Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Another "raw milk" incident... [View all]Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)142. Your CDC link doesn't refute what I said
The "raw milk has beneficial bacteria...." assertion has no scientific basis.
The link you provided only talks about nutrients and enzymes which aren't the same as bacteria, and if you read your own link the CDC even acknowledges that some enzymes and nutrients are degraded through pasteurization. Personally I'm not going to make the case that raw milk is significantly more healthy than pasteurized milk. Some people do believe this and there's ample evidence out there to make their case, but regardless pasteurized milk is still a very nutritional food.
The next thing you need to realize about the CDC and the FDA is they are highly biased on the side of big agra and have been for many years. John Sheehan, head of the FDA's dairy division was a manager for the dairy industry for 17 years before he started working for the FDA. His work and the work of his minions is mostly where this misinformation comes from. So your source is not exactly objective and some of the so-called facts they list on your link have been well debunked.
And it is way safer than raw milk. There is just no comparison.
If you're trying to make the case that raw milk is somehow unsafe, good luck. Certainly if the CDC and/or FDA is your only source of information, I can understand why you'd believe as much. Personally I take the civil libertarian viewpoint. If raw milk is not a hazard, it should be available to those who want it, period end of discussion. It doesn't matter if it is or isn't more healthy. It doesn't matter if it does or doesn't make people sick. I'm not convinced raw milk is a greater hazard than a lot of other food products on the market. Furthermore the nature of raw milk and shorter shelf life dictates that it can't be distributed in mass quantities across great distances the way that pasteurized milk can. Therefore whatever risk does exist is limited to small areas and small groups of people. Compare this the way that pasteurized milk and other products like meat and vegetables are distributed and it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that if something does go wrong (and eventually it does), you are putting tens of thousands of people at risk.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
162 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It is impossible to sterilize a cow's udder and milking machines aren't sterilized either.
yellowcanine
Feb 2012
#135
The CDC disagrees with the notion of "competitive exclusion" and raw milk
yellowcanine
Feb 2012
#137
Is the fact that the CDC says that ZERO people have died in the last ten years from raw milk proof?
renie408
Feb 2012
#80
Didn't seem to help the 3 people who died in 2007 from drinking pasteurized milk
Major Nikon
Feb 2012
#129
Oh my, that foreign country France considers pasteurized cheeses almost a sacrilege.
tabatha
Feb 2012
#6
Well if you have a contaminated valve that is located after the paseurization
Snake Alchemist
Feb 2012
#39
But pasteurization after this contamination would have fixed this problem.
Snake Alchemist
Feb 2012
#46
It's very much like improperly prepared vaccines where the virus is left alive.
Snake Alchemist
Feb 2012
#52
Quite aware. You do realize that vaccines aren't sterilized either, right? nt
Snake Alchemist
Feb 2012
#57
Pasteurized milk is still a medium for bacterial growth so it has to be packaged and handled
yellowcanine
Feb 2012
#138
Actually it does. And as for "it should be available to those who want it" ok but not for children
yellowcanine
Feb 2012
#146
Raw milk makes few people sick because not that many people drink raw milk.
yellowcanine
Feb 2012
#149
So how many sick or dead children is ok to risk just so a few can have raw milk?
yellowcanine
Feb 2012
#153
Yes it is about the kids because adults are making choices for them which put them at risk. A civil
yellowcanine
Feb 2012
#160
I would point out that you brought up "Its about the kids". So what were you trying to evoke?
yellowcanine
Feb 2012
#162
Tell me more about how sheep's bladders can be employed to prevent earthquakes.
LeftyMom
Feb 2012
#136
I did and I drank raw milk also. But I wouldn't dream of buying raw milk and giving it to my child
yellowcanine
Feb 2012
#151
You can't get raw milk in stores in most states. I don't think that equating smoking with drinking
terip64
Feb 2012
#97
To each his own. "The health benefits are great," until it kills you? Some say it might.
Honeycombe8
Feb 2012
#131
The validity of the comparison is that in each case one is taking an unnecessary risk.
yellowcanine
Feb 2012
#141
Well for whatever reason people do get sick. It is easy to say, well that farm did not use the
yellowcanine
Feb 2012
#145
Where does the passion come from? I am curious because I truly love my raw milk
terip64
Feb 2012
#100
I could not agree more. People don't understand the health benefits that we experience.
terip64
Feb 2012
#99
I loved the raw milk I grew up drinking in Missoula, Montana - tasted great - but if that Campylobac
LiberalLoner
Feb 2012
#29
If you're going to try and contradict someone, it might be a good idea to actually do so
Major Nikon
Feb 2012
#58
When raw milk is against the law, only outlaws will have raw milk. /nt
downwardly_mobile
Feb 2012
#110
It's preferable to rely on the expertise and diligence of a smaller number of bottling plants
FarCenter
Feb 2012
#66
Do you attribute that to the safety of raw milk or the prevalence of pasteurized milk?
Snake Alchemist
Feb 2012
#70
Speaking for myself, I am not here to disparage pasteurization. I am here to defend
morningfog
Feb 2012
#71
Personal choice, OK. But milk is consumed by children and infants who have no choice.
mainer
Feb 2012
#86
Indeed, you should understand medical history if you really want to understand the problem
Major Nikon
Feb 2012
#127
So when scientists credit pasteurization with preventing milkbourne disease
Snake Alchemist
Feb 2012
#73
I have decided that we need to ban motorcycles. People don't NEED to ride motorcycles and they are
renie408
Feb 2012
#78
how do motorcyle deaths compare to milkbourne illness before pasteurizaton? nt
Snake Alchemist
Feb 2012
#81
Ok, let me try this ONE MORE TIME and without assuming that you could infer my meaning.
renie408
Feb 2012
#85
"Raw milk produces a minimal amount of illness and no deaths reported in the past decade."
Snake Alchemist
Feb 2012
#88
The one in post #85 that I outlined in detail. You just keep skipping over it.
renie408
Feb 2012
#92
Not sure you made a point there, but I'll take a stab at what I think you mean
Snake Alchemist
Feb 2012
#101
It's just like how they sold vaccinations to an unsuspecting public. nt
Snake Alchemist
Feb 2012
#106
Wait, you're disputing it because the deaths are from "raw milk cheese" and not "raw milk"?
mainer
Feb 2012
#114
Despite opposition, N.J. Assembly committee OKs DiMaio bill allowing sale of raw milk
FarCenter
Feb 2012
#125