesses that have been occurring (especially with bird flu), the status quo is fine. But if exposure is expanded...
I've heard a few people mention the lack of vitamins in pasteurized milk. I get that heat could destroy some chemicals, so that sort of makes sense, but isn't most milk fortified? I'm not sure it's a huge deal. I don't really care that the vitamin A in my cheese didn't come out of the cow, personally.
I do care that it won't give me food poisoning though, that's a lot higher up the list of concerns than vitamin provenance.
It is broadly accepted that pasteurized milk is lower in vitamin C, but there generally isn't much in dairy products to begin with. There are also reportedly small reductions in vitamins B2 (riboflavin), B12 and E, and folate. However, no reputable nutritional authority has identified these reductions as being physiologically significant.
More controversial assertions circulate around protein and enzyme content, but studies have failed to find anything making raw milk more "digestible" or causing any detectable contribution to immunity or allergy. The FDA has an extensive discussion on this: https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-food/raw-milk-...
Interesting, thanks! I'll give it a read. I didn't know about the "contains probiotic bacteria that secrete lactase" claim with raw milk. It would be weird if lactase/lactase producing bacteria were in big enough quantities in milk, considering how cows (and people) produce it themselves as babies. Seems like wasted effort that would probably be evolved away.
Yes, but it’s voluntarily and unnecessarily unsafe. It’s like scuba diving without a timer. You can do that, but it’s a dumb idea when the alternative is right there and widely available.
Swimming without a life preserver kills a lot more people than raw milk; should the government mandate that anybody going in the water wear one?
Most people would probably reject that; they know how to swim and the government should butt out of it. From my personal perspective, informed by my background as a lifeguard and competitive swimmer, I dispute the swimming ability of most of the general public who claim they can swim. Most people who claim they "can swim" are just barely capable of not drowning under ideal conditions. Mandating life preservers for anybody who jumps into a lake or pool would without a shred of doubt save many lives every year. But should that really be done? Is protecting people from themselves really what we should be prioritizing before all else? Sometimes we should let people enjoy things, even if it may kill them.
It wasn't a perfect analogy by a long shot. In this case, the question is more whether we should ignore established FDA food safety requirements for no particular reason? Like, what if I don't mind beetles in my oat. Shouldn't I be able to buy them that way?
Perhaps. I don't think someone should be allowed to sell them that way, though.
> should the government mandate that anybody going in the water wear one?
No, but they do regulate who is selling it. You can't find a cruise ship without life preservers on it - even if you really want to, and you're all about raw water or whatever.
The issue with raw milk isn't random people using their own cows to drink raw milk. The issue is people selling it en-masse. They will lie about the dangers, ensuring their consumers are as uneducated as possible, and then certainly sweep the predictable deaths under the rug.
If you truly don't believe me, go ahead and look at raw milk influencers. When I say they speak almost exclusively bullshit, that's not an exaggeration. Typically they engage in all forms of pseudo-science. Crystals, alchemy, anti-vax, you name it.
These people aren't trying to be honest about the dangers. They live in a parallel universe with different rules.
It's not protecting people from themselves - it's protecting consumers from those who would kill them for a quick buck (i.e. pretty much any anybody if they could get away with it)
The government can mandate that boats have life preservers, but if somebody wants to jump off the boat into frigid water without one, that's legal even though it will very likely kill them.
Anyway, if people want to practice alchemy too, let them. Let people drink quicksilver if that's what they want to do.
Yes, I already said this. My point was about the dangers around allowing the commercial sale of raw milk and how that’s a fundamentally different problem than just allowing raw milk.
They’re typically health influencers who attempt to get you to buy vitamins and supplements and programs you don’t need.
Sometimes they sell sacred geometry pendants and whatever other made up bullshit too.
Point being, they’re almost never honest. So, if they’re telling you raw milk is not only safe, but will cure a variety of modern ailments, just… grain of salt.
They rely on having an audience of gullible and health insecure people.
Symptoms of foodborne illness usually include:
Vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain
Flu-like symptoms such as fever, headache, and body ache
While most healthy people will recover from an illness caused by harmful germs in raw milk – or in foods made with raw milk – within a short time, some can develop symptoms that are chronic, severe, or even life-threatening. If you or someone you know becomes ill after consuming raw milk or products made from raw milk – or if you are pregnant and think you may have consumed contaminated raw milk or cheese – see a healthcare professional immediately.
The Dangers of Listeria and Pregnancy
Pregnant women run a serious risk of becoming ill from the germ Listeria, which is often found in raw milk and can cause miscarriage, or illness, or death of the newborn baby. If you are pregnant, drinking raw milk — or eating foods made from raw milk — can harm your baby even if you don’t feel sick.
Raw Milk and Serious Illness
Symptoms and Advice
Also note that "often found in raw milk" is only kind of accurate. We've never detected lysteria on our dairy. Both our environmental swabs and raw milk cheese samples have always been negative.
We'd consider it a serious problem if we detected it anywhere (drains, door sills, etc).
On the contrary, I would put raw milk pretty near the top of the list. Definitely in the top 50%. Especially if you scale it by actual harm done, as most dangerous things don't cause that much harm as people are cautious of them and handle them carefully.
There are dangers with raw milk, but to my knowledge no one in my immediate family has gotten ill from raw milk, despite drinking it daily for the last 20-some years.
However, it's from our own dairy, and we know and trust our own sanitation/storage.
FWIW, I'm totally OK with that. You have the personal knowledge to make an informed decision and can take direct steps to ensure your own safety. I see that as a whole different category than actively seeking out unpasteurized milk for routine consumption.
By analogy, my neighbors raise chickens, and they occasionally eat them. I wouldn't think twice about that, or about eating a dinner they shared with me. But darned if I could imagine regularly tracking down raw chicken in a wet market instead of buying it from an FDA-inspected place.
> despite drinking it daily for the last 20-some years
That should be "because" not "despite". Your body needs to acclimate to the microorganisms/contaminants in your foods. It's quite likely if you gave that same raw milk to someone who lives very cleanly, it would make them quite sick.
This is quite common when people from developed areas travel to much less developed areas.
Thank you for the disclosure and the anecdotal account but no sane person would expect an unbiased take on a product from the person that produces that product.
Also, it doesn't get much fresher than owning the cow or the dairy.
Yeah it's the microorganisms that cause food poisoning. There's not some magic unalienable property of pasteurized milk that makes it safe, it's just much less likely to contain microorganisms.
So if you're controlling for risk in other places I think anyone would be fine with that.
But the impact of 1 bad batch of milk getting mixed into a supply for an entire region, is a lot worse than your small scale. The risks probably aren't as well controlled at other farms as well.
Definitely think a difference in scale is a difference in kind here.
I had an uncle that drove without a seatbelt for 20 years, saying almost exactly the same thing. He did end up dying of lung cancer so maybe you're on to something.
It's easy to dodge a lot of bullets when each one has a ~ε% chance of hitting you.
It's interesting how often situations occur where there's a whole lot of people who are RIGHT even though they sound like they have opposed opinions.
Can the human mind unravel the mysteries of why it might be okay to drink raw milk from your own cows while holding large scale commercial endeavors to a higher standard? I think it's possible. I'm optimistic.
