What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

*** Official Raw Milk Thread *** (1 Viewer)

Fascinating thread. Thanks for all the info.

I live in rural Upstate New York and there's plenty of dairy farms around here. I never inquired about raw milk because I'd always equated it with fat-rich whole milk, and I only drink skim.

I think I'll hit up one of the local farms for a sample. :banned:

 
http://www.jsonline.com/business/43259972.html

Raw milk draws fans, despite being illegal to sell

By Rick Barrett of the Journal Sentinel

Posted: Apr. 19, 2009

Some people drive a long way for a gallon of raw milk at Wayne Craig's farm in New Holstein.

It's one of a dozen or so dairy farms in the state openly providing unpasteurized milk to the public - a practice that regulators say is illegal and unsafe because the milk can carry pathogens capable of making someone very ill or even killing them.

Farmers, some of whom have been drinking raw milk themselves for generations, contend it's safe. They also believe it's legal to provide raw milk to the public on a limited scale.

Some of Craig's customers have fond memories of growing up on a farm and getting their milk fresh from the cow's udder.

Others, for health reasons, are trying to eliminate processed foods from their diets.

Either way, business is good as more consumers seek alternatives to the milk sold in grocery stores.

Linda Conroy, owner of a Sheboygan herbs business, says she believes raw milk has given her more energy.

"I have never been sick from it," she said. "In fact, just the opposite is true. My health is a lot better."

State law says farmers cannot sell or give away raw milk, but they can consume it themselves from cows they own. To satisfy demand from would-be customers, some farmers sell shares in their dairy herd and then provide raw milk to shareholders for a handling fee.

The Craig farm has had 1,000 members in an association it formed to supply raw milk - although not all of the members have been active at the same time.

Besides raw milk, people come to the farm's store for organic beef and poultry.

"They're trying to get back to natural, unprocessed food for the health benefits," Wayne Craig said.

State regulators have known for years that some farms provide raw milk to the public. They contend it's illegal and strongly oppose such sales. But with few exceptions, the state has not cracked down on a practice that's minuscule compared with the rest of the state's dairy industry.

"It's under investigation right now," said Tom Leitzke, state Bureau of Food and Safety Inspection director.

How dangerous is milk straight from the farm with no pasteurization?

In 2001, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention traced a food poisoning outbreak affecting 75 people to raw milk from a farm near Hayward. That farm has since gone out of business, according to state officials.

In 2006, cheese curds made from raw milk in Ashland County were blamed for sickening more than 40 people in seven counties and four states.

"It is truly a public threat," said Donna Gilson, spokeswoman for the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection.

Healthier or riskier?

Advocates claim that unprocessed milk is healthier because they believe pasteurization destroys nutrients and the enzymes necessary to absorb calcium.

But pathogens in unpasteurized dairy products can be lethal to children, the elderly, and others with weakened immune systems, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Symptoms of illness vary depending on which harmful bacteria are present. They can include vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, fever, headache and body ache.

Most healthy people will recover from the illnesses, according to the FDA.

But some individuals can develop symptoms that are chronic, severe, or even life-threatening.

"Drinking raw milk or eating raw-milk products is like playing Russian roulette with your health," the FDA notes in a public safety document.

"There is a significant health risk that anyone takes if they consume raw milk," said Barbara Ingham, an associate professor of food science at University of Wisconsin-Madison.

So why don't people who live on dairy farms get sick from drinking their farm's milk?

They can build up tolerances to some of the microbes because they have daily contact with dairy cows and the farm environment, according to Ingham.

People who don't live on farms lack those tolerances.

"It's like traveling to Mexico and drinking the water. You may come down with an illness that people who live there wouldn't get," Ingham said.

Safety concerns

Advocates for unpasteurized milk say the safety concerns are exaggerated.

"Reports of individuals becoming ill after drinking raw milk do exist  . . . but even these reports do not usually provide proof that raw milk caused the illness," said Sally Fallon, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, sponsor of the national Campaign for Real Milk.

"When someone who drinks raw milk becomes ill, (government) agencies immediately report an 'association' with the milk, ignoring other vectors of disease and subsequent tests showing the milk to be clean," she added.

Fallon said she believes that pasteurization alters milk and makes it difficult to digest.

