| ▲ | andrewstuart 11 hours ago |
| Raw milk is dangerous anyway, bird flu or no bird flu I'm surprised its sold. |
|
| ▲ | amock 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Lots of dangerous things are sold, and raw milk isn't anywhere near the top of the list. |
| |
| ▲ | nerdjon 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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) | | |
| ▲ | tjr 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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? | | |
| ▲ | parl_match 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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... | |
| ▲ | graypegg 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | classichasclass 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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-... | | |
| ▲ | graypegg 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | kstrauser 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | lupusreal 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | kstrauser 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | consteval 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 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) | | |
| ▲ | tjr an hour ago | parent [-] | | I have not gotten the impression that raw milk aficionados are in it for the money. What makes you think that? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Ferret7446 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | andrewstuart 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 | | |
| ▲ | BenjiWiebe 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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). |
|
|
|
| ▲ | BenjiWiebe 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | Ferret7446 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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. | |
| ▲ | kstrauser 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | ecocentrik 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | giraffe_lady 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | MrLeap 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | steve_adams_86 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'll continue wearing my seatbelt to protect myself from lung cancer, in that case. |
| |
| ▲ | graypegg 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. |
|
|
| ▲ | Thrymr 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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... |
| |
| ▲ | perihelions 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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... | | |
| ▲ | hedora 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | throw0101d 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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... | |
| ▲ | KittenInABox 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. |
|
| |
| ▲ | bigstrat2003 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 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. |
|
|
| ▲ | bigstrat2003 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Raw milk isn't dangerous. People drank it for centuries before pasteurization, and some still drink it today. They were fine. I myself grew up drinking raw milk (grew up on a dairy farm), as did a ton of other people I know, and not one ever got sick. You don't need to drink it if you don't want to, but there's no reason to deny others the same choice. |
| |
| ▲ | acdha 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
| ▲ | askvictor 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | PittleyDunkin 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 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.) | | |
| ▲ | giraffe_lady 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | jefftk 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > 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.) |
|
| |
| ▲ | phil21 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | amock 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | classichasclass 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
| |
| ▲ | Daishiman 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "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. |
|