Header graphic for print

Food Safety News

Breaking news for everyone's consumption

Raw Milk Advocates Stage ‘Milk and Cookies’ Protest at FDA

About 100 raw milk advocates rallied outside of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland Tuesday, serving raw milk and cookies, to protest federal interstate regulation of unpasteurized milk. The rally was the culmination of a “Raw Milk Freedom Riders” caravan of moms transporting raw milk across state lines — from Pennsylvania to Maryland.

FDArally1.jpg“The beloved American tradition of milk and cookies is a crime for some mothers,” said the Farm Food Freedom Coalition, which organized the event. Raw milk has been prohibited from interstate commerce since 1987, but 30 states, including Pennsylvania, allow sales within state borders.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatricians and the FDA deem raw milk a public health risk, pointing to a variety disease-causing pathogens such as E. coli, Salmonella and Listeria that can potentially contaminate raw dairy. According to FDA, between 1987 and 2010 there were 133 outbreaks, 2,659 illnesses, 269 hospitalizations, 3 deaths, 6 stillbirths and 2 miscarriages linked to raw milk and raw milk products.

Raw milk advocates argue that they have the freedom to make their own food choices and the federal regulation banning the interstate sale of raw dairy is unfounded, if not unconstitutional.

“By criminalizing me for the food choices I make for my family, the FDA is effectively saying that I have no right to feed my family what I, as the parent, know is best for them,” said Suzy Provine, one of the moms who helped carry raw milk across state lines. “It is one thing to inform me about my choices, but the FDA goes too far by forcing what they think is best on my family.”

Though transporting raw milk across state lines for sale or distribution is illegal, there were no arrests. “The FDA has never taken, nor does it intend to take, enforcement action against an individual who purchased and transported raw milk across state lines solely for his or her own personal consumption,” said the agency in a statement Tuesday.

Advocates drove as far as Kentucky, Illinois, and Minnesota to take part in the event, which included well-known libertarian farmer Joel Salatin, of Food, Inc, and Omnivore’s Dilemma, Mark McAfee, of Organic Pastures dairy in California, the largest raw dairy company in the U.S., and Sally Fallon of the Weston Price Foundation.

Pictured: Mark McAffee of Organic Pastures addresses the crowd. Photo by Helena Bottemiller.

© Food Safety News
  • PinkDNA

    Did anyone at the FDA notice?
    As a USG employee, I find it interesting that most of these groups hold their rallies outside USG buildings while everyone is in their office quietly working. So no one from the agency ever sees what is going on outside the gate.
    The moral of the story: hold your rally from 6:30-7:30am if you actually want to get noticed. And at the FDA, don’t do it on a Friday because everyone works from home on Friday.

  • Rosa

    I’m a mother and also a Health Inspector; Ill never endanger the health of my kids feeding them with a potentially hazardous food, raw milk is very dangerous for adults, specially kids; does that mother that said that FDA is trying to regulate the food that she will put on the table for her kids thinks that we protect not only her kids but all the food supplies in this country and we all our efforts we still have food borne outbreaks all over the nation. The economical implications and the prolong health issues for her kids are more important. As a mother I try to feed my kids homemade foods and very low process foods. I worry my kids will be part of the food borne cycle that is a more common than the general population wants to acknowledge

  • Jim Schmidt

    If a parent wants to get sick or off themselves, I must admit I have thought let nature run its course. Here is the issue parents, your child cannot make an informed decision and your decision to feed them raw milk is at a minimum poor parenting.
    We can’t protect our children from everything, but you sure are decreasing your child’s chance of graduating from High School by giving them raw milk. What’s worse is it’s not like raw milk has some super powers. It doesn’t. Nutritionally there is no significant difference between raw and pasteurized. So it really boggles the mind how a parent can knowingly put their child at greater risk?

  • The protest was at the FDA White Oak Campus while the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition is in College Park. Actually, if they want to get USG employees at the GS-15 level and below try the metro stops between 5:30 am to 9 am and for those that make decisions SES (senior executive service) and Political Appointees Schedule C try the parking lot from 4 am to noon. If they wanted to save money maybe they should car pool with PETA
    But since as USG employee, we are sworn to uphold the constitution and enforce the laws made by congress go to congress but remember find out if they are in session starting in January 2012 the house will only be in session on average only 2 days a week.

  • The statement, “Nutritionally there is no significant difference between raw and pasteurized.” is based on ignorance of the facts.
    Google Lactoferrin to learn about its beneficial properties, then learn how it is denatured (inactivated) by the heat of pasteurization.
    Google Lysozyme to learn about its beneficial properties, then learn how it is denatured (inactivated) by the heat of pasteurization.
    Google Lactoperoxidase to learn about its beneficial properties, then learn how it is denatured (inactivated) by the heat of pasteurization.
    Google Beneficial Bacteria to learn about their beneficial properties, then learn how they are denatured (inactivated) by the heat of pasteurization.
    There is much, much more information about many other components of raw milk that are absent in pasteurized milk for anyone with an open mind to discover.