She also believes that drinking raw milk can help correct various health problems, including mood disorders.

"The biggest feedback that we get from parents is they have seen their children's behavior improve. Children who were unmanageable, couldn't concentrate, were picky eaters or were even autistic experienced dramatic improvements."

The FDA and UW-Madison dairy scientists say there's little evidence to support those claims. They also say the benefits of killing harmful bacteria through pasteurization outweigh any harm done by killing helpful microorganisms.

Cow shares questioned

Farmers are wrong in believing they can legally provide raw milk to the public through cow sharing, according to state Agriculture Department officials.

Yet the department initially created the cow-share program around 1999, only to cancel it a few years later.

The program was a mistake and should never have been created, Leitzke told the Wall Street Journal in 2003.

Some farmers regrouped and found ways to do cow sharing that they believe are legal. Membership fees vary by farm, with some as low as $1 a year plus handling fees of several dollars for each gallon of milk.

"We wouldn't be in business without this," said Petra Zinniker, an East Troy dairy farmer.

The Zinniker farm has between 150 and 200 cow-share members, along with a waiting list of people wanting to join the program.

It has a small dairy herd, of about 30 animals, and depends on the income from cow sharing and the handling fees.

The practice is more profitable than selling raw milk to a dairy processor.

Thus, raw-milk farmers are worried that state regulators will crack down on cow shares and put them out of business.

"It shouldn't be illegal. That's the bottom line," said Mark Zinniker, Petra's husband. "Rather, it should be about a consumer's right to choose what they want."

State officials say there's a wide range of legal consequences for providing raw milk to the public, from a warning letter to a jail sentence, depending on the circumstances and whether someone has become ill from the product.

It's also a national controversy.

One raw milk supplier, from California, ships frozen products around the country. That supplier, according to Wisconsin farmers, dodges federal regulations by labeling it "pet milk" - not for human consumption.

There are compelling arguments on both sides of the raw-milk controversy, said Mark Kastel, founder of the Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin organization that supports organic farming and has taken a neutral position on raw milk.

"People have tried to paint this as a cult-type movement or political libertarian ideology. But we think that consumers should have the right to make their own decision," Kastel said.
 
Real Milk

Have you ever had a glass of real milk? Are you sure about that?

The milk you buy in your local grocery store is either pasteurized or ultra-pasteurized milk harvested from conventional cows kept in confinement. By confinement, I mean you have to wear a space suit to get near them.

These cows are not natural cows. They are highly-engineered freaks of nature. As recently as a century ago, a cow produced an average of two or three gallons of milk per day. Today’s conventional industrial dairy cow gives up to three or four times as much milk!

What’s wrong with that, you ask. If science has helped us produce more milk per cow, then that means we can give more people milk for less money. That’s a good thing, right?

Wrong. The increased milk yield comes at a cost. Not only does the milk produced from these cows contain an unnatural and disarmingly high amount of growth hormones (which in some studies have been linked to excessive tumor growth and cancer), but the cow herself is weak and disease-prone. Her milk is always laden with pus, and she is fed a steady stream of antibiotics to keep the sustained mastitis from overwhelming her system and killing her.

Did you catch that? The milk you buy at the supermarket is riddled with antibiotics, growth hormones, and pus.

Pus. Just the sound of that word gives me the willies.

The milk is so unhealthy for you, in fact, that milk manufacturers have to pasteurize it or ultra-pasteurize it to make it “safe” for human consumption.

What is pasteurization? Well, I’m glad you asked.

Pasteurization is a quick heat process designed to kill unpleasant bacteria and protect us against infectious diseases. But, it is no guarantee of cleanliness. Every single outbreak of salmonella from contaminated milk in recent decades have occurred in pasteurized milk — milk that’s supposed to be “cleaned.”

Besides not being the fail-proof protector that we’re told it is, pasteurization does a lot to milk to rob it of its value to us as a source of good nutrition. From Sally Fallon’s Nourishing Traditions, we read this succinct summary:

Heat alters milk’s amino acids lysine and tyrosine, making the whole complex of proteins less available; it promotes rancidity of unsaturated fatty acids and destruction of vitamins. Vitamin C loss in pasteurization usually exceeds 50%; loss of other water-soluble vitamins can run as high as 80%; the Wulzen or anti-stiffness factor is totally destroyed as is vitamin B12, needed for healthy blood and a properly functioning nervous system. Pasteurization reduces the availability of milks mineral components, such as calcium, chloride, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium and sulfur, as well as many trace minerals. There is some evidence that pasteurization alters lactose, making it more readily absorbable. This, and the fact that pasteurized milk puts an unnecessary strain on the pancreas to produce digestive enzymes, may explain why milk consumption in civilized societies has been linked with diabetes.

