4 ms·
Raw milk doesn't seem to me the most anti science thing to me But I believe the premise that financial interests aren't being challenged
by exrhizo 1y ago
Raw milk doesn't seem to me the most anti science thing to me
But I believe the premise that financial interests aren't being challenged
- Refreeze5224 1y agoIt is if you don't understand the germ theory of disease, and how many bacteria can be present in raw milk. There is a reason that pasteurization was revolutionary, and it's because it caused fewer people to die. If you don't understand the science behind pasteurization, you should absolutely "trust the experts", aka scientists, or if you prefer, trust the old wisdom of previous generations who knew the value of pasteurization and watched people die of preventable illnesses before it came along.
- ImJamal 1y agoMany people just boil raw milk themselves and don't have issues?
- ceejayoz 1y agoIs this... a joke?
- ImJamal 1y agoBuying raw milk doesn't mean people will consume it?
- ceejayoz 1y agoSure. But boiling it makes it… not raw.
- _blk 1y agoBest thread all day :)
- ImJamal 1y agoI know, but the topic at hand is about buying raw milk? From the article > Powerful anti-vaccine advocates and people selling potentially harmful goods such as raw milk are profiting from the push to write anti-science policies into law across the U.S.
- ceejayoz 1y ago> I know, but the topic at hand is about buying raw milk? But we don't regulate milk for the people who boil it. We regulate it because of the ones who don't.
- ImJamal 1y agoWe do though. It is illegal to buy raw milk in some jurisdictions regardless if you boil it after purchasing.
- ceejayoz 1y agoBecause some people won't boil it, and that has serious public health impacts. Right? Same reason we have airport security even if I personally don't want to hijack a plane.
- ImJamal 1y agoPlenty of things have serious health impacts and we don't mandate it. To go after something as niche as raw milk is weird in my view. Heart disease leads to quite a few deaths and we don't ban McDonalds. If the fear is actually the drinking of raw milk then they should ban that, not the buying/selling of it.
- ceejayoz 1y ago> Plenty of things have serious health impacts and we don't mandate it. There are very few things with serious health impacts that are completely unregulated. The closest we get is probably guns. > To go after something as niche as raw milk is weird in my view. It wasn't niche when we regulated it. It's niche now because we did. > Heart disease leads to quite a few deaths and we don't ban McDonalds. We take plenty of regulatory steps to reduce heart disease. McDonalds is required, for example, to provide nutrition facts. The burger meat gets USDA inspected. The restaurants get health inspections. (And we do try to do more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drinks_portion_cap_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drinks_portion_cap_rule)
- triceratops 1y agoHey man I don't know what they put in that factory heat. I only trust heat from my stove.
- loourr 1y agoBelieving that one should be able to consume raw milk is not anti-science. Yes pasteurization kills bacteria that can be present in milk which can cause serious harm and also it kills bacteria that can be positive and people should have the right to choose to consume it and sell it with proper disclosures.
- mtrovo 1y agoReally depends on the country and the access to clean processes between milking a cow and your glass tho. Kind of related I was really shocked when I saw people eating raw pork mince in Germany when I lived there. My first reaction is that I would never do that based on my upbringing but if natural selection is a thing it's working fine for them I guess.
- throwaway091025 1y agoIt's funny, a tradition in European countries is to eat raw minced beef, but offer them a medium rare steak and they wince at the 'blood'.
- Refreeze5224 1y agoBut it's not dependent on the country in this case, it's the US we're talking about. And I absolutely would not trust the US dairy industry to be able to properly produce and sell pathogen-free milk without pasteurization. And I would assume they don't want the liability of selling it anyway, most people and companies avoid selling things that can kill you if possible.
- TeeMassive 1y agoI never understood the fear of raw milk. The best cheese are made with raw milk. I don't understand how it can't be safe when both the cow and the milk are tested for disease and bad germs.
- hydrogen7800 1y agoIsn't cheese making just an old process of preserving milk for later consumption, which removes moisture and thus the environment for harmful bacteria?
- WorldMaker 1y agoAnd also encouraging controlled, beneficial bacteria that out-compete harmful bacteria.
- TeeMassive 11mo agoThen why is it illegal to make raw milk cheese?
