7 ms·

Raw milk recalled for containing bird flu virus, California reports

54 points by bikenaga 2y ago

andrewstuart 2y ago
Raw milk is dangerous anyway, bird flu or no bird flu I'm surprised its sold.
- amock 2y ago
  Lots of dangerous things are sold, and raw milk isn't anywhere near the top of the list.
  - nerdjon 2y ago
    You're right, but there are a couple of key points you are missing: 1. (And this is the most important) we literally have a solution to it not being safe. 2. When things are unsafe, we (generally) make sure that people are properly educated about the risks. The people pushing raw milk are doing the exact opposite. 3. When something is unsafe, we try to figure out how to make it safe or find an alternative (see 1)
    - tjr 2y ago
      I had been largely oblivious to raw milk until just a few weeks ago when someone suggested I look into it. From what I can tell, raw milk per se is not likely to be problematic, but problems can get injected if the cows and/or general milking operation are not handled well. Pasteurizing milk could plausibly be seen as a quick fix to not have to deal with such things well. On the other hand, who would I trust to actually handle raw milk with excellence? Sounds to me like low-temperature pasteurization might be the best compromise? Kills off what is harmful, but supposedly retains more of the original nutrients?
      - parl_match 2y ago
        > raw milk per se is not likely to be problematic Part of the issue is that the current farms doing it are heavily regulated and also specialize in this product. If there's deregulation, you're going to see a free for all in states with light regulation. I personally think the whole thing is very stupid, and considering all of the raw milk illnesses that have been occurring (especially with bird flu), the status quo is fine. But if exposure is expanded...
      - graypegg 2y ago
        I've heard a few people mention the lack of vitamins in pasteurized milk. I get that heat could destroy some chemicals, so that sort of makes sense, but isn't most milk fortified? I'm not sure it's a huge deal. I don't really care that the vitamin A in my cheese didn't come out of the cow, personally. I do care that it won't give me food poisoning though, that's a lot higher up the list of concerns than vitamin provenance.
        classichasclass 2y ago
        It is broadly accepted that pasteurized milk is lower in vitamin C, but there generally isn't much in dairy products to begin with. There are also reportedly small reductions in vitamins B2 (riboflavin), B12 and E, and folate. However, no reputable nutritional authority has identified these reductions as being physiologically significant. More controversial assertions circulate around protein and enzyme content, but studies have failed to find anything making raw milk more "digestible" or causing any detectable contribution to immunity or allergy. The FDA has an extensive discussion on this: https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-food/raw-milk-misconceptions-and-danger-raw-milk-consumption https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-food/raw-milk-...
        graypegg 2y ago
        Interesting, thanks! I'll give it a read. I didn't know about the "contains probiotic bacteria that secrete lactase" claim with raw milk. It would be weird if lactase/lactase producing bacteria were in big enough quantities in milk, considering how cows (and people) produce it themselves as babies. Seems like wasted effort that would probably be evolved away.
  - andrewstuart 2y ago
    From the FDA: https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-food/dangers-raw-milk-unpasteurized-milk-can-pose-serious-health-risk https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-food/dangers-r... Symptoms of foodborne illness usually include: Vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain Flu-like symptoms such as fever, headache, and body ache While most healthy people will recover from an illness caused by harmful germs in raw milk – or in foods made with raw milk – within a short time, some can develop symptoms that are chronic, severe, or even life-threatening. If you or someone you know becomes ill after consuming raw milk or products made from raw milk – or if you are pregnant and think you may have consumed contaminated raw milk or cheese – see a healthcare professional immediately. The Dangers of Listeria and Pregnancy Pregnant women run a serious risk of becoming ill from the germ Listeria, which is often found in raw milk and can cause miscarriage, or illness, or death of the newborn baby. If you are pregnant, drinking raw milk — or eating foods made from raw milk — can harm your baby even if you don’t feel sick. Raw Milk and Serious Illness Symptoms and Advice
    - BenjiWiebe 2y ago
      Also note that "often found in raw milk" is only kind of accurate. We've never detected lysteria on our dairy. Both our environmental swabs and raw milk cheese samples have always been negative. We'd consider it a serious problem if we detected it anywhere (drains, door sills, etc).
  - kstrauser 2y ago
    Yes, but it’s voluntarily and unnecessarily unsafe. It’s like scuba diving without a timer. You can do that, but it’s a dumb idea when the alternative is right there and widely available.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      Swimming without a life preserver kills a lot more people than raw milk; should the government mandate that anybody going in the water wear one? Most people would probably reject that; they know how to swim and the government should butt out of it. From my personal perspective, informed by my background as a lifeguard and competitive swimmer, I dispute the swimming ability of most of the general public who claim they can swim. Most people who claim they "can swim" are just barely capable of not drowning under ideal conditions. Mandating life preservers for anybody who jumps into a lake or pool would without a shred of doubt save many lives every year. But should that really be done? Is protecting people from themselves really what we should be prioritizing before all else? Sometimes we should let people enjoy things, even if it may kill them.