Last but not least, pasteurization destroys all the enzymes in milk — in fact, the test for successful pasteurization is absence of enzymes. These enzymes help the body assimilate all bodybuilding factors, including calcium That is why those who drink pasteurized milk may suffer from osteoporosis. Lipase in raw milk helps the body digest and utilize butterfat.

After pasteurization, chemicals may be added to suppress odor and restore taste. Synthetic vitamin D2 or D3 is added — the former is toxic and his been linked to heart disease while the latter is difficult to absorb. The final indignity is homogenization, which has also been linked to heart disease.

Powdered skim milk is added to the most popular varieties of commercial milk — one percent and two percent milk. Commercial dehydration methods oxidize cholesterol in powdered milk, rendering it harmful to the arteries. High temperature drying also creates large quantities of cross-linked proteins and nitrate compounds, which are potent carcinogens, as well as free glutamic acid, which is toxic to the nervous system.

Modern pasteurized milk, devoid of its enzyme content, puts an enormous strain on the body’s digestive mechanism. In the elderly, and those with milk intolerance or inherited weaknesses of digestion, this milk passes through not fully digested and can build up around the tiny villi of the small intestine, preventing the absorption of vital nutrients and promoting the uptake of toxic substances. The result is allergies, chronic fatigue and a host of degenerative diseases.

Raw milk to the rescue!Raw milk got a bad reputation in the 20’s when poor animal nutrition and dirty production methods led to increased epidemics of TB, infant diarrhea, undulant fever and other diseases. That’s when pasteurization became the law of the land.

But today’s ultra-clean methods of production, stainless steel tanks, milking machines, and refrigerated trucks keep milk clean.

I still wouldn’t want to drink raw milk that was full of pus, antibiotics, and growth hormones. But raw milk from healthy, pastured cows eating their natural diet of green grass has a lot of advantages. It contains lactic-acid-producing bacteria that protect against pathogens. It contains milk’s natural and full array of vitamins and minerals. It contains the enzymes your body uses to help digest it, easing your pancreatic load and preventing degenerative diseases. And, it comes rich with butter fat — good wholesome cream that I use to make fresh butter & cheese. YUM.

Compare this to the denatured, pasteurized, antibiotic-laden, growth-hormone riddled, pus-filled milk that comes from industrial cows fed a conventional diet of grains, soy, bakery waste, and pellets containing chicken manure, and the choice is clear.

I drink raw milk. Correction, I drink real milk — natural, God-given milk.
 
We're gonna need some peer-reviewed articles to support the pus allegation.
That's not a controversial allegation.Pus = dead white blood cells. When a cow gets mastitis, it produces lots of white blood cells to fight the infection; these white blood cells eventually die and become pus.

White blood cells = somatic cells. All milk is measured for its somatic cell count. The government sets the standard for somatic cell counts that are allowable for milk to be passable. The current standard is that each milliliter of milk has to have fewer than 750K somatic cells. (Not all somatic cells are pus; some are epithelial cells from the udder. But the majority above the first 50K-100K per milliliter are white blood cells.)

Some tidbits from this book:

In 1950, 3.7 million of America's 5.4 million farms had milk cows, cows that spent most of the year out at pasture. By 2000, the total number of farms had shrunk to less than 2 million, and only 105,250 had milk cows. Most of those cows spend most of their time in confinement facilities.

Meanwhile, the average number of cows per operation has increased from 6 in 1950 to 52 in 1990 to 88 in 2000. Some confinement dairies today have thousands of cows. In 2000, over 50% of the milk production in the U.S. came from operations that house over 500 cows.

In 1950, the average dairy cow produced a little less than two gallons of milk a day. In 2,000, she produced an average of over six gallons a day, thanks to generations of selective breeding and pushing the cow with a diet high in grains and additives like bovine growth hormone.

