5 ms·

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

by andrewstuart 2y ago

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.

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.