Wait until you hear who's going to be nominated to head the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the FDA and other agencies. For now they warn against and prohibit the interstate sale of raw milk [0]. That may not last.
- "Robert Kennedy Jr., the Trump administration’s nominee for secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, is a proponent of raw milk consumption, disclosing in 2023 that it is the only milk he drinks."
He also wants to regulate / ban ultra processed foods.
That’s certainly a good idea, since those products have been repeatedly shown to increase all cause mortality.
However, there is strong industry (and bipartisan) pressure to block the parts of his agenda that make scientific sense, so I’m not particularly optimistic.
Maybe apply pressure to your representatives? This seems like a rare case where they could have a big positive impact.
> He also wants to regulate / ban ultra processed foods.
How is "ultra processed" defined?
If he wants to make useful changes perhaps stop corn (high-fructose) subsidies and get rid of tariffs on 'regular' sugar.
Accepting that HIV and AIDS are linked would also probably be useful for a Secretary of Health:
> In his book The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the War on Democracy and Public Health, Kennedy writes that he takes "no position on the relationship between HIV and AIDS,"[292]: 347 but spends over 100 pages quoting HIV denialists such as Peter Duesberg who question the isolation of HIV and the etiology of AIDS.[311] Kennedy refers to the "orthodoxy that HIV alone causes AIDS"[292]: 348 and the "theology that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS,"[292]: 351 and repeats the false HIV/AIDS denialist claim that no one has isolated the HIV particle and "No one has been able to point to a study that demonstrates their hypothesis using accepted scientific proofs.": 348 He also repeats the false claim that the early AIDS drug AZT is "absolutely fatal"[292]: 332 due to its "horrendous toxicity."[292]: 298 Molecular biologist Dan Wilson points out that Kennedy falsely claims that Luc Montagnier, the discoverer of HIV, was a "convert" to Duesberg's fringe hypothesis. Wilson concludes that Kennedy is a "full blown" HIV/AIDS denialist.[311][292] Epidemiologist Tara C. Smith suggests that Kennedy's book "even flirts with outright germ theory denial," quoting a portion where Kennedy contrasts germ theory with terrain theory.[312]
I don't know what "ultra processed foods" even mean, tbh. Like are you seriously going to ban my keto/high-protein alternatives to sugar laden or carb heavy foods because my zero calorie water flavorant is more processed than freshly squeezed juice? It makes sense to me to regulate hyper-palatable 10-year-expiry junk food but ultra processed foods like meal replacements are useful and necessary for a wide variety of food sensitivities and disabilities.
> For now they warn against and prohibit the interstate sale of raw milk [0]. That may not last.
Nor should it. The government is not my mom, it does not have the right to dictate what I (or anyone else) can and cannot put into my body. By all means, regulate it and come down hard on anyone who doesn't meet the regulations. But an outright ban is stupid and always has been.
Prior to pasteurization, people died or became ill on a regular basis: that’s one reason why Louis Pasteur is a household name two centuries after his birth. Even as a relatively niche product it’s still responsible for a significant percentage of the dairy-related deaths and severe illnesses.
The confound is related to what you mentioned: historically few people were shipping milk very far. If you’re getting it shortly after milking your family’s cows, you don’t have the same kind of trust commitment that most modern consumers are making and you don’t have the profit motive conflicting with food safety, either.
Raw milk straight from a cow is generally fine, and I'm told much more delicious (and maybe more healthy? I really don't know about the science on that one). It's when it's had a chance to sit around that the risks increase (which inevitably happens in a commercialised process from the cow to your fridge). I've had pressure-treated unpasteurised milk and I prefer the taste of that over pasteurised.
From my limited understanding of the subject - directly from a local "organic grass fed" dairy farmer - the pathogens you are worried about have little to do with length of time it sits out although longer is of course worse.
I bought unhomongenized milk from him, but he would not even consume his own "home grown" raw milk or feed it to his family the day it was obtained from his cows. He ran everything through a pasteurization process prior to consumption.
I do wonder how many folks actually are preferring the unhomogenized flavor vs. the "raw milk" flavor and simply don't understand the difference? Having had both a long time ago, I really don't think I could have told you the difference in taste.
It's crazy to me such a mundane subject as become a political statement. I do wonder how much further society has to fall down this rabbit hole before it recovers - or if it ever does.
It also isn't a matter of hygiene or cows being organically fed. Microorganisms like Salmonella can be present in Milk and a lot of factors influence their presence, amount and procreation rate and some of these are more or less pure chance.
A healthy human might not get too many problems, but children or a weakened immune system can have far reaching consequences that includes death. Raw milk/cream certainly is different than the usual supermarket version, but for food safety the laws are just damn sensible. So sensible that most countries implemented them without question.
I think a lot of the flavor comes from two other factors: fat level (i.e. you can get higher fat than "whole" milk quite easily, although at some point it gets marketed as "cream", which significantly alters the taste) and the cow's diet: you can easily taste the difference between milk marketed as "grassfed" and the cheap stuff in a blind tasting. (Same is true for eggs, I suspect, though I've never tried that particular experiment myself.)
Having it be unhomogenized is at least as big a factor. Side by side it's very hard to tell unhomogenized pasteurized milk apart from raw milk that came from the same dairy. Something about having the fat globules loose in there makes it taste richer, and gives it a different texture.
You can buy unhomogenized milk pretty easily at health food stores etc. People generally don't prefer it though because shaking it is annoying, it curdles more easily in cooked applications, and spoils faster for some reason. But for people with a culinary preference for the "raw" texture it's an option. But most people wanting raw milk want it for political/ideological reasons not gustatory ones. An insane sentence I could not have imagined needing to write 20 years ago.
> Something about having the fat globules loose in there makes it taste richer, and gives it a different texture.
You can also just mix skim milk and cream right before drinking. Tastes richer for a given fat content.
(We started doing this when we had people who wanted skim, 1%, 2%, and whole all sharing a fridge. Though later we ended up with people only wanting whole and the small taste improvement wasn't worth the hassle of mixing anymore.)
"Generally fine" _really_ doesn't matter in the context of farms that produce milk by the hundreds of thousands of gallons; for society in general to not break out with foodborne disease every two weeks milk safety has to be controlled to an extremely careful standard of hygiene. And J Random Farmer can't suddenly stop pasteurizing raw milk unless everything else is held to such a standard.
I have pasteurized milk straight from a cow in different ways and it is different than raw milk. I prefer the flavored of the pasteurized, but all of them are much better than regular whole milk from the store. Store milk is just more bland in every way, and not just because it's less fatty.
The flavor of milk changes with what the cow eats, so if cows are on pasture then the flavor will change over the year as the grasses change and if they are on hay for part of the year that obviously changes the flavor as well.
Quite possibly the worst glass of milk I've ever consumed was in Mexican Hat, Utah, where the cows had apparently gotten into an onion patch. This went unmentioned until I asked why the milk tasted so strange.
Personally, I don't see why anyone uses milk in any form, raw or otherwise.
After being raised to think it was somehow not just OK, but almost mandatory to consume, I stopped all milk consumption, and almost all cheese and other dairy about 20 years ago.
Maybe barely post-cave people needed it to survive, but in the modern world there is 0 reason to be consuming another species lactate.
p.s. I would rate the addition of extra growth hormones (beyond what's already at naturally high levels due to being a lactate) as the biggest long term health problem with milk, moreso than weather it's pasturized or not.