  • mrothschild

    Raw milk is not nutritionally superior to pasteurized milk.
    Numerous studies have indicated that pasteurization has minimal impact on milk nutritional quality.
    Milk proteins
    Normal bovine milk contains about 3 to 3.5% total protein. The two major groups of milk protein are casein (about 80%) and whey proteins (about 20%). The protein quality of pasteurized milk is not different from that of raw milk (Andersson and Oste, 1995).
    Using in vitro method, Carbonaro et al (1996) found no difference in protein digestibility between raw milk (80.2%), milk pasteurized at 75°C/15s (80.02%), and milk pasteurized at 80°C/15s (80.3%).
    In an animal study (weaning Holtzman male rats), Efigenia et al (1997) evaluated the nutritional quality of bovine milk after pasteurization. After a study period of 28 days, there was no difference in animal weight gain, food intake, food efficiency ration, protein efficiency ratio, or apparent protein digestibility between the rat group that consumed raw bovine milk and the group that consumed pasteurized bovine milk (Efigenia et al., 1997).
    Similar results were obtained in another animal study by Lacroix et al (2006). In this study, no difference in protein digestibility was observed between milk protein without heat treatment and the same protein heated at 72°C/20s or 96°C/5s (Lacroix et al., 2006).
    In a recent human study, Lacroix et al (2008) evaluated the impact of heat treatment on protein quality by studying dietary nitrogen metabolism following a single meal. Human subjects were fed a meal formulated with milk protein with or without HTST pasteurization (72°C/20s). The same metabolic utilization of milk protein nitrogen was observed for both raw and pasteurized milk (Lacroix et al, 2008).
    Milk fat and the effect of homogenization
    Typical bovine milk contains about 3 to 4% milk fat, with 97.5% of the fat existing as triglycerides (Christie, 1995). Pasteurization has essentially no effect on milk fat composition (Rolls and Porter, 1973); and for that reason, research on this topic is minimal.
    Work has been done on the effect of pasteurization on human milk fat. No change was observed in total fat content and fatty acid composition (saturated, monounsaturated, polyunsaturated) of human milk after pasteurization (62.5°C for 30 min) (Fidler et al., 2001). Even after heating pooled human milk for 100°C/5 min, no change in milk fatty acid composition (including polyunsaturated long chain fatty acids) was observed (Romeu-Nadal et al., 2008).
    Commercial milk is typically homogenized to increase physical stability, i.e. to prevent gravity separation of fat. Milk fat globules are reduced in size from 3 to 10 micron to less than 2 micron in diameter after typical homogenization (Swaisgood, 1985). The native fat globules are covered by the milk fat globule membrane (MFGM). After homogenization, casein and whey protein cover and stabilize the newly reformed fat globules.
    The effect of homogenization on milk nutrition has been reviewed (Michalski, 2007; Michalski and Januel, 2006). It is concluded that “regarding human nutrition, homogenized milk seems more digestible than untreated milk.” (Michalski and Januel, 2006) People with lactose intolerance or milk allergy show similar response to non-homogenized and homogenized milk (Michalski, 2007; Michalski and Januel, 2006). Research is ongoing to determine whether there is any other physiological impact of homogenization on human nutrition. In one aspect, it is suggested that since homogenization releases milk fat globule membrane components, the functions of some of the bioactive components in MFGM may be enhanced (Michalski and Januel, 2006).
    Milk minerals
    Minerals are stable under pasteurization conditions and there is minimal change in their concentrations after pasteurization (Rolls and Porter 1973). Both in vitro and in vivo studies demonstrate that there is no impact of pasteurization on milk mineral content and mineral bioavailability (Van Dael et al.,1993; Weeks and King, 1985; Zurera-Cosano et al., 1994).
    As discussed in a previous section (claim 3), the concentration and bioavailability of calcium, the most nutritionally important mineral in milk, is the same in raw and pasteurized milk. In another study, Van Dael et al (1993) demonstrated using in vitro method that the bioavailability of zinc and selenium in milk was not affected by pasteurization (73°C/15s) or sterilization (110°C/10 min).
    Milk vitamins
    Milk contains both fat soluble and water soluble vitamins. Fat soluble vitamins include A, D, E, and K. Water soluble vitamins included B1 (thiamin), B2 (riboflavin), niacin, pantothenic acid, B6, biotin, folic acid, B12, and vitamin C (Renner et al., 1989). In general, pasteurization has a little effect on milk vitamin levels (Bendicho et al., 2002; Renner et al., 1989). Vitamins that are present at high levels in milk, such as riboflavin, B6 and B12, are relatively heat stable. Other factors, such as storage temperature, dissolved oxygen, light exposure, packaging, and length of storage can have a much greater impact on milk vitamin stability (Gaylord et al., 1986; Kon, 1972; Lavigne et al., 1989; Pizzoferrato, 1992; Renner et al., 1989; Scott et al., 1984a; Scott et al., 1984b).
    The only vitamin that is significantly heat labile is vitamin C but milk is an insignificant source for vitamin C. A cup of milk (240 ml) only provides about 5 mg of vitamin C (Renner et al., 1989).
    Vitamin C is very susceptible to oxidation. Sample to sample variation can be considerable (Scott et al., 1984a) and degradation can happen immediately after milking due to photo-oxidation (Kon, 1972; Renner et al., 1989; Scott et al., 1984a). Reported values of vitamin C vary depending on seasonality, storage temperature, and elapsed time before analysis.
    Lavigne et al (1989) reported that HTST at 72°C/16s reduced vitamin C in goat milk by 5%. Haddad and Loewenstein (1983) observed vitamin C level of 23.3 mg/liter in raw milk. After pasteurization at 72°C/16s, vitamin C was reduced by 16.6%. Similarly, Head and Hansen (1979) reported that in whole milk, vitamin C was reduced about 15% (from 24.3 mg/liter to 20.7 mg/liter) after pasteurization.
    The loss of vitamin C increases with heating temperature and time and fits the first order kinetic model (Bendocho et al., 2002; Haddad and Loewenstein, 1983). Substantial loss only occurred after very high temperature heating for long time. For example, heating at 90°C for 10 min can cause 70% reduction in vitamin C (Bendicho et al., 2002).
    Interestingly, Pizzoferrato (1992) indicated that vitamin C retention during storage is better in heated milk (72°C/15s, 75°C/15s, 80°C/15s) than in raw milk. The better retention was due to the removal of oxygen and the inactivation of peroxidase and microorganisms during heat treatment (Pizzoferrato, 1992).
    source:http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/Product-SpecificInformation/MilkSafety/ConsumerInformationAboutMilkSafety/ucm247991.htm