      - kstrauser 2y ago
        It wasn't a perfect analogy by a long shot. In this case, the question is more whether we should ignore established FDA food safety requirements for no particular reason? Like, what if I don't mind beetles in my oat. Shouldn't I be able to buy them that way? Perhaps. I don't think someone should be allowed to sell them that way, though.
      - consteval 2y ago
        > should the government mandate that anybody going in the water wear one? No, but they do regulate who is selling it. You can't find a cruise ship without life preservers on it - even if you really want to, and you're all about raw water or whatever. The issue with raw milk isn't random people using their own cows to drink raw milk. The issue is people selling it en-masse. They will lie about the dangers, ensuring their consumers are as uneducated as possible, and then certainly sweep the predictable deaths under the rug. If you truly don't believe me, go ahead and look at raw milk influencers. When I say they speak almost exclusively bullshit, that's not an exaggeration. Typically they engage in all forms of pseudo-science. Crystals, alchemy, anti-vax, you name it. These people aren't trying to be honest about the dangers. They live in a parallel universe with different rules. It's not protecting people from themselves - it's protecting consumers from those who would kill them for a quick buck (i.e. pretty much any anybody if they could get away with it)
  - Ferret7446 2y ago
    On the contrary, I would put raw milk pretty near the top of the list. Definitely in the top 50%. Especially if you scale it by actual harm done, as most dangerous things don't cause that much harm as people are cautious of them and handle them carefully.
- Thrymr 2y ago
  Wait until you hear who's going to be nominated to head the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the FDA and other agencies. For now they warn against and prohibit the interstate sale of raw milk [0]. That may not last. [0] https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-food/food-safety-and-raw-milk https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-food/food-safe...
  - perihelions 2y ago
    For those blissfully ignorant: - "Robert Kennedy Jr., the Trump administration’s nominee for secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, is a proponent of raw milk consumption, disclosing in 2023 that it is the only milk he drinks." https://www.statnews.com/2024/11/24/bird-flu-h5n1-raw-milk-llc-california-virus-testing/ https://www.statnews.com/2024/11/24/bird-flu-h5n1-raw-milk-l...
    - hedora 2y ago
      He also wants to regulate / ban ultra processed foods. That’s certainly a good idea, since those products have been repeatedly shown to increase all cause mortality. However, there is strong industry (and bipartisan) pressure to block the parts of his agenda that make scientific sense, so I’m not particularly optimistic. Maybe apply pressure to your representatives? This seems like a rare case where they could have a big positive impact.
      - KittenInABox 2y ago
        I don't know what "ultra processed foods" even mean, tbh. Like are you seriously going to ban my keto/high-protein alternatives to sugar laden or carb heavy foods because my zero calorie water flavorant is more processed than freshly squeezed juice? It makes sense to me to regulate hyper-palatable 10-year-expiry junk food but ultra processed foods like meal replacements are useful and necessary for a wide variety of food sensitivities and disabilities.
      - throw0101d 2y ago
        > He also wants to regulate / ban ultra processed foods. How is "ultra processed" defined? If he wants to make useful changes perhaps stop corn (high-fructose) subsidies and get rid of tariffs on 'regular' sugar. Accepting that HIV and AIDS are linked would also probably be useful for a Secretary of Health: > In his book The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the War on Democracy and Public Health, Kennedy writes that he takes "no position on the relationship between HIV and AIDS,"[292]: 347 but spends over 100 pages quoting HIV denialists such as Peter Duesberg who question the isolation of HIV and the etiology of AIDS.[311] Kennedy refers to the "orthodoxy that HIV alone causes AIDS"[292]: 348 and the "theology that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS,"[292]: 351 and repeats the false HIV/AIDS denialist claim that no one has isolated the HIV particle and "No one has been able to point to a study that demonstrates their hypothesis using accepted scientific proofs.": 348 He also repeats the false claim that the early AIDS drug AZT is "absolutely fatal"[292]: 332 due to its "horrendous toxicity."[292]: 298 Molecular biologist Dan Wilson points out that Kennedy falsely claims that Luc Montagnier, the discoverer of HIV, was a "convert" to Duesberg's fringe hypothesis. Wilson concludes that Kennedy is a "full blown" HIV/AIDS denialist.[311][292] Epidemiologist Tara C. Smith suggests that Kennedy's book "even flirts with outright germ theory denial," quoting a portion where Kennedy contrasts germ theory with terrain theory.[312] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#HIV/AIDS_denialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#HIV/AIDS... Also, not denying the effectiveness of vaccines: * https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/07/how-rfk-jr-falsely-denied-his-connection-to-a-deadly-measles-outbreak-in-samoa/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/07/how-rfk-jr-fals...
- askvictor 2y ago
