4 ms·

What’s the scientific reason to choose raw milk over pasteurized milk?

by hshdhdhj4444 1y ago

throwaway091025 1y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  Pasteurization 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 ago
  Are 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 ago
    I read it more as a suggestion that the parent poster's mother was a cow
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
dpc_01234 1y ago
It has nothing to do with science really. I don't think "pro-raw-milk people" question safety benefits of pasteurization or doubt germ theory. It's only about people's lack of nuance, totalitarian ambitions and safetism. Some people just can't help but make decisions for other people because they think they are smarter and know better. Ban, ban, unsafe, ban, I know better. The idea that consuming raw milk is somehow "unscientific" is plain stupid and/or propaganda. All I want is to enjoy the taste of raw milk from time to time, I know how germs work, I'm not forcing anyone to drink it, but I'll be fine, please worry about yourself. I would even appreciate government making sure that companies selling raw milk to me are taking additional (but reasonable) precautions. But anyone just trying to ban raw milk for being unsafe and "unscientific" is just stupid.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  > I don't think "pro-raw-milk people" question safety benefits of pasteurization or doubt germ theory. The HHS Secretary of the United States does. https://www.wsj.com/health/rfk-jr-what-is-terrain-theory-66b4c660 https://www.wsj.com/health/rfk-jr-what-is-terrain-theory-66b...
  - dpc_01234 1y ago
    Not only that link is a paywall, but I just don't trust propaganda outlets like this. Over and over I've seen these twisting and misinterpreting people's opinions. Quick googling suggests that he does have some unconventional (borderline quackery?) opinions there, though lots of it seems like a typical smearing tactics. Nevertheless, if I need to support even a complete quack to defend my rights, so be it. I wish both sides were more reasonable, so we could slap some warning signs on raw milk bottles, ensure higher safety standards on raw milk producers, so I could enjoy my glass of raw milk in peace, but I guess it is never going to happen.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      The WSJ is, if anything, editorially right-wing, and bypassing the paywall is trivial; https://archive.is/n4JZL https://archive.is/n4JZL. Excerpts: > “The ubiquity of pasteurization and vaccinations are only two of the many indicators of the domineering ascendancy of germ theory as the cornerstone of contemporary public health policy,” he wrote in the book. “A $1 trillion pharmaceutical industry pushing patented pills, powders, pricks, potions and poisons and the powerful professions of virology and vaccinology … fortifies the century-old predominance of germ theory.” > As his political profile grew, Kennedy made his war on germ theory part of his public platform. As a presidential candidate in 2023, he promised to tell the National Institutes of Health to “give infectious disease a break for about eight years,” NBC reported. On a 2023 episode of Joe Rogan’s popular podcast, Kennedy said “it’s hard for an infectious disease to kill a healthy person with a rugged immune system”—an assertion that runs counter to modern medical consensus. When Rogan said that wasn’t true of the 1918 Spanish flu, which killed more than 50 million people globally, Kennedy replied: “Well, the Spanish flu was not a virus.” I'm not sure how to share a society with people who think it's OK for the HHS Secretary to be a quack.
underlipton 1y ago
My understanding is that pasteurization denatures enzymes that would otherwise make the milk easier to digest. Which is true. The problem is that the stringent production standards that would be required to make raw milk "safe" are incompatible with factory production and the profit motive. Unless you're personally vetting the sterilization of everything the milk comes into contact with and its immediate cooling to a temperature non-conducive to bacterial overgrowth, you probably shouldn't drink it.

What’s the scientific reason to choose raw milk over pasteurized milk?

throwaway091025 1y ago

[flagged]

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
ceejayoz 1y ago
Pasteurization 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 ago
Are 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 ago
  I read it more as a suggestion that the parent poster's mother was a cow
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

dpc_01234 1y ago

It has nothing to do with science really. I don't think "pro-raw-milk people" question safety benefits of pasteurization or doubt germ theory. It's only about people's lack of nuance, totalitarian ambitions and safetism. Some people just can't help but make decisions for other people because they think they are smarter and know better. Ban, ban, unsafe, ban, I know better. The idea that consuming raw milk is somehow "unscientific" is plain stupid and/or propaganda. All I want is to enjoy the taste of raw milk from time to time, I know how germs work, I'm not forcing anyone to drink it, but I'll be fine, please worry about yourself. I would even appreciate government making sure that companies selling raw milk to me are taking additional (but reasonable) precautions. But anyone just trying to ban raw milk for being unsafe and "unscientific" is just stupid.

ceejayoz 1y ago
> I don't think "pro-raw-milk people" question safety benefits of pasteurization or doubt germ theory. The HHS Secretary of the United States does. https://www.wsj.com/health/rfk-jr-what-is-terrain-theory-66b4c660 https://www.wsj.com/health/rfk-jr-what-is-terrain-theory-66b...
- dpc_01234 1y ago
  Not only that link is a paywall, but I just don't trust propaganda outlets like this. Over and over I've seen these twisting and misinterpreting people's opinions. Quick googling suggests that he does have some unconventional (borderline quackery?) opinions there, though lots of it seems like a typical smearing tactics. Nevertheless, if I need to support even a complete quack to defend my rights, so be it. I wish both sides were more reasonable, so we could slap some warning signs on raw milk bottles, ensure higher safety standards on raw milk producers, so I could enjoy my glass of raw milk in peace, but I guess it is never going to happen.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    The WSJ is, if anything, editorially right-wing, and bypassing the paywall is trivial; https://archive.is/n4JZL https://archive.is/n4JZL. Excerpts: > “The ubiquity of pasteurization and vaccinations are only two of the many indicators of the domineering ascendancy of germ theory as the cornerstone of contemporary public health policy,” he wrote in the book. “A $1 trillion pharmaceutical industry pushing patented pills, powders, pricks, potions and poisons and the powerful professions of virology and vaccinology … fortifies the century-old predominance of germ theory.” > As his political profile grew, Kennedy made his war on germ theory part of his public platform. As a presidential candidate in 2023, he promised to tell the National Institutes of Health to “give infectious disease a break for about eight years,” NBC reported. On a 2023 episode of Joe Rogan’s popular podcast, Kennedy said “it’s hard for an infectious disease to kill a healthy person with a rugged immune system”—an assertion that runs counter to modern medical consensus. When Rogan said that wasn’t true of the 1918 Spanish flu, which killed more than 50 million people globally, Kennedy replied: “Well, the Spanish flu was not a virus.” I'm not sure how to share a society with people who think it's OK for the HHS Secretary to be a quack.

underlipton 1y ago

My understanding is that pasteurization denatures enzymes that would otherwise make the milk easier to digest. Which is true. The problem is that the stringent production standards that would be required to make raw milk "safe" are incompatible with factory production and the profit motive. Unless you're personally vetting the sterilization of everything the milk comes into contact with and its immediate cooling to a temperature non-conducive to bacterial overgrowth, you probably shouldn't drink it.