> Maybe barely post-cave people needed it to survive
Milk consumption is generally much more recent than that. Broadly speaking, while the ability for adult humans to digest milk probably arose several times independently in different populations throughout history, for most people of European descent it likely arose around the time the first Proto-Indo-Europeans were migrating from steppes of Asia to Europe. They were horse riders and herders it's likely their ability to digest milk from their herd animals gave them a huge advantage. While migrating it would have been an invaluable food source and likely gave them a physical advantage as well as some studies of remains from this time indicates they were physically larger on average than the native European populations they were displacing, which may help explain how they apparently dominated or assimilated the native groups so easily.
If you look at maps of lactose intolerance world-wide, the countries with the lowest rates generally overlap with countries that speak languages in the Indo-European language family.
I'm sure there's much more nuance to it than that, but lactose tolerance in adults is a relatively modern development.
> but in the modern world there is 0 reason to be consuming another species lactate.
I can think of at least two: many people think dairy products taste good and they are also good sources of nutrition.
There are many good criticisms of the modern dairy industry and our culture in general, but the simple act of using milk from other animals isn't the problem.
hear me out: I want it. It tastes nice, I'm aware of the risks and I'm an adult with the wherewithal to make that decision. I will guarantee you there's some component of your diet that fails the "not strictly necessary and adds long-term health risk" test too.
Unhomogenized pasteurized milk is indistinguishable. I have tried raw side by side with this from the same dairy and even as a working chef, I had to be taught which was which.
I'm not expressing an opinion on raw milk, I'm replying to a comment that was expressing an opinion on milk in general. I like milk.
With that being said, I'm not a raw milk guy but I would hear an argument for someone's right to make that decision about their body for themselves. I'd be okay with there being some sort of mandatory information that has to be included with raw milk because, as you said, it's indistinguishable to our senses from pasteurized milk otherwise. We have several products that are known to be toxic but are still available for adults to choose to consume, and making the risks known directly on the packaging seems to be the middle road we've chosen.
There's also the fact that raw milk is just better for home cheesemaking, if that's something your into. Even the FDA acknowledges that raw milk cheese is safe if it's aged for at least 60 days. Pasteurization tends to wreck proteins. If those proteins make up the cell wall of a harmful bacterium that's good. If you're counting on those proteins to make up the structure of a cheese block, that's gonna be bad for you. I've done some home cheesemaking but don't have access to raw milk, and its been to my detriment as a food nerd.
Sure milk will help to build them! Vegetable will, too (see gorillas, the biggest and strongest humanoids) or soy for a boost. I don’t think being young add anything, a 40yo could also want to build muscle. You mention that you’re still growing, milk can help here too but also an exceptions: not a single mammal drink milk after babyhood.
I'm not crazy about non-dairy cheeses (though some are getting to be good), but ice cream is firmly in the good enough to great category. I haven't enjoyed drinking milk on its own for so long that it doesn't even register as a concern.
I've noticed some vegan soft cheeses like feta and cream cheese are way, way ahead of the melty or flavourful varieties that are heavily cultured, like blue cheese or parmesan. They seem to fall very short of the goal, but some are still good on a pasta or salad nonetheless.
I found a cookie dough ice cream a few months back that is seriously incredible. I can't recall the brand, but I realized as I ate it that I don't really miss dairy ice cream anymore at all.
I'm still hopeful for something like camembert or cheddar to appear that's as amazing as that cookie dough ice cream. Until then, I'm alright living without them.
I'm vegan and I'm going to go ahead and disagree with the statement that non-dairy cheese is tasty. It is also expensive and lots of restaurants don't even offer it as an option.
I have had some pretty good avocado icecream. But, it was not quite as creamy and I only found chocolate (not sure if the limited flavor selection was because it is niche, or because of something in the nature of avocado).
Sometimes, people aware of one set of risks are not always aware of the others. Drinking raw milk absolutely cares a certain set of risks... but drinking pasteurized does as well.
People who are confused about why one group chooses a different risk need to understand it's not because Californians are dumb (or Europeans or anyone else that drinks it).
The modern world has found a way to pasteurize, blanch, freeze, osmosis, distill, dna splice, or artificially grow many foods. This (mostly) eliminated a class of problems such as Salmonella or other pathogens. The problem is that the nutritional value of the food has taken a drastic decline that has effected the digestion system in many people. Enzymes, bacteria, and other beneficial parts of your diet are also destroyed.
This is an issue because your body requires bacteria to exist. You cannot correctly break down food or fight off viruses without certain bacteria existing inside you. Too much and it becomes an issue, but if you only eat sterile food or living in a sterile bubble you'll find your immune system will not be up to the task of other critical life functions you need to have.
I encourage people to look into the research about gut health and why it's an important part of your immune response.
Think about it, you're heating the milk up enough to kill the bacteria right? That's what I'm talking about.
It's funny because when people are instructed by their doctors to eat yogurt to get beneficial bacteria back in their gut, the companies are having to cultivate the bacteria the again, then add it back to the pasteurized dairy to replace the stuff that was killed by pasteurization.
It's like people adding minerals back to water that was filtered to remove everything.
To most people, "nutritional content" means the protein and sugar on the label. There is a lot more to what your body needs though that what is on that little label.
Again, I don't think raw milk is for everyone, but there are reasons why people drink it when they could get the cheaper pasteurized stuff.
"It's like people adding minerals back to water that was filtered to remove everything."
This is a great comparison - I'd much rather they filter out the minerals and the shit and then put the minerals back than have me drink the water with shit still in it.
Sure, but you have to admit that it's still impossible to know if the final product is equally the same as the unadulterated version right?
If it was possible to have a perfect food (or drink) that was totally identical to the theoretically perfect natural version then everyone would want that.
Currently, we have to pick between mostly-working set of alternatives: more natural, more risk or less natural, less risks.
Sure, I know for a fact that the final product isn't the same - this is a good thing. I think you're falling for the fallacy that natural is better. At a most basic level, our ancestors proved hundreds of thousands if not millions of years ago that this is false - natural meat is uncooked meat, but both the bio-availability of the protein and the safety of the food increases with cooking.
I would argue your comparison is itself a fallacy of equivalency. There are certain things in nature you cannot (and should not) consume (cooked or uncooked).
Certain foods like milk are the most basic/only source of nutrients for mammals from the time of birth. This isn't anything like raw meat or poisonous berries.
> I would argue your comparison is itself a fallacy of equivalency. There are certain things in nature you cannot (and should not) consume (cooked or uncooked).
This doesn't address my example. You can consume raw meat, and we used to, before we had fire. Now there's some meat that's not great to consume uncooked. Chicken should be cooked. But beef? We can eat that raw, but there are considerations to ensure it's safe, and it's easier, tastier, and better for you to consume it cooked.
> Certain foods like milk are the most basic/only source of nutrients for mammals from the time of birth. This isn't anything like raw meat or poisonous berries.
Again, an appeal to nature. Most mammal's drink milk only at the beginning of their lives and stop once they can consume other food sources. Regardless, raw milk straight from the teet of a mammal's mother is not the same as the raw milk in stores. Modern agricultural practices have ensured that diseases can easily travel between creatures, infesting the milk, which is what pasteurization solves.