  Raw milk straight from a cow is generally fine, and I'm told much more delicious (and maybe more healthy? I really don't know about the science on that one). It's when it's had a chance to sit around that the risks increase (which inevitably happens in a commercialised process from the cow to your fridge). I've had pressure-treated unpasteurised milk and I prefer the taste of that over pasteurised.
  - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
    I think a lot of the flavor comes from two other factors: fat level (i.e. you can get higher fat than "whole" milk quite easily, although at some point it gets marketed as "cream", which significantly alters the taste) and the cow's diet: you can easily taste the difference between milk marketed as "grassfed" and the cheap stuff in a blind tasting. (Same is true for eggs, I suspect, though I've never tried that particular experiment myself.)
    - giraffe_lady 2y ago
      Having it be unhomogenized is at least as big a factor. Side by side it's very hard to tell unhomogenized pasteurized milk apart from raw milk that came from the same dairy. Something about having the fat globules loose in there makes it taste richer, and gives it a different texture. You can buy unhomogenized milk pretty easily at health food stores etc. People generally don't prefer it though because shaking it is annoying, it curdles more easily in cooked applications, and spoils faster for some reason. But for people with a culinary preference for the "raw" texture it's an option. But most people wanting raw milk want it for political/ideological reasons not gustatory ones. An insane sentence I could not have imagined needing to write 20 years ago.
      - jefftk 2y ago
        > Something about having the fat globules loose in there makes it taste richer, and gives it a different texture. You can also just mix skim milk and cream right before drinking. Tastes richer for a given fat content. (We started doing this when we had people who wanted skim, 1%, 2%, and whole all sharing a fridge. Though later we ended up with people only wanting whole and the small taste improvement wasn't worth the hassle of mixing anymore.)
- BenjiWiebe 2y ago
  There are dangers with raw milk, but to my knowledge no one in my immediate family has gotten ill from raw milk, despite drinking it daily for the last 20-some years. However, it's from our own dairy, and we know and trust our own sanitation/storage.
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    I had an uncle that drove without a seatbelt for 20 years, saying almost exactly the same thing. He did end up dying of lung cancer so maybe you're on to something.
    - MrLeap 2y ago
      It's easy to dodge a lot of bullets when each one has a ~ε% chance of hitting you. It's interesting how often situations occur where there's a whole lot of people who are RIGHT even though they sound like they have opposed opinions. Can the human mind unravel the mysteries of why it might be okay to drink raw milk from your own cows while holding large scale commercial endeavors to a higher standard? I think it's possible. I'm optimistic.
    - steve_adams_86 2y ago
      I'll continue wearing my seatbelt to protect myself from lung cancer, in that case.
  - ecocentrik 2y ago
    Thank you for the disclosure and the anecdotal account but no sane person would expect an unbiased take on a product from the person that produces that product. Also, it doesn't get much fresher than owning the cow or the dairy.
  - kstrauser 2y ago
    FWIW, I'm totally OK with that. You have the personal knowledge to make an informed decision and can take direct steps to ensure your own safety. I see that as a whole different category than actively seeking out unpasteurized milk for routine consumption. By analogy, my neighbors raise chickens, and they occasionally eat them. I wouldn't think twice about that, or about eating a dinner they shared with me. But darned if I could imagine regularly tracking down raw chicken in a wet market instead of buying it from an FDA-inspected place.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - acdha 2y ago
    Prior to pasteurization, people died or became ill on a regular basis: that’s one reason why Louis Pasteur is a household name two centuries after his birth. Even as a relatively niche product it’s still responsible for a significant percentage of the dairy-related deaths and severe illnesses. The confound is related to what you mentioned: historically few people were shipping milk very far. If you’re getting it shortly after milking your family’s cows, you don’t have the same kind of trust commitment that most modern consumers are making and you don’t have the profit motive conflicting with food safety, either.
nerdjon 2y ago
Well my first question was going to be how are they enforcing a recall when (to my knowledge) it was illegal to sell in the first place. But apparently California is one of the states where it is legal... why?!?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- lupusreal 2y ago
  Raw milk is like tap water without fluoride. In the context of America people talk like it's an affront to civilization itself, yet in much (not all) of Europe its available with various restrictions and regulations. Edit for factual context: In the 19th century before the advent of pasteurization and refrigeration, raw milk used to kill lots of kids. But raw milk in America wasn't banned in America until 1987 and 1991 in Canada. Refrigeration made raw milk mostly safe (albeit still gross, IMHO) and most consumers chose pasteurized milk anyway without the government forcing them to. People who think raw milk should obviously be banned like to talk about the Victorian era but not the (far more relevant) 1980s.
  - glaucon 2y ago