The average lifespan for a modern confinement dairy cow is 42 months, compared to 12 to 15 years for a cow on pasture.

Cows are typically housed in stanchion stalls that measure four feet by five feet four inches. (A stanchion is a pair of upright metal bars that run up each side of the animal's head in the neck area to keep the cow in place.) For the most part, concrete floors are used. (Some farms use straps or chains instead of stanchions.)

Disease has become rampant in the modern dairy cow. According to a modern textbook on dairy cow science, "ten percent of all calves are afflicted by calf scours [infectious diarrhea] and 18 percent of all dairy calves so afflicted die. Nearly 40 percent of all dairy cows have some form of mastitis."

Just as prevalent as mastitis is lameness, usually caused by laminitis resulting from a combination of being fed grains and standing on concrete.

Regarding somatic cell count (SCC) -- somatic cells are cells from the cow's body present at low levels in normal milk. Some are epithelial cells that are normally shed from secretory tissue of the udder during milking, while the majority are white blood cells that fight against infection. Mastitis always causes a high SCC count, and a high SCC count is usually associated with mastitis. Federal standards mandate an SCC of no more than 750,000 per ml. The normal SCC in milk is generally below 200,000 per ml; an SCC above 250,000-300,000 is considered abnormal and nearly always is an indication of bacterial infection causing inflammation of the udder. Times have changed: in 1950, milk with more than 100,000 somatic cells per ml was likely to be from an infected udder. A recent article from a prof at the University of Wisconsin's Department of Dairy Science states that the modern farmer should have as a goal no more than 24% of his dairy cows to be infected with mastitis in a given year, with slightly lower percentages for other diseases.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.jsonline.com/business/87234707.html

Hundreds pack raw milk hearing in Eau Claire

Eau Claire — Hundreds of raw milk advocates packed a legislative hearing Wednesday, demanding the right to buy and sell unpasteurized dairy products that some claim have powerful health benefits but that detractors call dangerous.

Bills in the state Legislature would allow consumers to buy raw milk and other dairy products directly from farms and exempt farmers from liability if someone becomes ill from pathogens in the milk.

Advocates say the dairy state's handling of the issue will send an important signal to the rest of the country. With the exception of limited, incidental sales, state law prohibits the sale of unpasteurized milk to the public because it could carry bacteria that cause food-borne illnesses.

Raw milk advocates want the law changed, saying consumers should be able to decide whether the health benefits of drinking unpasteurized milk outweigh the risks.

"It is not the role of the state to protect people by eliminating all risks and intruding unnecessarily into their lives," testified Margo Redmond, a raw milk consumer from Madison. "Please don't protect me from myself, telling me what I can and cannot drink."

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection officials oppose allowing sales of raw milk to the general public, saying it could lead to outbreaks of food-borne illnesses with deadly consequences.

"Our job is to protect public health. We believe the law, the way it's written now, does that as best as possible," said Steve Ingham, administrator of the agency's food safety division.

Since 2000, four outbreaks of illness due to Campylobacter infection have been linked to unpasteurized milk or unpasteurized dairy products. Those outbreaks sickened at least 131 people, according to the Wisconsin Division of Public Health.

Raw milk consumption also has been linked to sickness caused by Salmonella and E. coli bacteria.

In 2001, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention traced a food-poisoning outbreak affecting 75 people to raw milk from a farm near Hayward. That farm has since gone out of business, according to state officials.

Hours of testimony

Wednesday's hearing at Chippewa Valley Technical College attracted about 450 people - most of them raw milk supporters who arrived by the busload. Testimony began about 10 a.m. and continued for more than 10 hours. Speakers included farmers, consumers, scientists and state and federal officials.

What happens here will send a message to the rest of the nation, said Kimberly Hartke, spokeswoman for the Weston A. Price Foundation, which touts the benefits of raw milk and says the risk of illness from it is minimal.

Currently, about 25 states allow some form of raw milk sales.

"Wisconsin is a bellwether state for us," Hartke said.

Ted Beals, a retired pathologist from the University of Michigan, said raw milk sales should be allowed.

"There is a very large and expanding group of well-informed families that very much want to have their milk fresh, unprocessed and whole, and they prefer to get it from a farmer they know," Beals said in an interview.