> then add it back to the pasteurized dairy to replace the stuff that was killed by pasteurization.
Not quite. They add one or a few strains back that are known to be safe. When you ferment raw milk, you run the risk of other strains being present which can harm you. If they don't create evidence of contamination, you really have no way of knowing.
What reason do we have to believe that the whole package from milk is one worth receiving? I can get heaps of diverse beneficial bacteria from plenty of other sources. What’s milk offering that’s unique or special?
I’m asking sincerely. I’ve never bothered looking into it.
To answer one of your questions directly, it's the only thing that works for young mammals, it's got to have some unique mixture in it by that fact alone.
However, we're not all babies. I think lots of other sources can be just as beneficial, but this thread was about milk.
Yes? Isn't that the whole point? It has a bunch of biological content that needs to be broken down. The nutritional content changes while sitting on the shelf, why wouldn't heat affect that?
> According to a systematic review and meta-analysis, it was found that pasteurization appeared to reduce concentrations of vitamins B12 and E, but it also increased concentrations of vitamin A.
Of course not, I'm just trying to explain why someone would take on the risks of non-pasteurized or blanched foods.
However, even gut bacteria isn't a true/false question. It's a spectrum with a range of possible values. Someone with low counts of good bacteria would be instructed by their doctors to find fermented foods like yogurt or sauerkraut to consume.
On a semi-tangent: in cats, drinking raw milk contaminated with H5N1 has a >50% mortality rate (in one cluster investigated by the CDC, n=24).
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/30/7/24-0508_article
I think this study is important to point out as a point of concern. On the other hand - and I say this from a TB control perspective, where TB-contaminated raw milk is absolutely a vector, particularly for Mycobacterium bovis; I've treated such cases - we don't know if ingesting H5 is as risky for humans. It doesn't seem like a good idea, though, and there are plenty of other things spread by raw milk that definitely can make you ill (enteric bacteria in particular). I go through about three gallons of milk a week personally, but it's pasteurized and off-the-grocery-shelf.
Well my first question was going to be how are they enforcing a recall when (to my knowledge) it was illegal to sell in the first place.
But apparently California is one of the states where it is legal... why?!?
Because free adults should be allowed to choose whether or not they want their milk pasteurized. Obviously it needs to be labeled so people can make an informed decision, but otherwise there's no problem.
Free adults make decisions for children, and there is a long precedent( imo well justified ) of regulating decisions wrt to children: see vaccinations and mandatory schooling.
After the introduction of pasteurization, almost all adults freely chose pasteurized milk for their kids, without needing a law to force their hand.
If anything, the federal government trying to ban it has only made it more popular than it was before.
No, it was made more popular because of new technologies - the internet. The decentralization of information meant that idiots could be pastors.
It's not just raw milk - we're seeing this populist phenomena with everything. Anti-vax, moon landing is fake, QAnon, flat earth, crystals, sacred geometry, and on and on.
You tell people "The Establishment" serves one principal that's bad, but THEY serve an opposite principal, and you can get people to believe just about anything.
There's a whole culture and subsection of society who believes things purely because they think it's contrary to what "The Establishment" wants them to think. They reject anything with evidence or backed by institutions - that means medicine, food, policy.
This new-wave populism is fueled by our new communication technologies.
I disagree. The phenomenon is reactance and people declaring flat-earthers a serious epidemic only made it far more popular. It is assumed that the same happened with vaccination and other topics as well. And people that like freedoms are especially vulnerable, because some start to demand to ban flat-earthers, which certainly creates an understandable reaction because of a vast horizon of implications.
This is a problem with communication, but the medium is irrelevant. That people tend to dislike smart asses is a factor here.
RFK, who is backed by our president elect, is an anti-vaxxer. Our soon to be head of the department of energy doesn’t believe in climate change.
The medium matters a lot. Any idiot can get on a soapbox now. Decentralized communication to the masses like never before.
You can see the spark of populism after each new medium. The printing press, radio, television - all accompanied with a populist movement of their time.
> The decentralization of information meant that idiots could be pastors.
So you'd blame this on pastorization?
"The internet" is just a network. What did they say on the internet? "Raw milk is so good, our evil lying disreputable government doesn't want us to have it."
And the printing press is just a stamp. This is an incredibly disingenuous take. The internet opened up the world. It's been a groundbreaking technology. However, it has also lowered the barrier of entry to spreading stupid ideas to large audiences, and we are seeing the consequences of that.
The addition of search engines and recommendation algorithms is significant too. It's not just the ability to spread arbitrary information at zero cost, there's also a strong feedback loop where any information a user/rube engages with will become an increasingly large portion of what's presented to them.
Perhaps, but California generally doesn't look fondly on personal agency, especially on non-liberal topics like gun ownership/self defence, not participating in public education system, using gas vehicles, not getting vaccinated, etc.
I’ve lived in California and Indiana for 20 years each and recently discovered this explanation isn’t satisfactory.
You’re right in how you describe California; however they do look fondly on personal agency for liberal topics like birth control, abortion, marriage, drug usage, pissing on sidewalks in SF, etc.
I’ve concluded that different states value different forms of agency, but for some reason when people start pointing fingers they claim the other state doesn’t value agency.
it is highly regulated, but legal in some states. The inspection process for the dairies is pretty intense as well. I would not buy it to drink, but I have used it to make some really good yogurt (and I pasteurized the milk myself).
Raw milk is like tap water without fluoride. In the context of America people talk like it's an affront to civilization itself, yet in much (not all) of Europe its available with various restrictions and regulations.
Edit for factual context: In the 19th century before the advent of pasteurization and refrigeration, raw milk used to kill lots of kids. But raw milk in America wasn't banned in America until 1987 and 1991 in Canada. Refrigeration made raw milk mostly safe (albeit still gross, IMHO) and most consumers chose pasteurized milk anyway without the government forcing them to. People who think raw milk should obviously be banned like to talk about the Victorian era but not the (far more relevant) 1980s.
And, for the purposes of liquid milk, those restrictions are pretty tight [1] .
In most countries there are a _very_ small number of licensed suppliers and raw milk may not be sold in conventional distribution networks. Raw milk is used by the French for some cheeses but I'm not sure about liquid milk. With respect to cheese, those made in France with raw milk are, according to wikipedia, "the major source of staphylococcal food poisoning".
I mention this not because I'm sure that raw milk is always bad in all circumstances, I don't know enough to say, but to point out that the degree to which it's available within EU+UK is really quite limited.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_milk#Europe
> In most countries there are a _very_ small number of licensed suppliers and raw milk may not be sold in conventional distribution networks.
So it is also in the American states which permit it. It's a very niche product which is subject to numerous regulations, in some states harsher than others. Generally it's not allowed to be sold in normal stores, you have to go to farms or special dairy stores to get it, state agencies regularly test it (hence this recall), etc.
>albeit still gross, IMHO
are raw fruits/vegetables yucky to you too?
Why do you make that comparison? It seems absurd to me.
pasteurization is just a heat treatment to remove bacteria. it isn't some fancy filtering process to remove the yucky bits.
fruits and vegetables are covered in bacteria too.
Fruits and vegetables are not liquid.
And uncooked vegetables are indeed a large source of food borne illness.
Rare steak is fine, rare chicken is not.
Your analogy is really bad.