    And, for the purposes of liquid milk, those restrictions are pretty tight [1] . In most countries there are a _very_ small number of licensed suppliers and raw milk may not be sold in conventional distribution networks. Raw milk is used by the French for some cheeses but I'm not sure about liquid milk. With respect to cheese, those made in France with raw milk are, according to wikipedia, "the major source of staphylococcal food poisoning". I mention this not because I'm sure that raw milk is always bad in all circumstances, I don't know enough to say, but to point out that the degree to which it's available within EU+UK is really quite limited. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_milk#Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_milk#Europe
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      > In most countries there are a _very_ small number of licensed suppliers and raw milk may not be sold in conventional distribution networks. So it is also in the American states which permit it. It's a very niche product which is subject to numerous regulations, in some states harsher than others. Generally it's not allowed to be sold in normal stores, you have to go to farms or special dairy stores to get it, state agencies regularly test it (hence this recall), etc.
johnea 2y ago
Personally, I don't see why anyone uses milk in any form, raw or otherwise. After being raised to think it was somehow not just OK, but almost mandatory to consume, I stopped all milk consumption, and almost all cheese and other dairy about 20 years ago. Maybe barely post-cave people needed it to survive, but in the modern world there is 0 reason to be consuming another species lactate. p.s. I would rate the addition of extra growth hormones (beyond what's already at naturally high levels due to being a lactate) as the biggest long term health problem with milk, moreso than weather it's pasturized or not.
- reverendsteveii 2y ago
  hear me out: I want it. It tastes nice, I'm aware of the risks and I'm an adult with the wherewithal to make that decision. I will guarantee you there's some component of your diet that fails the "not strictly necessary and adds long-term health risk" test too.
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    Unhomogenized pasteurized milk is indistinguishable. I have tried raw side by side with this from the same dairy and even as a working chef, I had to be taught which was which.
    - reverendsteveii 2y ago
      I'm not expressing an opinion on raw milk, I'm replying to a comment that was expressing an opinion on milk in general. I like milk. With that being said, I'm not a raw milk guy but I would hear an argument for someone's right to make that decision about their body for themselves. I'd be okay with there being some sort of mandatory information that has to be included with raw milk because, as you said, it's indistinguishable to our senses from pasteurized milk otherwise. We have several products that are known to be toxic but are still available for adults to choose to consume, and making the risks known directly on the packaging seems to be the middle road we've chosen. There's also the fact that raw milk is just better for home cheesemaking, if that's something your into. Even the FDA acknowledges that raw milk cheese is safe if it's aged for at least 60 days. Pasteurization tends to wreck proteins. If those proteins make up the cell wall of a harmful bacterium that's good. If you're counting on those proteins to make up the structure of a cheese block, that's gonna be bad for you. I've done some home cheesemaking but don't have access to raw milk, and its been to my detriment as a food nerd.
Xeoncross 2y ago
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.
- monknomo 2y ago
  do you really think briefly cooking milk significantly reduces its nutritional content
  - Xeoncross 2y ago
    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.
josefritzishere 2y ago
Incidents like this are what I find concerning about RFKs enthusiasm for raw milk. People have literally died from drinking this biohazard material.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
perihelions 2y ago
On a semi-tangent: in cats, drinking raw milk contaminated with H5N1 has a >50% mortality rate (in one cluster investigated by the CDC, n=24). https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/30/7/24-0508_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/30/7/24-0508_article
- classichasclass 2y ago
  I think this study is important to point out as a point of concern. On the other hand - and I say this from a TB control perspective, where TB-contaminated raw milk is absolutely a vector, particularly for Mycobacterium bovis; I've treated such cases - we don't know if ingesting H5 is as risky for humans. It doesn't seem like a good idea, though, and there are plenty of other things spread by raw milk that definitely can make you ill (enteric bacteria in particular). I go through about three gallons of milk a week personally, but it's pasteurized and off-the-grocery-shelf.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ortusdux 2y ago
See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42238651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42238651
plutomeetsyou 2y ago
Now, how am I supposed to source my raw milk for my family of four?
Whatarethese 2y ago
These raw milk people need to be shipped away to a secluded island. They cant be trusted to make decisions.
- mlnj 2y ago
  We call this island the United States. Just kidding. On a serious note, I see this kind of anti-intellectualism and skepticism to science frequently in developed countries. As someone who grew up in a developing country I always believed that education and advanced sciences will show improve people's knowledge on these matters. For example, I've met only a negligible amount of people in India who have been against public vaccinations. Meanwhile the number of highly educated peers I've had over the last few years who question vaccinations as an aspect of societal healthcare has been very demoralizing.

