Response to Dave's comment @ CP blog

This is in response to Dave over at the "Complete Patient Blog" on a recent posted entitled "Chewing on a Mother's Real Message About Raw Milk, and the Risks of Dramatic Stories"

First, the notion that 1/3 of milk-related illness is due to raw milk...

Those of you wishing to believe that statistic probably cannot be dissuaded, but the first time I saw it in print, I tried to track it down to root data, and was simply unable to do it. The raw data does not support the claim. Nevertheless it is gradually, maddeningly, becoming true by repitition! Ken. please look into this. You will find that most of the claims of illness from raw milk come from government investigators who have a nasty habit of making assumptions that fall into line with their job descriptions. You do not have to take my word on that---do the due diligence and look at the claims.

Fair enough. I actually picked up that statistic reading your site. I saw it being bantered about by raw milk supporters so I thought it accurate enough. Unfortunately to have to rely on non-government reports of raw milk illnesses for raw milk illness statistics is untenable. The people who investigate, gather and publish such statistics are these government people. I take it from your post that you view these people as having a conflict of interest. In what way? And if these numbers cannot be trusted (since I generally do not believe in conspiracies, let's assume that they subconsciously err on the side of blaming raw milk) how could one make any decision on raw milk?

Let us say that, due to socialization and what not, that these investigators unfairly accuse raw milk for illnesses 5 out of 10 times. Personally I think that such an error rate is extremely unlikely. But if true this means is that only half of the illness that are being ascribed to raw milk are real. To make it simple (and even reduce the illness rate ascribed to raw milk some more) let's say that raw milk accounts for only 15% of all cases. Even if that where true that would mean that something, if we are being really generous, that accounts for less than 0.1% (I'd guess 0.001% or less) of all milk sales accounts for 15% of all milk related illness. This does not speak well for the risk profile of raw milk.

And also on that same subject: If raw milk is so dangerous, or even deadly as some say, why are indiginous cultures with very heavy reliance on raw dairy able to survive so healthfully? The Masai in Africa (our contemporaries) live largely on milk and blood. They are sturdy, healthy, tall, and smart. (I'm told by someone who lives near the Masai that they look down their noses at everybody, for good reason!) They are not buying processed, pasteurized milk or even testing their milk or collection processes! How can that be?

The Masai have a life expectancy in the mid to late 40s. Not exactly the poster child of health. A lot of kids die in these cultures that have not yet fully embraced modern medical and health practices. That said they also drink fresh raw milk from one cow. They do not mix the contents of several or tens of cows, bottle, and in some states ship the contents.

Second, please bear with me as I relate a comment from a judge I met in Ohio. Over dinner conversation about law and regulation, he told me that the worst laws are the ones with names attached,[...]

A bit of a tangent but in general I agree. Yes these laws take the thinking out of the legal system (what little there is). But we Americans constantly confuse our legal system for a justice system, which it is not.

Last, regarding Ken's comment that raw milk is the perfect medium for infectious agents [to grow and multiply], I am compelled to say this: Milk, in its raw state, is loaded with friendly bacteria that actually destroy pathogens. You can inoculate raw milk with a pathogen, and see that pathogen neutralized by friendly resident microbes. Inoculate pasteurized milk, and you get no inherent protection.

I have yet to read anything in my research about these good bacteria. Can you direct me to where I should read up about them? Do you know their name or how they function? I'm wondering if they attack the bad bacteria or if they out compete the bad bacteria. I guess in general a citation for the inoculation experiment you describe above would also be in order.

No matter, I suppose, since pasteurization is such an effective pathogen-killer. But where then, do the presumed 2/3 of pasteurized milk illnesses come from? The answer of course, is the same for pasteurized milk as it is for raw milk: Individual consumer factors aside (like immune strength), it's about the processing.

Pasteurization does not completely destroy all pathogens (or other beneficial bacteria) but merely knocks back the numbers to a large degree (kills off many e-folds) Thus that the 99.9% to 99.999% of milk that is pasteurized could still contain and sustain dangerous bacteria is a probability.

I want to remind raw milk proponents that I am not saying they are wrong. I am finding new information as I read everyday that shows raw milk to have wonderful , healthful properties many of which are knocked-back or lost in pasteurization. The question is whether the risk is worth the benefit. Whether some of the benefits could be found in other, safer foods or be retained in raw milk with newer processing methods. I realize that part of the appeal of raw milk is that it is a living system and that consuming it is like drinking in life and health. I also realize that pasteurization knocks-out a lot of that life turning milk into a largely dead liquid. The question is once again what, if any benefit is there in raw milk that is unique (i.e. cannot be found in other, safer foods) and is it worth the risk? I'm still trying to figure that one out.

Ken


Technorati Tags: raw milk