  • Michael Bulger

    Lea Ann,
    Pasteurization is designed to hold milk at a specific temperature for a specific amount of time. This process is designed to significantly reduce pathogenic bacteria. The denaturation of proteins is not complete under these conditions. The effects of pasteurization on some proteins are reversed naturally once the milk is cooled. Other bacteria is not completely eliminated by pasteurization. The premises that pasteurized milk is “dead” or “sterile” is false. Beyond that, the benefits of consuming these components are unproven. Humans produce their own beneficial proteins (lactoferrin, etc.) and do so naturally. Some might be necessary for survival, but we don’t need to consume them from cow milk, even if they had to be consumed at all.

  • Louise K. Carson

    I enjoy the raw milk that I get at Mountain Community Co-op in Eatonville Washington. I don’t think it has magical properties and is more expensive but my husband and I simply prefer its taste that changes as the seasons change. That’s nature for you.
    I have an underlying health issue, Chronic Lympathic Leukemia, which is not at all active now. If any blood tests revealed a reaccurance of this blood cancer and a weakening immune system I probably wouldn’t continue to drink raw milk. Now, I usually drink it only heated to use in espresso drink in the morning.
    I’m not afraid of it but do respect that it has the possibility of carrying disease; it is after all, a rich medium. Before WW11, my father got undulant fever from drinking raw milk on the farm and wasn’t able to go into the services because they never knew when he would be affected. The term “undulant” meaning coming and going. He was later healthy as the proverbial horse and worked at support jobs during the war as a brick mason. So, diseases do happen but I would rather drink certified raw milk than eat industry standard meat from diseased animals who have lived a horrible life and been fed crap. Literally. We will see more of these ecoli cases in the future because there is very little being done to change this industry. In the more commercial dairy industry, you can cook out the problems. You think that milk was as clean as the milk at the raw milk dairy? You dream.