54 points by bikenaga 2y ago

andrewstuart 2y ago

Raw milk is dangerous anyway, bird flu or no bird flu I'm surprised its sold.

amock 2y ago
Lots of dangerous things are sold, and raw milk isn't anywhere near the top of the list.
- nerdjon 2y ago
  You're right, but there are a couple of key points you are missing: 1. (And this is the most important) we literally have a solution to it not being safe. 2. When things are unsafe, we (generally) make sure that people are properly educated about the risks. The people pushing raw milk are doing the exact opposite. 3. When something is unsafe, we try to figure out how to make it safe or find an alternative (see 1)
  - tjr 2y ago
    I had been largely oblivious to raw milk until just a few weeks ago when someone suggested I look into it. From what I can tell, raw milk per se is not likely to be problematic, but problems can get injected if the cows and/or general milking operation are not handled well. Pasteurizing milk could plausibly be seen as a quick fix to not have to deal with such things well. On the other hand, who would I trust to actually handle raw milk with excellence? Sounds to me like low-temperature pasteurization might be the best compromise? Kills off what is harmful, but supposedly retains more of the original nutrients?
    - parl_match 2y ago
      > raw milk per se is not likely to be problematic Part of the issue is that the current farms doing it are heavily regulated and also specialize in this product. If there's deregulation, you're going to see a free for all in states with light regulation. I personally think the whole thing is very stupid, and considering all of the raw milk illnesses that have been occurring (especially with bird flu), the status quo is fine. But if exposure is expanded...
    - graypegg 2y ago
      I've heard a few people mention the lack of vitamins in pasteurized milk. I get that heat could destroy some chemicals, so that sort of makes sense, but isn't most milk fortified? I'm not sure it's a huge deal. I don't really care that the vitamin A in my cheese didn't come out of the cow, personally. I do care that it won't give me food poisoning though, that's a lot higher up the list of concerns than vitamin provenance.
      - classichasclass 2y ago
        It is broadly accepted that pasteurized milk is lower in vitamin C, but there generally isn't much in dairy products to begin with. There are also reportedly small reductions in vitamins B2 (riboflavin), B12 and E, and folate. However, no reputable nutritional authority has identified these reductions as being physiologically significant. More controversial assertions circulate around protein and enzyme content, but studies have failed to find anything making raw milk more "digestible" or causing any detectable contribution to immunity or allergy. The FDA has an extensive discussion on this: https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-food/raw-milk-misconceptions-and-danger-raw-milk-consumption https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-food/raw-milk-...
        graypegg 2y ago
        Interesting, thanks! I'll give it a read. I didn't know about the "contains probiotic bacteria that secrete lactase" claim with raw milk. It would be weird if lactase/lactase producing bacteria were in big enough quantities in milk, considering how cows (and people) produce it themselves as babies. Seems like wasted effort that would probably be evolved away.
- andrewstuart 2y ago
  From the FDA: https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-food/dangers-raw-milk-unpasteurized-milk-can-pose-serious-health-risk https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-food/dangers-r... Symptoms of foodborne illness usually include: Vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain Flu-like symptoms such as fever, headache, and body ache While most healthy people will recover from an illness caused by harmful germs in raw milk – or in foods made with raw milk – within a short time, some can develop symptoms that are chronic, severe, or even life-threatening. If you or someone you know becomes ill after consuming raw milk or products made from raw milk – or if you are pregnant and think you may have consumed contaminated raw milk or cheese – see a healthcare professional immediately. The Dangers of Listeria and Pregnancy Pregnant women run a serious risk of becoming ill from the germ Listeria, which is often found in raw milk and can cause miscarriage, or illness, or death of the newborn baby. If you are pregnant, drinking raw milk — or eating foods made from raw milk — can harm your baby even if you don’t feel sick. Raw Milk and Serious Illness Symptoms and Advice
  - BenjiWiebe 2y ago
    Also note that "often found in raw milk" is only kind of accurate. We've never detected lysteria on our dairy. Both our environmental swabs and raw milk cheese samples have always been negative. We'd consider it a serious problem if we detected it anywhere (drains, door sills, etc).
- kstrauser 2y ago