>Fruits and vegetables are not liquid.
and that is relevant how?
>And uncooked vegetables are indeed a large source of food borne illness.
so they are yucky too, after all?
>Rare steak is fine, rare chicken is not.
and that is relevant how?
>Your analogy is really bad.
thank you for your valuable input
> and that is relevant how?
Because it demonstrates some raw things are fine, and some raw things kill you? Like... duh?
I mean what are you really arguing here? We eat some raw stuff so that means anything raw, including milk, is perfectly safe to drink?
Just on it's surface that's such an absurd argument that I honestly doubt any human beings on Earth believe that. We're all well aware many raw substances are dangerous.
>I mean what are you really arguing here?
I'm arguing that if you find "raw" milk gross, then raw fruits and vegetables are gross too. washing them (i.e. splashing them with cold water for a few seconds under the sink) doesn't eradicate the bacteria crawling all over.
I don't understand why do you and the other poster sperg out about raw meat. I never said a damn thing about raw meat. no one eats raw meat, but millions of people drink "raw" milk. we drank "raw" milk for a few thousand years. "raw" milk is just milk.
and people died of dysentery and cholera and brucellosis and tuberculosis and typhoid and listeria and and anthrax and scarlet fever for those thousands of years. Then, we figured out that bacteria causes those diseases, we can kill that bacteria with a process, and now there's milk that is safe to drink, and milk that is not safe to drink, creating the concept of raw milk and pasteurized milk. raw meat is pink and cooked meat isn't but unfortunately for us, raw milk and pasteurized milk are both white
as far as eating raw meat, I ate sushi a few days ago.
Some of them. It's a personal preference thing.
I don't drink raw milk because it weirds me out, but if other people want to I'm not going to tell them they can't. I'm not going to drink raw eggs like Rocky, but if somebody else wants to they can have at it as far as I'm concerned. And I certainly don't think the sale of raw eggs should be banned to stop them.
Absolutely WILD response. Its easy to was the dirt off a fruit or vegetable. Drinking raw milk is like eating fruit or vegetable with feces on it still.
There is a consistent movement that raw milk is healthier for you than pasteurized milk, in the influence sphere of Wellness(tm).
These raw milk people need to be shipped away to a secluded island. They cant be trusted to make decisions.
We call this island the United States. Just kidding.
On a serious note, I see this kind of anti-intellectualism and skepticism to science frequently in developed countries. As someone who grew up in a developing country I always believed that education and advanced sciences will show improve people's knowledge on these matters. For example, I've met only a negligible amount of people in India who have been against public vaccinations. Meanwhile the number of highly educated peers I've had over the last few years who question vaccinations as an aspect of societal healthcare has been very demoralizing.
Raw milk is dangerous anyway, bird flu or no bird flu I'm surprised its sold.
Lots of dangerous things are sold, and raw milk isn't anywhere near the top of the list.
You're right, but there are a couple of key points you are missing:
1. (And this is the most important) we literally have a solution to it not being safe.
2. When things are unsafe, we (generally) make sure that people are properly educated about the risks. The people pushing raw milk are doing the exact opposite.
3. When something is unsafe, we try to figure out how to make it safe or find an alternative (see 1)
I had been largely oblivious to raw milk until just a few weeks ago when someone suggested I look into it.
From what I can tell, raw milk per se is not likely to be problematic, but problems can get injected if the cows and/or general milking operation are not handled well. Pasteurizing milk could plausibly be seen as a quick fix to not have to deal with such things well. On the other hand, who would I trust to actually handle raw milk with excellence?
Sounds to me like low-temperature pasteurization might be the best compromise? Kills off what is harmful, but supposedly retains more of the original nutrients?
> raw milk per se is not likely to be problematic
Part of the issue is that the current farms doing it are heavily regulated and also specialize in this product. If there's deregulation, you're going to see a free for all in states with light regulation.
I personally think the whole thing is very stupid, and considering all of the raw milk illnesses that have been occurring (especially with bird flu), the status quo is fine. But if exposure is expanded...
I've heard a few people mention the lack of vitamins in pasteurized milk. I get that heat could destroy some chemicals, so that sort of makes sense, but isn't most milk fortified? I'm not sure it's a huge deal. I don't really care that the vitamin A in my cheese didn't come out of the cow, personally.
I do care that it won't give me food poisoning though, that's a lot higher up the list of concerns than vitamin provenance.
It is broadly accepted that pasteurized milk is lower in vitamin C, but there generally isn't much in dairy products to begin with. There are also reportedly small reductions in vitamins B2 (riboflavin), B12 and E, and folate. However, no reputable nutritional authority has identified these reductions as being physiologically significant.
More controversial assertions circulate around protein and enzyme content, but studies have failed to find anything making raw milk more "digestible" or causing any detectable contribution to immunity or allergy. The FDA has an extensive discussion on this: https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-food/raw-milk-...
Interesting, thanks! I'll give it a read. I didn't know about the "contains probiotic bacteria that secrete lactase" claim with raw milk. It would be weird if lactase/lactase producing bacteria were in big enough quantities in milk, considering how cows (and people) produce it themselves as babies. Seems like wasted effort that would probably be evolved away.
Yes, but it’s voluntarily and unnecessarily unsafe. It’s like scuba diving without a timer. You can do that, but it’s a dumb idea when the alternative is right there and widely available.
Swimming without a life preserver kills a lot more people than raw milk; should the government mandate that anybody going in the water wear one?
Most people would probably reject that; they know how to swim and the government should butt out of it. From my personal perspective, informed by my background as a lifeguard and competitive swimmer, I dispute the swimming ability of most of the general public who claim they can swim. Most people who claim they "can swim" are just barely capable of not drowning under ideal conditions. Mandating life preservers for anybody who jumps into a lake or pool would without a shred of doubt save many lives every year. But should that really be done? Is protecting people from themselves really what we should be prioritizing before all else? Sometimes we should let people enjoy things, even if it may kill them.
It wasn't a perfect analogy by a long shot. In this case, the question is more whether we should ignore established FDA food safety requirements for no particular reason? Like, what if I don't mind beetles in my oat. Shouldn't I be able to buy them that way?
Perhaps. I don't think someone should be allowed to sell them that way, though.
> should the government mandate that anybody going in the water wear one?
No, but they do regulate who is selling it. You can't find a cruise ship without life preservers on it - even if you really want to, and you're all about raw water or whatever.
The issue with raw milk isn't random people using their own cows to drink raw milk. The issue is people selling it en-masse. They will lie about the dangers, ensuring their consumers are as uneducated as possible, and then certainly sweep the predictable deaths under the rug.
If you truly don't believe me, go ahead and look at raw milk influencers. When I say they speak almost exclusively bullshit, that's not an exaggeration. Typically they engage in all forms of pseudo-science. Crystals, alchemy, anti-vax, you name it.
These people aren't trying to be honest about the dangers. They live in a parallel universe with different rules.
It's not protecting people from themselves - it's protecting consumers from those who would kill them for a quick buck (i.e. pretty much any anybody if they could get away with it)
The government can mandate that boats have life preservers, but if somebody wants to jump off the boat into frigid water without one, that's legal even though it will very likely kill them.
Anyway, if people want to practice alchemy too, let them. Let people drink quicksilver if that's what they want to do.
It’s like you didn’t read my comment at all.