  • federal microbiologist

    Here’s a link to a news report from last year about a dairy in Colorado where bovine tuberculosis (i.e., Mycobacterium bovis) was diagnosed in a milking herd:
    http://www.huerfanojournal.com/node/2469
    No one knows how much milk from diseased animals was marketed before the outbreak was detected and the animals removed from the milk string; whether the infection in the milking cows was advanced enough to result in the presence of M. bovis cells in the milk; and if anyone drank raw / unpasteurized milk from this dairy.
    Would raw milk fans want to drink raw milk from this dairy, from these cows ?
    The thing about M. bovis infection in people, is that you don’t get a sudden onset of severe diarrhea, like you do with enteric bacterial pathogens.
    Instead, the infection smolders for months / years until the lymph nodes in the abdominal cavity swell so full of pus and dead bacteria that they press on other organs, and cause pain and discomfort. Only then do infected individuals seek medical attention and receive a diagnosis.
    Historically, disease caused by M. bovis has primarily occurred in Hispanics, who consume inadequately pasteurized dairy products in their home country. Infections also are associated in Hispanics in the SW US, where they continue to consume unpasteurized dairy products obtained on the ‘black market’ or smuggled into the states on visits back from Mexico.
    Kids are particularly over-represented in cases of M. bovis infection in Hispanics.
    With all the raw milk drinking accelerating here in the US, it may be time to start surveillance of the raw milk crowd for bovine TB. Especially if they are going to be going to see their doctors / faith healers / shamans, with what appear to be GI tract tumors…..
    ********************************************
    Mycobacterium bovis as a significant cause of tuberculosis in children residing along the United States-Mexico border in the Baja California region.
    Dankner WM, Davis CE.
    Pediatrics. 2000 Jun;105(6):E79.
    Abstract
    OBJECTIVE: To determine the role of Mycobacterium bovis in active pediatric tuberculosis (TB) in a United States-Mexico border region.
    METHOD: We reviewed all new cases of pediatric (<15 years old) TB presenting to San Diego hospitals and clinics from 1980 to 1997. Patients were categorized by age, ethnicity, country of origin, culture results, and disease manifestations. Case definitions were similar to those used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. M bovis was distinguished from Mycobacterium tuberculosis by standard biochemical tests.
    RESULTS: The median age of the 563 identified patients was 4.1 years old. The yearly incidence began rising in 1989 and peaked in the mid-1990s. Hispanics constituted 78.9% of the patients, but they were less likely to be foreign-born (21.6%) than were black children and Asian/Pacific Islanders. Overall, M bovis caused 10.8% of all TB during this period. Of the 180 patients with positive culture results, however, M bovis accounted for 33.9% and M tuberculosis 66. 1%. This high percentage of M bovis infections was largely attributable to its contribution to extrapulmonary TB (55.2% of all culture-positive specimens). M bovis patients were also even more likely to be Hispanic (90.2%), to present with extrapulmonary disease (95.1%), and to be older than 12 months (96.8%).
    CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate the dramatic impact of this underappreciated cause of zoonotic TB on US children at the Mexican border and underscore the need for cross-collaboration to enforce existing Mexican pasteurization laws.

