Raw Milk Is Gaining Fans, but the Science Says It's Dangerous

Reader Comments
Back to article

As we have seen from various recent outbreaks of food-born illnesses, MANY foods carry the risk of contamination. The contamination happens alongside unclean practices, a thing difficult to avoid on such a large scale as the modern industrialized farm.
So, pasteurization could well be a perfectly effective method to make milk safe for consumption. It was begun for a reason, because the slop dairies, widespread by the 1830's, produced awful milk resulting in a rise in infant mortality, among other problems. And with the introduction of pasteurization, less babies died.
But this applies to sickly milk from sickly cows, which is what we buy from the grocery store. Maybe pasteurization makes that safer, but real food doesn't need to be "made safer".
So what we have is sickly milk that then has whatever sustenance it still contains cooked out of it so it's safe enough for me to eat it.
My emphasis is on clean milk from healthy cows. This is a real food, and I don't want to be protected from it.

Odilia of PA 8:55PM February 15, 2010

Don't they add vitamin D to pasteurized milk to replace part of what is destroyed during pasteurization? If so then it's not hard to imagine there are other nutrients and helpful bacteria being destroyed as well. I think pasteurization is more to help the big industrial farmer produce lots of milk cheaply, without having to worry about disease or cleaning milk equipment.

J Fahringer of PA 11:33AM February 10, 2010

I also did want to comment that the harmful bacteria found in milk is in cows treated inhumanely and in farms where they did not practice sanitary procedures. Unhealthy cows, unhealthy milk. Grass fed cows who graze on untreated fields should not have any harmful bacteria in the milk. Unless of course the farm where the cows are is very unsanitary. However if cows are grass fed on untreated fields they are for a reason. The farmers want healthy cows, therefore wouldn't be that unsanitary that would produce the harmful bacteria. I understand why they would find harmful bacteria in traditional dairy farms that inject the cows with who knows what and feeds they grain sprayed with a list of harmful pesticdes.

C.S. of PA 5:10PM January 25, 2010

I have been drinking raw milk for about 6 months now without any problems. My three children also drink it. We get our milk from an Amish Farm. I have found the "shelf" life for the milk is about 4-5 days for us. Because I believe in the benefits raw milk, we will continue to drink it. We pay $3.50 for a gallon for Jersey milk and $3.00 a gallon for the other milk.

C.S. of PA 5:02PM January 25, 2010

I too have eczema and I am lactose intolerant. I first started drinking unhomogenized pasteurized milk which was great and didn't give me problems but now that I have raw milk i see no reason to look back. My problems have gone away. I wish these skeptics would at least look at the evidence of the benefits of raw milk instead of trumpeting the nonsense from the FDA.
Raw milk is a health food. All the evidence speaks to this. It is nice to be able to drink milk again.

victoria of OR 11:26PM January 20, 2010

I live in a family of people who have allergies and intolerances. I have recently been recommended myself to drink Jersey milk for my intolerances and was wondering whether to try the other 3 people in my family with Jersey milk. I have two who currently drink Rice Milk because of asthma, eczema and glue ear and another who drinks goat's milk. Anyone happy to advise me please?

Sara Hepworth 3:49PM January 17, 2010

Mountain Investigate,union play human politics gun committee current neck capacity flow volume clothes what from attention rule imply try bottle artist beginning limit earn son feel vehicle red pub relate act financial hurt commitment ought treat serious tool explore feature need examination want original railway quarter buy last sir that try basis slip whole collect dream wide desk not no-one component wonder everybody step bill manager many relevant oil interesting accident leave eat train neck candidate row also night coal old range employment initial bus per once

buy databases of 3:27AM January 13, 2010

I am lactose intolerant and as odd as it sounds I tried raw milk last year and have been drinking it ever since with no problems. Just to check, i drank a glass of store milk and had my usual horrid reaction. There is a great dairy 5 miles away and if its a placebo effect, thats fine with me, its just nice to drink milk again.

Lisa of NJ 11:38PM January 08, 2010

The pro raw milk group sounds about as credible 911 conspiracy theorist. It doesn't matter if there is overwhelming scientific evidence contradicting raw milk adovocates. In their minds, it's a miracle food that will cure all ills and extend our lives indefinitely.
Raw milk is about as sane as colon cleansing and the rest of the pseudo-
science BS seen on late night infomercials.

Justin of VT 4:13AM January 07, 2010

The fact that no official study has been done to conclusively prove that raw milk has prodigious health benefits - is in NO WAY proof that that it DOES NOT contain such benefits.
Kathryn Boor's reasoning (and Sheehan's) is completely flawed. She admits to "personally benefiting" from drinking raw milk, and then - contradicting logic - makes the statement about a lack of a conclusive study. THIS IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT!
To carry out a test that meets scientific standards, the test must be double-blind and randomized and be limited to one specific item. You can't - for instance - carry out a test that seeks to find if raw milk helps with asthma and irritable bowel syndrome. You would have to perform ONE test at a time. These tests are EXPENSIVE and TIME CONSUMING and are very seldom performed on ANY FOODS WE EAT!
The point is, to properly test ALL OF THE BENEFITS of raw milk would take many many years and require tons of money. In other words, there is no way to "conclusively test the health benefits of raw milk" in one test. That is impossible! You can test one attribute or effect at a time, at best.
Thus - to say that "there are no studies to conclusively show the health benefits of raw milk" is a pointless statement. There are no studies that CONCLUSIVELY show the health benefits of ANYTHING!
I'm not encouraging or discouraging raw milk consumption. I'm merely point out a fact as one trained in the sciences.
There is so much we, as humans, do not understand. In my opinion, milk in its natural form MUST be healthier than the commercialized homogenized garbage spewed out by modern commercial dairys. That's personal opinion.

Lee Hoffman of CA 10:44PM January 06, 2010