  Yes, but it’s voluntarily and unnecessarily unsafe. It’s like scuba diving without a timer. You can do that, but it’s a dumb idea when the alternative is right there and widely available.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    Swimming without a life preserver kills a lot more people than raw milk; should the government mandate that anybody going in the water wear one? Most people would probably reject that; they know how to swim and the government should butt out of it. From my personal perspective, informed by my background as a lifeguard and competitive swimmer, I dispute the swimming ability of most of the general public who claim they can swim. Most people who claim they "can swim" are just barely capable of not drowning under ideal conditions. Mandating life preservers for anybody who jumps into a lake or pool would without a shred of doubt save many lives every year. But should that really be done? Is protecting people from themselves really what we should be prioritizing before all else? Sometimes we should let people enjoy things, even if it may kill them.
    - kstrauser 2y ago
      It wasn't a perfect analogy by a long shot. In this case, the question is more whether we should ignore established FDA food safety requirements for no particular reason? Like, what if I don't mind beetles in my oat. Shouldn't I be able to buy them that way? Perhaps. I don't think someone should be allowed to sell them that way, though.
    - consteval 2y ago
      > should the government mandate that anybody going in the water wear one? No, but they do regulate who is selling it. You can't find a cruise ship without life preservers on it - even if you really want to, and you're all about raw water or whatever. The issue with raw milk isn't random people using their own cows to drink raw milk. The issue is people selling it en-masse. They will lie about the dangers, ensuring their consumers are as uneducated as possible, and then certainly sweep the predictable deaths under the rug. If you truly don't believe me, go ahead and look at raw milk influencers. When I say they speak almost exclusively bullshit, that's not an exaggeration. Typically they engage in all forms of pseudo-science. Crystals, alchemy, anti-vax, you name it. These people aren't trying to be honest about the dangers. They live in a parallel universe with different rules. It's not protecting people from themselves - it's protecting consumers from those who would kill them for a quick buck (i.e. pretty much any anybody if they could get away with it)
- Ferret7446 2y ago
  On the contrary, I would put raw milk pretty near the top of the list. Definitely in the top 50%. Especially if you scale it by actual harm done, as most dangerous things don't cause that much harm as people are cautious of them and handle them carefully.
Thrymr 2y ago
Wait until you hear who's going to be nominated to head the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the FDA and other agencies. For now they warn against and prohibit the interstate sale of raw milk [0]. That may not last. [0] https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-food/food-safety-and-raw-milk https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-food/food-safe...
- perihelions 2y ago
  For those blissfully ignorant: - "Robert Kennedy Jr., the Trump administration’s nominee for secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, is a proponent of raw milk consumption, disclosing in 2023 that it is the only milk he drinks." https://www.statnews.com/2024/11/24/bird-flu-h5n1-raw-milk-llc-california-virus-testing/ https://www.statnews.com/2024/11/24/bird-flu-h5n1-raw-milk-l...
  - hedora 2y ago
    He also wants to regulate / ban ultra processed foods. That’s certainly a good idea, since those products have been repeatedly shown to increase all cause mortality. However, there is strong industry (and bipartisan) pressure to block the parts of his agenda that make scientific sense, so I’m not particularly optimistic. Maybe apply pressure to your representatives? This seems like a rare case where they could have a big positive impact.
    - KittenInABox 2y ago
      I don't know what "ultra processed foods" even mean, tbh. Like are you seriously going to ban my keto/high-protein alternatives to sugar laden or carb heavy foods because my zero calorie water flavorant is more processed than freshly squeezed juice? It makes sense to me to regulate hyper-palatable 10-year-expiry junk food but ultra processed foods like meal replacements are useful and necessary for a wide variety of food sensitivities and disabilities.
    - throw0101d 2y ago
      > He also wants to regulate / ban ultra processed foods. How is "ultra processed" defined? If he wants to make useful changes perhaps stop corn (high-fructose) subsidies and get rid of tariffs on 'regular' sugar. Accepting that HIV and AIDS are linked would also probably be useful for a Secretary of Health: > In his book The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the War on Democracy and Public Health, Kennedy writes that he takes "no position on the relationship between HIV and AIDS,"[292]: 347 but spends over 100 pages quoting HIV denialists such as Peter Duesberg who question the isolation of HIV and the etiology of AIDS.[311] Kennedy refers to the "orthodoxy that HIV alone causes AIDS"[292]: 348 and the "theology that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS,"[292]: 351 and repeats the false HIV/AIDS denialist claim that no one has isolated the HIV particle and "No one has been able to point to a study that demonstrates their hypothesis using accepted scientific proofs.": 348 He also repeats the false claim that the early AIDS drug AZT is "absolutely fatal"[292]: 332 due to its "horrendous toxicity."[292]: 298 Molecular biologist Dan Wilson points out that Kennedy falsely claims that Luc Montagnier, the discoverer of HIV, was a "convert" to Duesberg's fringe hypothesis. Wilson concludes that Kennedy is a "full blown" HIV/AIDS denialist.[311][292] Epidemiologist Tara C. Smith suggests that Kennedy's book "even flirts with outright germ theory denial," quoting a portion where Kennedy contrasts germ theory with terrain theory.[312] * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#HIV/AIDS_denialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.#HIV/AIDS... Also, not denying the effectiveness of vaccines: * https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/07/how-rfk-jr-falsely-denied-his-connection-to-a-deadly-measles-outbreak-in-samoa/ https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/07/how-rfk-jr-fals...