  • Mary Rothschild

    Raw milk is not nutritionally superior to pasteurized milk.
    Numerous studies have indicated that pasteurization has minimal impact on milk nutritional quality.
    Milk proteins
    Normal bovine milk contains about 3 to 3.5% total protein. The two major groups of milk protein are casein (about 80%) and whey proteins (about 20%). The protein quality of pasteurized milk is not different from that of raw milk (Andersson and Oste, 1995).
    Using in vitro method, Carbonaro et al (1996) found no difference in protein digestibility between raw milk (80.2%), milk pasteurized at 75°C/15s (80.02%), and milk pasteurized at 80°C/15s (80.3%).
    In an animal study (weaning Holtzman male rats), Efigenia et al (1997) evaluated the nutritional quality of bovine milk after pasteurization. After a study period of 28 days, there was no difference in animal weight gain, food intake, food efficiency ration, protein efficiency ratio, or apparent protein digestibility between the rat group that consumed raw bovine milk and the group that consumed pasteurized bovine milk (Efigenia et al., 1997).
    Similar results were obtained in another animal study by Lacroix et al (2006). In this study, no difference in protein digestibility was observed between milk protein without heat treatment and the same protein heated at 72°C/20s or 96°C/5s (Lacroix et al., 2006).
    In a recent human study, Lacroix et al (2008) evaluated the impact of heat treatment on protein quality by studying dietary nitrogen metabolism following a single meal. Human subjects were fed a meal formulated with milk protein with or without HTST pasteurization (72°C/20s). The same metabolic utilization of milk protein nitrogen was observed for both raw and pasteurized milk (Lacroix et al, 2008).
    Milk fat and the effect of homogenization
    Typical bovine milk contains about 3 to 4% milk fat, with 97.5% of the fat existing as triglycerides (Christie, 1995). Pasteurization has essentially no effect on milk fat composition (Rolls and Porter, 1973); and for that reason, research on this topic is minimal.
    Work has been done on the effect of pasteurization on human milk fat. No change was observed in total fat content and fatty acid composition (saturated, monounsaturated, polyunsaturated) of human milk after pasteurization (62.5°C for 30 min) (Fidler et al., 2001). Even after heating pooled human milk for 100°C/5 min, no change in milk fatty acid composition (including polyunsaturated long chain fatty acids) was observed (Romeu-Nadal et al., 2008).
    Commercial milk is typically homogenized to increase physical stability, i.e. to prevent gravity separation of fat. Milk fat globules are reduced in size from 3 to 10 micron to less than 2 micron in diameter after typical homogenization (Swaisgood, 1985). The native fat globules are covered by the milk fat globule membrane (MFGM). After homogenization, casein and whey protein cover and stabilize the newly reformed fat globules.
    The effect of homogenization on milk nutrition has been reviewed (Michalski, 2007; Michalski and Januel, 2006). It is concluded that “regarding human nutrition, homogenized milk seems more digestible than untreated milk.” (Michalski and Januel, 2006) People with lactose intolerance or milk allergy show similar response to non-homogenized and homogenized milk (Michalski, 2007; Michalski and Januel, 2006). Research is ongoing to determine whether there is any other physiological impact of homogenization on human nutrition. In one aspect, it is suggested that since homogenization releases milk fat globule membrane components, the functions of some of the bioactive components in MFGM may be enhanced (Michalski and Januel, 2006).
    Milk minerals
    Minerals are stable under pasteurization conditions and there is minimal change in their concentrations after pasteurization (Rolls and Porter 1973). Both in vitro and in vivo studies demonstrate that there is no impact of pasteurization on milk mineral content and mineral bioavailability (Van Dael et al.,1993; Weeks and King, 1985; Zurera-Cosano et al., 1994).
    As discussed in a previous section (claim 3), the concentration and bioavailability of calcium, the most nutritionally important mineral in milk, is the same in raw and pasteurized milk. In another study, Van Dael et al (1993) demonstrated using in vitro method that the bioavailability of zinc and selenium in milk was not affected by pasteurization (73°C/15s) or sterilization (110°C/10 min).
    Milk vitamins
    Milk contains both fat soluble and water soluble vitamins. Fat soluble vitamins include A, D, E, and K. Water soluble vitamins included B1 (thiamin), B2 (riboflavin), niacin, pantothenic acid, B6, biotin, folic acid, B12, and vitamin C (Renner et al., 1989). In general, pasteurization has a little effect on milk vitamin levels (Bendicho et al., 2002; Renner et al., 1989). Vitamins that are present at high levels in milk, such as riboflavin, B6 and B12, are relatively heat stable. Other factors, such as storage temperature, dissolved oxygen, light exposure, packaging, and length of storage can have a much greater impact on milk vitamin stability (Gaylord et al., 1986; Kon, 1972; Lavigne et al., 1989; Pizzoferrato, 1992; Renner et al., 1989; Scott et al., 1984a; Scott et al., 1984b).
    The only vitamin that is significantly heat labile is vitamin C but milk is an insignificant source for vitamin C. A cup of milk (240 ml) only provides about 5 mg of vitamin C (Renner et al., 1989).
    Vitamin C is very susceptible to oxidation. Sample to sample variation can be considerable (Scott et al., 1984a) and degradation can happen immediately after milking due to photo-oxidation (Kon, 1972; Renner et al., 1989; Scott et al., 1984a). Reported values of vitamin C vary depending on seasonality, storage temperature, and elapsed time before analysis.
    Lavigne et al (1989) reported that HTST at 72°C/16s reduced vitamin C in goat milk by 5%. Haddad and Loewenstein (1983) observed vitamin C level of 23.3 mg/liter in raw milk. After pasteurization at 72°C/16s, vitamin C was reduced by 16.6%. Similarly, Head and Hansen (1979) reported that in whole milk, vitamin C was reduced about 15% (from 24.3 mg/liter to 20.7 mg/liter) after pasteurization.
    The loss of vitamin C increases with heating temperature and time and fits the first order kinetic model (Bendocho et al., 2002; Haddad and Loewenstein, 1983). Substantial loss only occurred after very high temperature heating for long time. For example, heating at 90°C for 10 min can cause 70% reduction in vitamin C (Bendicho et al., 2002).
    Interestingly, Pizzoferrato (1992) indicated that vitamin C retention during storage is better in heated milk (72°C/15s, 75°C/15s, 80°C/15s) than in raw milk. The better retention was due to the removal of oxygen and the inactivation of peroxidase and microorganisms during heat treatment (Pizzoferrato, 1992).
    source:http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/Product-SpecificInformation/MilkSafety/ConsumerInformationAboutMilkSafety/ucm247991.htm

  • Kevin

    I think all the arguments referring to studies of specific components of milk before and after pasteurization and what effects they have on the human body are missing the point.
    The most important aspect of the milk that is being debated is that the farmers who produce it are so much more conscious of husbandry. The health benefits of milk are most directly related to the health of the cow that produced it. Farmers who sell raw milk are paying much more attention to how their cows live and what they eat, and are much more directly involved and liable for the health of their customers.
    The regulatory bodies of the government were founded on good principles, but their bureacracy has far outgrown their ability to actually help individual human beings.