- hydrogen7800 11mo agoI have no idea what the rules are, but I'm sure you can make whatever you want. If something is illegal, it's is probably illegal to _sell_ it, which i think is reasonable. I wouldn't trust just anyone to sell me raw milk cheese, and would want them to follow food safely regulations when doing so, which maybe are not compatible with the process of making raw milk cheese.
- rkomorn 1y agoAren't cheeses made from raw milk cultured, and usually cure for a long enough time that bacteria does not survive?
- lukeinator42 1y agoI really wish I could buy raw milk for hobby cheesemaking. I'm in Canada where the laws are really restrictive.
- dpc_01234 1y agoThe biggest benefit of pasteurization is extending the shelf life, which is important in an industrialized economy. Dying due to consuming raw milk was not a problem, at least until milk had to be shipped long distances.
- Palomides 1y agothis is a shockingly false thing to see someone say, I have family members who have died due to drinking milk from their own farm pasteurization and vaccination are the crown jewels of modern civilization
- WorldMaker 1y agoNot just distance, but time. If you try to keep milk around for any amount of time after milking the cow, you run risks like Bird Flus and TB and other disease contaminants. Which is also why in the other direction cheese was invented for time stability of milk.
- mondainx 1y agoNot the most anti-science, but clearly foolish. The safety of humans consuming raw-milk was solved long ago by Pasteur. Its all part of the dumbing-down section of the control the people handbook.
- hshdhdhj4444 1y agoWhat’s the scientific reason to choose raw milk over pasteurized milk?
- throwaway091025 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ceejayoz 1y agoPasteurization was discovered in 1860s, so she probably didn't have to. It was made mandatory starting in the late 1940s in the US. Prior to that, a whole bunch of folks got TB from it. Here's a PSA about making milk safe for babies from 1912; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Give_The_Bottle-Fed_Baby_a_Chance_For_It%27s_Life_poster.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Give_The_Bottle-Fed_... If you're referring to breast milk, your mother probably wasn't raised in a dairy farm.
- deepanwadhwa 1y agoAre you directly sucking the cow? If yes, I'd support you drinking raw milk.
- spacechild1 1y ago> her milk Are you seriously equating breast milk with cow milk? Or did I misinterpret your post?
- sceptic123 1y agoI read it more as a suggestion that the parent poster's mother was a cow
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- 1y ago
- shrubble 1y agoIt’s scientifically valid to want to drink raw milk in some cases. However pasteurized milk allows for factory production and raw milk does not. That’s the real reason why it’s banned. The same government that banned raw milk allows Doritos to be sold in the billions and even bought with Snap/EBT, btw.
- oceanplexian 1y agoImagine believing articles like this and thinking somehow allowing a product that's legal in most advanced European countries is "Anti science"
- ceejayoz 1y agoNow ask yourself why. Their farms can’t get away with the same conditions we put American cows in. Because of regulation. Same reason chicken sashimi can be safe in Japan.
- WorldMaker 1y agoPasteurization has been settled science since the 1860s. It's benefits are extremely well known and well studied. We understand the contamination issues it solved in trying to sell things across large distances and/or from grocery shelves that may take some amount of time to sell. We see those contamination issues in "Raw Milk" sales, exactly as predicted. It seems pretty anti-science to me, going against such foundational food and health science. It also seems directly related to anti-vax anti-science efforts because Louis Pasteur was also a critical early scientist involved in vaccines (through efforts against Cholera and beyond).
- antonvs 1y agoYou can read what the FDA says about it here: 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... The problem with this kind of thing is that the story looks different at the level of a government than at the individual level. The FDA article mentioned 2,645 illnesses and 228 hospitalizations in a 20-year period, and that was a period during which raw milk was heavily regulated, so would be likely to be significantly higher otherwise. Still, the odds of you as an individual getting sick from raw milk would be relatively low. Does that mean it shouldn't be regulated? It's not a purely scientific decision. Perhaps another way to go would be warning labels on raw milk. Still, I bet that would produce much higher illness numbers than the ones quoted above. In the end the question is whether the government should be trying to help people stay healthy or not. If the goal is actually "Make America Healthy Again," then requiring milk to be pasteurized is an obvious choice.