askvictor 2y ago
Raw milk straight from a cow is generally fine, and I'm told much more delicious (and maybe more healthy? I really don't know about the science on that one). It's when it's had a chance to sit around that the risks increase (which inevitably happens in a commercialised process from the cow to your fridge). I've had pressure-treated unpasteurised milk and I prefer the taste of that over pasteurised.
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  I think a lot of the flavor comes from two other factors: fat level (i.e. you can get higher fat than "whole" milk quite easily, although at some point it gets marketed as "cream", which significantly alters the taste) and the cow's diet: you can easily taste the difference between milk marketed as "grassfed" and the cheap stuff in a blind tasting. (Same is true for eggs, I suspect, though I've never tried that particular experiment myself.)
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    Having it be unhomogenized is at least as big a factor. Side by side it's very hard to tell unhomogenized pasteurized milk apart from raw milk that came from the same dairy. Something about having the fat globules loose in there makes it taste richer, and gives it a different texture. You can buy unhomogenized milk pretty easily at health food stores etc. People generally don't prefer it though because shaking it is annoying, it curdles more easily in cooked applications, and spoils faster for some reason. But for people with a culinary preference for the "raw" texture it's an option. But most people wanting raw milk want it for political/ideological reasons not gustatory ones. An insane sentence I could not have imagined needing to write 20 years ago.
    - jefftk 2y ago
      > Something about having the fat globules loose in there makes it taste richer, and gives it a different texture. You can also just mix skim milk and cream right before drinking. Tastes richer for a given fat content. (We started doing this when we had people who wanted skim, 1%, 2%, and whole all sharing a fridge. Though later we ended up with people only wanting whole and the small taste improvement wasn't worth the hassle of mixing anymore.)
BenjiWiebe 2y ago
There are dangers with raw milk, but to my knowledge no one in my immediate family has gotten ill from raw milk, despite drinking it daily for the last 20-some years. However, it's from our own dairy, and we know and trust our own sanitation/storage.
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  I had an uncle that drove without a seatbelt for 20 years, saying almost exactly the same thing. He did end up dying of lung cancer so maybe you're on to something.
  - MrLeap 2y ago
    It's easy to dodge a lot of bullets when each one has a ~ε% chance of hitting you. It's interesting how often situations occur where there's a whole lot of people who are RIGHT even though they sound like they have opposed opinions. Can the human mind unravel the mysteries of why it might be okay to drink raw milk from your own cows while holding large scale commercial endeavors to a higher standard? I think it's possible. I'm optimistic.
  - steve_adams_86 2y ago
    I'll continue wearing my seatbelt to protect myself from lung cancer, in that case.
- ecocentrik 2y ago
  Thank you for the disclosure and the anecdotal account but no sane person would expect an unbiased take on a product from the person that produces that product. Also, it doesn't get much fresher than owning the cow or the dairy.
- kstrauser 2y ago
  FWIW, I'm totally OK with that. You have the personal knowledge to make an informed decision and can take direct steps to ensure your own safety. I see that as a whole different category than actively seeking out unpasteurized milk for routine consumption. By analogy, my neighbors raise chickens, and they occasionally eat them. I wouldn't think twice about that, or about eating a dinner they shared with me. But darned if I could imagine regularly tracking down raw chicken in a wet market instead of buying it from an FDA-inspected place.
bigstrat2003 2y ago
[flagged]
- acdha 2y ago
  Prior to pasteurization, people died or became ill on a regular basis: that’s one reason why Louis Pasteur is a household name two centuries after his birth. Even as a relatively niche product it’s still responsible for a significant percentage of the dairy-related deaths and severe illnesses. The confound is related to what you mentioned: historically few people were shipping milk very far. If you’re getting it shortly after milking your family’s cows, you don’t have the same kind of trust commitment that most modern consumers are making and you don’t have the profit motive conflicting with food safety, either.