Yes, I already said this. My point was about the dangers around allowing the commercial sale of raw milk and how that’s a fundamentally different problem than just allowing raw milk.
I have not gotten the impression that raw milk aficionados are in it for the money. What makes you think that?
They’re typically health influencers who attempt to get you to buy vitamins and supplements and programs you don’t need.
Sometimes they sell sacred geometry pendants and whatever other made up bullshit too.
Point being, they’re almost never honest. So, if they’re telling you raw milk is not only safe, but will cure a variety of modern ailments, just… grain of salt.
They rely on having an audience of gullible and health insecure people.
From the FDA: https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-food/dangers-r...
Symptoms of foodborne illness usually include: Vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain Flu-like symptoms such as fever, headache, and body ache
While most healthy people will recover from an illness caused by harmful germs in raw milk – or in foods made with raw milk – within a short time, some can develop symptoms that are chronic, severe, or even life-threatening. If you or someone you know becomes ill after consuming raw milk or products made from raw milk – or if you are pregnant and think you may have consumed contaminated raw milk or cheese – see a healthcare professional immediately.
The Dangers of Listeria and Pregnancy Pregnant women run a serious risk of becoming ill from the germ Listeria, which is often found in raw milk and can cause miscarriage, or illness, or death of the newborn baby. If you are pregnant, drinking raw milk — or eating foods made from raw milk — can harm your baby even if you don’t feel sick. Raw Milk and Serious Illness Symptoms and Advice
Also note that "often found in raw milk" is only kind of accurate. We've never detected lysteria on our dairy. Both our environmental swabs and raw milk cheese samples have always been negative.
We'd consider it a serious problem if we detected it anywhere (drains, door sills, etc).
On the contrary, I would put raw milk pretty near the top of the list. Definitely in the top 50%. Especially if you scale it by actual harm done, as most dangerous things don't cause that much harm as people are cautious of them and handle them carefully.
There are dangers with raw milk, but to my knowledge no one in my immediate family has gotten ill from raw milk, despite drinking it daily for the last 20-some years.
However, it's from our own dairy, and we know and trust our own sanitation/storage.
FWIW, I'm totally OK with that. You have the personal knowledge to make an informed decision and can take direct steps to ensure your own safety. I see that as a whole different category than actively seeking out unpasteurized milk for routine consumption.
By analogy, my neighbors raise chickens, and they occasionally eat them. I wouldn't think twice about that, or about eating a dinner they shared with me. But darned if I could imagine regularly tracking down raw chicken in a wet market instead of buying it from an FDA-inspected place.
> despite drinking it daily for the last 20-some years
That should be "because" not "despite". Your body needs to acclimate to the microorganisms/contaminants in your foods. It's quite likely if you gave that same raw milk to someone who lives very cleanly, it would make them quite sick.
This is quite common when people from developed areas travel to much less developed areas.
Thank you for the disclosure and the anecdotal account but no sane person would expect an unbiased take on a product from the person that produces that product. Also, it doesn't get much fresher than owning the cow or the dairy.
Yeah it's the microorganisms that cause food poisoning. There's not some magic unalienable property of pasteurized milk that makes it safe, it's just much less likely to contain microorganisms.
So if you're controlling for risk in other places I think anyone would be fine with that.
But the impact of 1 bad batch of milk getting mixed into a supply for an entire region, is a lot worse than your small scale. The risks probably aren't as well controlled at other farms as well.
Definitely think a difference in scale is a difference in kind here.
I had an uncle that drove without a seatbelt for 20 years, saying almost exactly the same thing. He did end up dying of lung cancer so maybe you're on to something.
It's easy to dodge a lot of bullets when each one has a ~ε% chance of hitting you.
It's interesting how often situations occur where there's a whole lot of people who are RIGHT even though they sound like they have opposed opinions.
Can the human mind unravel the mysteries of why it might be okay to drink raw milk from your own cows while holding large scale commercial endeavors to a higher standard? I think it's possible. I'm optimistic.
I'll continue wearing my seatbelt to protect myself from lung cancer, in that case.
Wait until you hear who's going to be nominated to head the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the FDA and other agencies. For now they warn against and prohibit the interstate sale of raw milk [0]. That may not last.
[0] https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-food/food-safe...
For those blissfully ignorant:
- "Robert Kennedy Jr., the Trump administration’s nominee for secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, is a proponent of raw milk consumption, disclosing in 2023 that it is the only milk he drinks."
https://www.statnews.com/2024/11/24/bird-flu-h5n1-raw-milk-l...
He also wants to regulate / ban ultra processed foods.
That’s certainly a good idea, since those products have been repeatedly shown to increase all cause mortality.
However, there is strong industry (and bipartisan) pressure to block the parts of his agenda that make scientific sense, so I’m not particularly optimistic.
Maybe apply pressure to your representatives? This seems like a rare case where they could have a big positive impact.
> He also wants to regulate / ban ultra processed foods.
How is "ultra processed" defined?
If he wants to make useful changes perhaps stop corn (high-fructose) subsidies and get rid of tariffs on 'regular' sugar.
Accepting that HIV and AIDS are linked would also probably be useful for a Secretary of Health:
> In his book The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the War on Democracy and Public Health, Kennedy writes that he takes "no position on the relationship between HIV and AIDS,"[292]: 347 but spends over 100 pages quoting HIV denialists such as Peter Duesberg who question the isolation of HIV and the etiology of AIDS.[311] Kennedy refers to the "orthodoxy that HIV alone causes AIDS"[292]: 348 and the "theology that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS,"[292]: 351 and repeats the false HIV/AIDS denialist claim that no one has isolated the HIV particle and "No one has been able to point to a study that demonstrates their hypothesis using accepted scientific proofs.": 348 He also repeats the false claim that the early AIDS drug AZT is "absolutely fatal"[292]: 332 due to its "horrendous toxicity."[292]: 298 Molecular biologist Dan Wilson points out that Kennedy falsely claims that Luc Montagnier, the discoverer of HIV, was a "convert" to Duesberg's fringe hypothesis. Wilson concludes that Kennedy is a "full blown" HIV/AIDS denialist.[311][292] Epidemiologist Tara C. Smith suggests that Kennedy's book "even flirts with outright germ theory denial," quoting a portion where Kennedy contrasts germ theory with terrain theory.[312]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#HIV/AIDS...
Also, not denying the effectiveness of vaccines:
* https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/07/how-rfk-jr-fals...
I don't know what "ultra processed foods" even mean, tbh. Like are you seriously going to ban my keto/high-protein alternatives to sugar laden or carb heavy foods because my zero calorie water flavorant is more processed than freshly squeezed juice? It makes sense to me to regulate hyper-palatable 10-year-expiry junk food but ultra processed foods like meal replacements are useful and necessary for a wide variety of food sensitivities and disabilities.
> For now they warn against and prohibit the interstate sale of raw milk [0]. That may not last.
Nor should it. The government is not my mom, it does not have the right to dictate what I (or anyone else) can and cannot put into my body. By all means, regulate it and come down hard on anyone who doesn't meet the regulations. But an outright ban is stupid and always has been.
[flagged]
Prior to pasteurization, people died or became ill on a regular basis: that’s one reason why Louis Pasteur is a household name two centuries after his birth. Even as a relatively niche product it’s still responsible for a significant percentage of the dairy-related deaths and severe illnesses.