  • Clearly, the issue of raw milk is a very emotional one. Whatever your stance on it may be, serious consideration must be given before giving raw milk to children, the elderly, pregnant women, or those with compromised immune systems.

  • mark mcafee

    If raw milk was so dangerous, then why is it that CA can regulate raw milk and have it in 400 stores and no one is dying…no one.
    There are Two kinds of Raw Milk in America. I completely agree that raw milk intended for pasteurization should be pasteurized, but raw milk that is inspected, tested and comes from one dairy with pastured systems, a food safety plan….is a whole other story. The data shows it to be some of the safest food in America. I know….I produce this raw milk and kids thrive on it. It is a mirror image of breast milk. Breast milk is alive and not dead…

  • mark mcafee

    I was at the rally.
    As a result of the rally, the FDA contacted the rally coordinator and has asked to meet with the raw milk activists. The FDA has officially declared in a press release that it does not seek to criminalize mothers that cross state lines to purchase raw milk…they said that they oly seek to prosecute the farmers that supply the moms with their raw milk.
    The very next press release to hit the internet was a statement from the National Dairy Processors begging the FDA to not allow raw milk to cross state lines.
    Behold…the devil has shown its horns. It is the Money!!! The damn processors that pay farmers dirt and need a monopoly for their highly processed allergenic, lactose intolerance causing dead milk products….they are the industry behind the prohibition of interstate commerce of raw milk.
    All about the frickin Money…the moms do not matter one little bit. If the FDA had any spine they would allow interstate commerce of raw milk…set up good fair standard and let the good stuff flow. There would be a whole lot less Asthma in America. According to two huge EU studies raw milk prevents and heals asthma. Asthma kills 4000 kids a year.
    Raw milk has killed none in the last 40 years. Do the math!!!

  • mrothschild

    Another view: (source: http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/Product-SpecificInformation/MilkSafety/ConsumerInformationAboutMilkSafety/ucm247991.htm)
    Raw milk does not cure or treat asthma and allergy.
    The PARSIFAL study (Waser et al., 2007) has been misused by raw milk advocates ever since it was published. The PARSIFAL study found an inverse association of farm milk consumption, not raw milk consumption, with asthma and allergy. The authors of the PARSIFAL study clearly indicated in the paper that the “present study does not allow evaluating the effect of pasteurized vs. raw milk consumption because no objective confirmation of the raw milk status of the farm milk samples was available.” In fact, in the study, about half of the farm milk was boiled (Waser et al., 2007). The authors of the PARSIFAL study concluded that “raw milk may contain pathogens such as salmonella or EHEC, and its consumption may therefore imply serious health risks… At this stage, consumption of raw farm milk cannot be recommended as a preventive measure.” (Waser et al., 2007)
    Regarding allergy, research has shown that raw milk and pasteurized milk do not differ in their anaphylactic-sensitizing capacity when tested in both animal models (Poulsen et al., 1987; McLaughlan et al., 1981) and in human clinical trials (Host and Samuelsson, 1988). Pasteurization conditions have little impact on casein structure and only cause limited whey protein denaturation. Therefore, it is not surprising that pasteurization does not change the allergenicity of milk proteins.
    For example, Host and Samuelsson (1988) compared the allergic responses caused by raw, pasteurized (75°C/15 s), and homogenized/pasteurized milk in five children who are allergic to cow milk (aged 12 to 40 months). All children developed significant and similar allergic reactions from the consumption of the above three types of milk (Host and Samuelsson, 1988). The authors concluded that children with proven milk allergy can not tolerate milk, raw or pasteurized (Host and Samuelsson, 1988).
    References:
    Host, A. and E. G. Samuelsson. 1988. Allergic reactions to raw, pasteurized, and homogenized/pasteurized cow milk: a comparison. Allergy. 43:113-118.
    McLaughlan, P., K. J. Anderson, E. M. Widdowson, and R. R. A. Coombs. 1981. Effect of heat on the anaphylactic-sensitising capacity of cow’s milk, goat’s milk, and various infant formulae fed to guinea-pigs. Arch.Dis.Child. 56:165-171.
    Poulsen, O. M., J. Hau, and J. Kollerup. 1987. Effect of homogenization and pasteurization on the allergenicity of bovine milk analysed by a murine anaphylactic shock model. Clinical Allergy. 17:449-458.
    Waser, M., K. B. Michels, C. Bieli, H. Floistrup, G. Pershagen, E. v. Mutius, M. Ege, J. Riedler, D. Schram-Bijkerk, B. Brunekreef, M. v. Hage, R. Lauener, and C. Braun-Fahrlaender. 2007. Inverse association of farm milk consumption with asthma and allergy in rural and suburban populations across Europe. Clinical and Experimental Allergy. 37:661-670.

