| ▲ | amock 11 hours ago |
| 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 10 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 3 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). |
|