The confound is related to what you mentioned: historically few people were shipping milk very far. If you’re getting it shortly after milking your family’s cows, you don’t have the same kind of trust commitment that most modern consumers are making and you don’t have the profit motive conflicting with food safety, either.
Raw milk straight from a cow is generally fine, and I'm told much more delicious (and maybe more healthy? I really don't know about the science on that one). It's when it's had a chance to sit around that the risks increase (which inevitably happens in a commercialised process from the cow to your fridge). I've had pressure-treated unpasteurised milk and I prefer the taste of that over pasteurised.
From my limited understanding of the subject - directly from a local "organic grass fed" dairy farmer - the pathogens you are worried about have little to do with length of time it sits out although longer is of course worse.
I bought unhomongenized milk from him, but he would not even consume his own "home grown" raw milk or feed it to his family the day it was obtained from his cows. He ran everything through a pasteurization process prior to consumption.
I do wonder how many folks actually are preferring the unhomogenized flavor vs. the "raw milk" flavor and simply don't understand the difference? Having had both a long time ago, I really don't think I could have told you the difference in taste.
It's crazy to me such a mundane subject as become a political statement. I do wonder how much further society has to fall down this rabbit hole before it recovers - or if it ever does.
It also isn't a matter of hygiene or cows being organically fed. Microorganisms like Salmonella can be present in Milk and a lot of factors influence their presence, amount and procreation rate and some of these are more or less pure chance.
A healthy human might not get too many problems, but children or a weakened immune system can have far reaching consequences that includes death. Raw milk/cream certainly is different than the usual supermarket version, but for food safety the laws are just damn sensible. So sensible that most countries implemented them without question.
I think a lot of the flavor comes from two other factors: fat level (i.e. you can get higher fat than "whole" milk quite easily, although at some point it gets marketed as "cream", which significantly alters the taste) and the cow's diet: you can easily taste the difference between milk marketed as "grassfed" and the cheap stuff in a blind tasting. (Same is true for eggs, I suspect, though I've never tried that particular experiment myself.)
Having it be unhomogenized is at least as big a factor. Side by side it's very hard to tell unhomogenized pasteurized milk apart from raw milk that came from the same dairy. Something about having the fat globules loose in there makes it taste richer, and gives it a different texture.
You can buy unhomogenized milk pretty easily at health food stores etc. People generally don't prefer it though because shaking it is annoying, it curdles more easily in cooked applications, and spoils faster for some reason. But for people with a culinary preference for the "raw" texture it's an option. But most people wanting raw milk want it for political/ideological reasons not gustatory ones. An insane sentence I could not have imagined needing to write 20 years ago.
> Something about having the fat globules loose in there makes it taste richer, and gives it a different texture.
You can also just mix skim milk and cream right before drinking. Tastes richer for a given fat content.
(We started doing this when we had people who wanted skim, 1%, 2%, and whole all sharing a fridge. Though later we ended up with people only wanting whole and the small taste improvement wasn't worth the hassle of mixing anymore.)
"Generally fine" _really_ doesn't matter in the context of farms that produce milk by the hundreds of thousands of gallons; for society in general to not break out with foodborne disease every two weeks milk safety has to be controlled to an extremely careful standard of hygiene. And J Random Farmer can't suddenly stop pasteurizing raw milk unless everything else is held to such a standard.
I have pasteurized milk straight from a cow in different ways and it is different than raw milk. I prefer the flavored of the pasteurized, but all of them are much better than regular whole milk from the store. Store milk is just more bland in every way, and not just because it's less fatty.
The flavor of milk changes with what the cow eats, so if cows are on pasture then the flavor will change over the year as the grasses change and if they are on hay for part of the year that obviously changes the flavor as well.
Quite possibly the worst glass of milk I've ever consumed was in Mexican Hat, Utah, where the cows had apparently gotten into an onion patch. This went unmentioned until I asked why the milk tasted so strange.
Incidents like this are what I find concerning about RFKs enthusiasm for raw milk. People have literally died from drinking this biohazard material.
See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42238651
Now, how am I supposed to source my raw milk for my family of four?
Personally, I don't see why anyone uses milk in any form, raw or otherwise.
After being raised to think it was somehow not just OK, but almost mandatory to consume, I stopped all milk consumption, and almost all cheese and other dairy about 20 years ago.
Maybe barely post-cave people needed it to survive, but in the modern world there is 0 reason to be consuming another species lactate.
p.s. I would rate the addition of extra growth hormones (beyond what's already at naturally high levels due to being a lactate) as the biggest long term health problem with milk, moreso than weather it's pasturized or not.
> Maybe barely post-cave people needed it to survive
Milk consumption is generally much more recent than that. Broadly speaking, while the ability for adult humans to digest milk probably arose several times independently in different populations throughout history, for most people of European descent it likely arose around the time the first Proto-Indo-Europeans were migrating from steppes of Asia to Europe. They were horse riders and herders it's likely their ability to digest milk from their herd animals gave them a huge advantage. While migrating it would have been an invaluable food source and likely gave them a physical advantage as well as some studies of remains from this time indicates they were physically larger on average than the native European populations they were displacing, which may help explain how they apparently dominated or assimilated the native groups so easily.
If you look at maps of lactose intolerance world-wide, the countries with the lowest rates generally overlap with countries that speak languages in the Indo-European language family.
I'm sure there's much more nuance to it than that, but lactose tolerance in adults is a relatively modern development.
> but in the modern world there is 0 reason to be consuming another species lactate.
I can think of at least two: many people think dairy products taste good and they are also good sources of nutrition.
There are many good criticisms of the modern dairy industry and our culture in general, but the simple act of using milk from other animals isn't the problem.
hear me out: I want it. It tastes nice, I'm aware of the risks and I'm an adult with the wherewithal to make that decision. I will guarantee you there's some component of your diet that fails the "not strictly necessary and adds long-term health risk" test too.
Unhomogenized pasteurized milk is indistinguishable. I have tried raw side by side with this from the same dairy and even as a working chef, I had to be taught which was which.
I'm not expressing an opinion on raw milk, I'm replying to a comment that was expressing an opinion on milk in general. I like milk.
With that being said, I'm not a raw milk guy but I would hear an argument for someone's right to make that decision about their body for themselves. I'd be okay with there being some sort of mandatory information that has to be included with raw milk because, as you said, it's indistinguishable to our senses from pasteurized milk otherwise. We have several products that are known to be toxic but are still available for adults to choose to consume, and making the risks known directly on the packaging seems to be the middle road we've chosen.
There's also the fact that raw milk is just better for home cheesemaking, if that's something your into. Even the FDA acknowledges that raw milk cheese is safe if it's aged for at least 60 days. Pasteurization tends to wreck proteins. If those proteins make up the cell wall of a harmful bacterium that's good. If you're counting on those proteins to make up the structure of a cheese block, that's gonna be bad for you. I've done some home cheesemaking but don't have access to raw milk, and its been to my detriment as a food nerd.
I've done a good deal more than "some" cheese making and unhomogenized pasteurized is fine. Might be a skill issue.
Because I am a young (and small) mammal that is still growing and hoping to put on as much muscle as possible. :)
I'm quite literally who milk was made for.