  • Mary Rothschild

    Another view: (source: http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/Product-SpecificInformation/MilkSafety/ConsumerInformationAboutMilkSafety/ucm247991.htm)
    Raw milk does not cure or treat asthma and allergy.
    The PARSIFAL study (Waser et al., 2007) has been misused by raw milk advocates ever since it was published. The PARSIFAL study found an inverse association of farm milk consumption, not raw milk consumption, with asthma and allergy. The authors of the PARSIFAL study clearly indicated in the paper that the “present study does not allow evaluating the effect of pasteurized vs. raw milk consumption because no objective confirmation of the raw milk status of the farm milk samples was available.” In fact, in the study, about half of the farm milk was boiled (Waser et al., 2007). The authors of the PARSIFAL study concluded that “raw milk may contain pathogens such as salmonella or EHEC, and its consumption may therefore imply serious health risks… At this stage, consumption of raw farm milk cannot be recommended as a preventive measure.” (Waser et al., 2007)
    Regarding allergy, research has shown that raw milk and pasteurized milk do not differ in their anaphylactic-sensitizing capacity when tested in both animal models (Poulsen et al., 1987; McLaughlan et al., 1981) and in human clinical trials (Host and Samuelsson, 1988). Pasteurization conditions have little impact on casein structure and only cause limited whey protein denaturation. Therefore, it is not surprising that pasteurization does not change the allergenicity of milk proteins.
    For example, Host and Samuelsson (1988) compared the allergic responses caused by raw, pasteurized (75°C/15 s), and homogenized/pasteurized milk in five children who are allergic to cow milk (aged 12 to 40 months). All children developed significant and similar allergic reactions from the consumption of the above three types of milk (Host and Samuelsson, 1988). The authors concluded that children with proven milk allergy can not tolerate milk, raw or pasteurized (Host and Samuelsson, 1988).
    References:
    Host, A. and E. G. Samuelsson. 1988. Allergic reactions to raw, pasteurized, and homogenized/pasteurized cow milk: a comparison. Allergy. 43:113-118.
    McLaughlan, P., K. J. Anderson, E. M. Widdowson, and R. R. A. Coombs. 1981. Effect of heat on the anaphylactic-sensitising capacity of cow’s milk, goat’s milk, and various infant formulae fed to guinea-pigs. Arch.Dis.Child. 56:165-171.
    Poulsen, O. M., J. Hau, and J. Kollerup. 1987. Effect of homogenization and pasteurization on the allergenicity of bovine milk analysed by a murine anaphylactic shock model. Clinical Allergy. 17:449-458.
    Waser, M., K. B. Michels, C. Bieli, H. Floistrup, G. Pershagen, E. v. Mutius, M. Ege, J. Riedler, D. Schram-Bijkerk, B. Brunekreef, M. v. Hage, R. Lauener, and C. Braun-Fahrlaender. 2007. Inverse association of farm milk consumption with asthma and allergy in rural and suburban populations across Europe. Clinical and Experimental Allergy. 37:661-670.

  • Mary, thanks for providing detailed facts. Facts…wonderful things.
    Mark McAfee, if we include all raw milk products, including instances of contamination of pasteurized milk with raw milk via faulty processing, your statement isn’t true.
    More importantly, consider how small the market is for raw milk, and then compare that to the number of food born illness outbreaks related to the raw milk product. What did the FDA come up with in its list? 133 outbreaks? And that’s outbreaks, not impacted people.
    Now compare that with the number of outbreaks related to pasteurized milk and milk products, which are broadly consumed by the vast majority of people in this country.
    The number of food outbreaks is smaller, though the consumption is orders of magnitude larger.
    Summarizing the facts:
    Pasteurized milk products: high consumption, low food illness outbreaks.
    Non-pasteurized milk products: low consumption, higher number of food illness outbreaks.
    OK, these are facts. Now, let’s look at your logic more closely:
    I’m assuming you would agree with the fact that the sale of raw milk and raw milk products is severely limited. You’ve also stated as fact that the numbers of people who have died from drinking raw milk is low (compared with some other food outbreaks in last decade) or, as you stated, non-existent (though this doesn’t agree with the CDC and the FDA).
    You’re then making an argument that since the deaths from drinking raw milk are low (or, as you claim, non-existent), raw milk must therefore be safe.
    However, what you don’t include in your assertion is a basic fact: that if it weren’t for the severe restrictions on raw milk, the consumption of raw milk would most likely increase, and number of food born illnesses and deaths would increase. There is a positive correlation between number of food born illness outbreaks and consumption of raw milk products.
    Another way of looking at your argument is to say the number of people dying from playing Russian Roulette is low, so therefore playing Russian Roulette is safe.