nerdjon 2y ago

Well my first question was going to be how are they enforcing a recall when (to my knowledge) it was illegal to sell in the first place. But apparently California is one of the states where it is legal... why?!?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lupusreal 2y ago
Raw milk is like tap water without fluoride. In the context of America people talk like it's an affront to civilization itself, yet in much (not all) of Europe its available with various restrictions and regulations. Edit for factual context: In the 19th century before the advent of pasteurization and refrigeration, raw milk used to kill lots of kids. But raw milk in America wasn't banned in America until 1987 and 1991 in Canada. Refrigeration made raw milk mostly safe (albeit still gross, IMHO) and most consumers chose pasteurized milk anyway without the government forcing them to. People who think raw milk should obviously be banned like to talk about the Victorian era but not the (far more relevant) 1980s.
- glaucon 2y ago
  And, for the purposes of liquid milk, those restrictions are pretty tight [1] . In most countries there are a _very_ small number of licensed suppliers and raw milk may not be sold in conventional distribution networks. Raw milk is used by the French for some cheeses but I'm not sure about liquid milk. With respect to cheese, those made in France with raw milk are, according to wikipedia, "the major source of staphylococcal food poisoning". I mention this not because I'm sure that raw milk is always bad in all circumstances, I don't know enough to say, but to point out that the degree to which it's available within EU+UK is really quite limited. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_milk#Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_milk#Europe
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    > In most countries there are a _very_ small number of licensed suppliers and raw milk may not be sold in conventional distribution networks. So it is also in the American states which permit it. It's a very niche product which is subject to numerous regulations, in some states harsher than others. Generally it's not allowed to be sold in normal stores, you have to go to farms or special dairy stores to get it, state agencies regularly test it (hence this recall), etc.

johnea 2y ago

Personally, I don't see why anyone uses milk in any form, raw or otherwise. After being raised to think it was somehow not just OK, but almost mandatory to consume, I stopped all milk consumption, and almost all cheese and other dairy about 20 years ago. Maybe barely post-cave people needed it to survive, but in the modern world there is 0 reason to be consuming another species lactate. p.s. I would rate the addition of extra growth hormones (beyond what's already at naturally high levels due to being a lactate) as the biggest long term health problem with milk, moreso than weather it's pasturized or not.

reverendsteveii 2y ago
hear me out: I want it. It tastes nice, I'm aware of the risks and I'm an adult with the wherewithal to make that decision. I will guarantee you there's some component of your diet that fails the "not strictly necessary and adds long-term health risk" test too.
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  Unhomogenized pasteurized milk is indistinguishable. I have tried raw side by side with this from the same dairy and even as a working chef, I had to be taught which was which.
  - reverendsteveii 2y ago
    I'm not expressing an opinion on raw milk, I'm replying to a comment that was expressing an opinion on milk in general. I like milk. With that being said, I'm not a raw milk guy but I would hear an argument for someone's right to make that decision about their body for themselves. I'd be okay with there being some sort of mandatory information that has to be included with raw milk because, as you said, it's indistinguishable to our senses from pasteurized milk otherwise. We have several products that are known to be toxic but are still available for adults to choose to consume, and making the risks known directly on the packaging seems to be the middle road we've chosen. There's also the fact that raw milk is just better for home cheesemaking, if that's something your into. Even the FDA acknowledges that raw milk cheese is safe if it's aged for at least 60 days. Pasteurization tends to wreck proteins. If those proteins make up the cell wall of a harmful bacterium that's good. If you're counting on those proteins to make up the structure of a cheese block, that's gonna be bad for you. I've done some home cheesemaking but don't have access to raw milk, and its been to my detriment as a food nerd.

Xeoncross 2y ago

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.

monknomo 2y ago
do you really think briefly cooking milk significantly reduces its nutritional content
- Xeoncross 2y ago
  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.

josefritzishere 2y ago

Incidents like this are what I find concerning about RFKs enthusiasm for raw milk. People have literally died from drinking this biohazard material.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

perihelions 2y ago

On a semi-tangent: in cats, drinking raw milk contaminated with H5N1 has a >50% mortality rate (in one cluster investigated by the CDC, n=24). https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/30/7/24-0508_article https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/30/7/24-0508_article

classichasclass 2y ago
I think this study is important to point out as a point of concern. On the other hand - and I say this from a TB control perspective, where TB-contaminated raw milk is absolutely a vector, particularly for Mycobacterium bovis; I've treated such cases - we don't know if ingesting H5 is as risky for humans. It doesn't seem like a good idea, though, and there are plenty of other things spread by raw milk that definitely can make you ill (enteric bacteria in particular). I go through about three gallons of milk a week personally, but it's pasteurized and off-the-grocery-shelf.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ortusdux 2y ago

See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42238651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42238651

plutomeetsyou 2y ago

Now, how am I supposed to source my raw milk for my family of four?

Whatarethese 2y ago

These raw milk people need to be shipped away to a secluded island. They cant be trusted to make decisions.

mlnj 2y ago
We call this island the United States. Just kidding. On a serious note, I see this kind of anti-intellectualism and skepticism to science frequently in developed countries. As someone who grew up in a developing country I always believed that education and advanced sciences will show improve people's knowledge on these matters. For example, I've met only a negligible amount of people in India who have been against public vaccinations. Meanwhile the number of highly educated peers I've had over the last few years who question vaccinations as an aspect of societal healthcare has been very demoralizing.