Your point about species is valid though and I can't say that if given an ample supply of human milk, I would be inclined to consume it.
Sure milk will help to build them! Vegetable will, too (see gorillas, the biggest and strongest humanoids) or soy for a boost. I don’t think being young add anything, a 40yo could also want to build muscle. You mention that you’re still growing, milk can help here too but also an exceptions: not a single mammal drink milk after babyhood.
I can’t stand milk but I can’t imagine giving up cheese and icecream.
Non dairy versions are pretty widely available and really tasty
I'm not crazy about non-dairy cheeses (though some are getting to be good), but ice cream is firmly in the good enough to great category. I haven't enjoyed drinking milk on its own for so long that it doesn't even register as a concern.
I've noticed some vegan soft cheeses like feta and cream cheese are way, way ahead of the melty or flavourful varieties that are heavily cultured, like blue cheese or parmesan. They seem to fall very short of the goal, but some are still good on a pasta or salad nonetheless.
I found a cookie dough ice cream a few months back that is seriously incredible. I can't recall the brand, but I realized as I ate it that I don't really miss dairy ice cream anymore at all.
I'm still hopeful for something like camembert or cheddar to appear that's as amazing as that cookie dough ice cream. Until then, I'm alright living without them.
I'm vegan and I'm going to go ahead and disagree with the statement that non-dairy cheese is tasty. It is also expensive and lots of restaurants don't even offer it as an option.
I have had some pretty good avocado icecream. But, it was not quite as creamy and I only found chocolate (not sure if the limited flavor selection was because it is niche, or because of something in the nature of avocado).
I’m not American but if I would keep one think of this country, it would be diary-free Ben and Jerry’s without a spoon of hesitation.
Some non-diary ice cream, sure. Non-dairy cheese? There isn't a single tasty one.
That's certainly a take. Non-dairy ice cream and cheese is utter garbage in my opinion. Not worth the calories.
> After being raised to think it was somehow not just OK, but almost mandatory to consume
Congratulation to overcome your family’s beliefs. How did you do? Habits refrain rational thinking, it’s hard to overcome them, especially for adults.
Sometimes, people aware of one set of risks are not always aware of the others. Drinking raw milk absolutely cares a certain set of risks... but drinking pasteurized does as well.
People who are confused about why one group chooses a different risk need to understand it's not because Californians are dumb (or Europeans or anyone else that drinks it).
The modern world has found a way to pasteurize, blanch, freeze, osmosis, distill, dna splice, or artificially grow many foods. This (mostly) eliminated a class of problems such as Salmonella or other pathogens. The problem is that the nutritional value of the food has taken a drastic decline that has effected the digestion system in many people. Enzymes, bacteria, and other beneficial parts of your diet are also destroyed.
This is an issue because your body requires bacteria to exist. You cannot correctly break down food or fight off viruses without certain bacteria existing inside you. Too much and it becomes an issue, but if you only eat sterile food or living in a sterile bubble you'll find your immune system will not be up to the task of other critical life functions you need to have.
I encourage people to look into the research about gut health and why it's an important part of your immune response.
do you really think briefly cooking milk significantly reduces its nutritional content
Think about it, you're heating the milk up enough to kill the bacteria right? That's what I'm talking about.
It's funny because when people are instructed by their doctors to eat yogurt to get beneficial bacteria back in their gut, the companies are having to cultivate the bacteria the again, then add it back to the pasteurized dairy to replace the stuff that was killed by pasteurization.
It's like people adding minerals back to water that was filtered to remove everything.
To most people, "nutritional content" means the protein and sugar on the label. There is a lot more to what your body needs though that what is on that little label.
Again, I don't think raw milk is for everyone, but there are reasons why people drink it when they could get the cheaper pasteurized stuff.
"It's like people adding minerals back to water that was filtered to remove everything."
This is a great comparison - I'd much rather they filter out the minerals and the shit and then put the minerals back than have me drink the water with shit still in it.
Sure, but you have to admit that it's still impossible to know if the final product is equally the same as the unadulterated version right?
If it was possible to have a perfect food (or drink) that was totally identical to the theoretically perfect natural version then everyone would want that.
Currently, we have to pick between mostly-working set of alternatives: more natural, more risk or less natural, less risks.
Sure, I know for a fact that the final product isn't the same - this is a good thing. I think you're falling for the fallacy that natural is better. At a most basic level, our ancestors proved hundreds of thousands if not millions of years ago that this is false - natural meat is uncooked meat, but both the bio-availability of the protein and the safety of the food increases with cooking.
I would argue your comparison is itself a fallacy of equivalency. There are certain things in nature you cannot (and should not) consume (cooked or uncooked).
Certain foods like milk are the most basic/only source of nutrients for mammals from the time of birth. This isn't anything like raw meat or poisonous berries.
> I would argue your comparison is itself a fallacy of equivalency. There are certain things in nature you cannot (and should not) consume (cooked or uncooked).
This doesn't address my example. You can consume raw meat, and we used to, before we had fire. Now there's some meat that's not great to consume uncooked. Chicken should be cooked. But beef? We can eat that raw, but there are considerations to ensure it's safe, and it's easier, tastier, and better for you to consume it cooked.
> Certain foods like milk are the most basic/only source of nutrients for mammals from the time of birth. This isn't anything like raw meat or poisonous berries.
Again, an appeal to nature. Most mammal's drink milk only at the beginning of their lives and stop once they can consume other food sources. Regardless, raw milk straight from the teet of a mammal's mother is not the same as the raw milk in stores. Modern agricultural practices have ensured that diseases can easily travel between creatures, infesting the milk, which is what pasteurization solves.
> then add it back to the pasteurized dairy to replace the stuff that was killed by pasteurization.
Not quite. They add one or a few strains back that are known to be safe. When you ferment raw milk, you run the risk of other strains being present which can harm you. If they don't create evidence of contamination, you really have no way of knowing.
Yes, but you understand the concept right? Some people are less worried about sudden death than degraded long-term performance.
There is a reason bodybuilders look at what type of protein they're eating instead of just getting the cheapest soy off the shelf.
Not everyone wants a couple cultured strains, they want the whole raw milk package and are okay with the risks.
What reason do we have to believe that the whole package from milk is one worth receiving? I can get heaps of diverse beneficial bacteria from plenty of other sources. What’s milk offering that’s unique or special?
I’m asking sincerely. I’ve never bothered looking into it.
To answer one of your questions directly, it's the only thing that works for young mammals, it's got to have some unique mixture in it by that fact alone.
However, we're not all babies. I think lots of other sources can be just as beneficial, but this thread was about milk.
Yes? Isn't that the whole point? It has a bunch of biological content that needs to be broken down. The nutritional content changes while sitting on the shelf, why wouldn't heat affect that?
> According to a systematic review and meta-analysis, it was found that pasteurization appeared to reduce concentrations of vitamins B12 and E, but it also increased concentrations of vitamin A.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteurization#Milk_2
Do you think people who drink pasteurized milk don't have bacteria?
Of course not, I'm just trying to explain why someone would take on the risks of non-pasteurized or blanched foods.
However, even gut bacteria isn't a true/false question. It's a spectrum with a range of possible values. Someone with low counts of good bacteria would be instructed by their doctors to find fermented foods like yogurt or sauerkraut to consume.