4 ms·
Your question isn’t very clear. Raw milk itself isn’t bad, it’s just very very easy to get contaminated with pathogenic bacteria. Proponents of raw milk claim
by wbsss4412 5y ago
Your question isn’t very clear.
Raw milk itself isn’t bad, it’s just very very easy to get contaminated with pathogenic bacteria.
Proponents of raw milk claim it has health benefits due to the lack of cooking, both on a chemical level and a bacterial level.
- symlinkk 5y agoThis is such a HN answer. "It's not bad for you, it just makes it incredibly likely to get contaminated with pathogenic bacteria"
- wbsss4412 5y agoI mean I’m not advocating raw milk consumption. I was just trying to give a sober and even handed answer to the question. Raw milk itself is fine, it’s in fact incredibly nutritious- which is why it’s so difficult to keep it from being contaminated. It’s a great breeding ground for pathogens. In my mind, anti pasteurization types are like anti vaxx light, they didn’t have to live through times where food borne illnesses ran rampant, and therefore don’t appreciate what our scientific ancestors have blessed us with.
- Kerrick 5y agoRaw milk and pasteurized milk should be equally easy to get contaminated with pathogenic bacteria if you do the same things with them. But the pasteurization process does a “reset” after some of the riskiest behavior that happens pre-sale, after which repeating said risky behavior is specifically avoided.