| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | Xeoncross 8 months ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | SketchySeaBeast 8 months ago | parent | next [-] | | "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. | | |
| ▲ | Xeoncross 8 months ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | SketchySeaBeast 8 months ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | Xeoncross 8 months ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | SketchySeaBeast 8 months ago | parent [-] | | > 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. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | steve_adams_86 8 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 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. | | |
| ▲ | Xeoncross 8 months ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | steve_adams_86 8 months ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | Xeoncross 8 months ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | itishappy 8 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 |
|