  • Kristen Ridley

    There are risks to consider if you or your family are going to consume raw milk (Where exactly is it coming from? What is the health record of that farm?), but it’s not true to suggest that there’s no hard benefits to consider as well. An extensive study of 15,000 children who grew up on farms concluded that raw milk consumption was the single factor in the lower rates of asthma, allergies, eczema, and other autoimmune disorders found in such kids.
    http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749%2806%2900651-8/abstract

  • mrothschild

    The study authors write: “.. this is a cross-sectional study, as are all the studies that have reported associations with farm or unpasteurized milk published to date. These associations do not confirm a causal relationship, and further investigation to identify specific protective agents or mechanisms is required. In addition, cohort studies are necessary to clarify the temporal sequence of exposure and outcome. This would identify critical periods of childhood when exposure to these putative protective agents or mechanisms might operate. However, it is important to mention that unpasteurized milk consumption is not hazard free, and milk-related outbreaks of Cryptosporidium species,22 Campylobacter sepcies,23 and Escherichia coli O15724 have all been described. It is thus premature to recommend unpasteurized milk as a putative protective agent for allergic diseases.”

  • Mary Rothschild

    The study authors write: “.. this is a cross-sectional study, as are all the studies that have reported associations with farm or unpasteurized milk published to date. These associations do not confirm a causal relationship, and further investigation to identify specific protective agents or mechanisms is required. In addition, cohort studies are necessary to clarify the temporal sequence of exposure and outcome. This would identify critical periods of childhood when exposure to these putative protective agents or mechanisms might operate. However, it is important to mention that unpasteurized milk consumption is not hazard free, and milk-related outbreaks of Cryptosporidium species,22 Campylobacter sepcies,23 and Escherichia coli O15724 have all been described. It is thus premature to recommend unpasteurized milk as a putative protective agent for allergic diseases.”

  • Charles Smith

    Jim Schmidt is an idiot. Raw milk from grass fed cows cannot even be compared to pasteurized milk because it is a completely different food group and is vastly superior. If you insist on sourcing milk from grain fed feedlot cows then you should be imprisoned for drinking it raw. However, if you source milk from healthy pasture raised grass fed cows you should be imprisoned for pasteurizing it and killing one of nature’s true superfoods. My wife was told she has severe lactose intolerance and IBS however after beginning to drink raw grass milk on a daily basis her symptoms have vanished. There is no money in grass fed raw milk for the government…end of story.

  • Livia Keesee

    I have been drinking raw milk my first 20 years living in Europe without getting any of these scary infections that. Living in the USA I learned that my freedom to choose what I eat has been taken over by the state with fear mongering using twisted statics and “facts” and propaganda claims to “protect” the public. The only thing that is protected here our pockets of large corporations that are trying to stomp their local farm competition. This is not who gets sick and how to protect the public but how to kill all small business competition. Europeans are more aware of propaganda and American has more of it than the Eastern Block during Communism.
    It boils down to this: IT IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT AND LIBERTY OF A PERSON TO CHOOSE WHAT HE OR SHE CONSUMES OR PUTS IN THE BODY. It is not the role of government to dictate what I can or can not put in my body. The government is supposed represent the people, unfortunately in the last decades it has evolved to represent special interests and large corporations and not the people. Our politicians are bought and paid for by special interests and that includes the FDA, USDA, AAP, etc. There isn’t a political body within our government that is not bought by special interest groups. These government bodies and institutions that support them are masters at producing facts for the sheep to follow. Mary your facts fall in this category.
    In the cases, of illnesses through raw milk, one has to ALWAYS question the source of the infection as many have been clearly timed and staged for the sole purpose of making a case for pasteurization.
    The fact remains that I am free to choose as an individual what I put in my body and as a mother I have the greatest interest for the well being of my children’s health and development. The research institutions and the government can make recommendations on any aspect of our lives and health, but it CAN NOT DICTATE how we should run it – it will never work.
    In the 21st century, the US government protects rights and growth and represents interests of large corporations, the US government at federal, state and even local level most of the time does NOT work, represent or care for the people. How can anybody with a sound mind and good sole trust the government recommendations and regulations?