"It's very personal," he said. "I can't think of another reason to get people more upset than to tell them that the food they believe is very nutritious and essential to their health is going to be denied them."

Advocates say raw milk contains nutrients, enzymes and bacteria that boost the immune system and can prevent allergies. Some even say it helps control asthma or autism.

"I am not making claims that our milk is going to cure cancer or anything else. You only know what it's going to do for you when you try it yourself," said Janet Brunner, whose dairy farm in Pepin County sold raw milk for nearly 10 years until running into opposition from state regulators.

For dozens of small farms in the state, raw milk sales have been an economic elixir, and they have built a loyal customer base while avoiding prosecution.

The Brunners had more than 600 customers who paid about $5 a gallon for unpasteurized milk from their farm. When they stopped selling it, Janet Brunner said, the farm store's income plummeted by 90%.

"Now we are not earning enough to pay our bills, let alone support our farm," she said.

Health officials worried

Public health officials and some farm groups paint a very different picture of raw milk.

The unpasteurized product is inherently dangerous because it can harbor microorganisms that cause many diseases in humans, said James Kazmierczak, the state's public health veterinarian at the Division of Public Health.

"Present technology cannot produce raw milk that can be assumed to be free of pathogens, regardless of whether cows appear to be healthy, clean or grass-fed. Only pasteurization, which kills over 99% of disease-causing organisms, can make milk safe for consumption," Kazmierczak said.

The Wisconsin Public Health Association and Wisconsin Association of Local Health Departments and Boards have urged legislators not to legalize raw milk sales.

Many experts, including the federal Food and Drug Administration, say there are no health benefits from drinking raw milk that can't be gained from drinking pasteurized milk.

The Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation also opposes raw milk sales to consumers, saying that any illnesses would give the entire dairy industry a black eye and cause panic in the marketplace.

State regulators also say protecting raw milk producers from liability would set a dangerous precedent.

"There isn't a single food product whose processors have that right," said the Agriculture Department's Ingham.

At least 27 legislators have co-sponsored Assembly Bill 628 and Senate Bill 434, which would legalize raw milk, butter, buttermilk and cream sales from farms.

Lawmakers say the legislation is more about consumer choice, and helping farmers, than a debate on the merits of raw milk or pasteurization.

If the legislation fails, consumers will still find a way to get raw milk, even if it means breaking the law, said state Rep. Chris Danou (D-Trempealeau), a bill sponsor.

 
I just happened to read about this a few weeks ago. Here are some facts:

~In 1893 10% of all children died before the age of 5, Nathan Strauss, co-owner of Macy's suspected unpasteurized milk at the culprit

~In 1898 Strauss switch raw milk with pasteurized milk in an orphanage on Randall's Island in New York. Death from tuberculosis and other milk borne diseases dropped from 42% to 28% in one year.

~Typhoid fever is carried in raw milk.

~Pasteurization began in New York in 1885 but people didn't "trust" it thinking that it would taste bad or wouldn't provide the same nutritional value. Free samples were given away all over the city.

~In 1907 President Roosevelt had the PHS study the pros and cons of pasteurized milk. They reported " it does not affect taste, quality,nutrition, or digestibility but did prevent much sickness and saved many lives."

~In 1912 New York finally passes a law requiring all mile to be pasteurized that milk producers fought because of the added expense. They eventually lost and by the end of 1914 95% of all milk sold in NY was pasteurized.

~In 1885 infant mortality in NYC was 273 per 1000 live births. By 1915, that dropped to 94 per 1000.

I personally don't care what you drink MT but I wouldn't touch the stuff or give it to my children. :goodposting:

 
I just happened to read about this a few weeks ago. Here are some facts:~In 1893 10% of all children died before the age of 5, Nathan Strauss, co-owner of Macy's suspected unpasteurized milk at the culprit~In 1898 Strauss switch raw milk with pasteurized milk in an orphanage on Randall's Island in New York. Death from tuberculosis and other milk borne diseases dropped from 42% to 28% in one year.~Typhoid fever is carried in raw milk.~Pasteurization began in New York in 1885 but people didn't "trust" it thinking that it would taste bad or wouldn't provide the same nutritional value. Free samples were given away all over the city.~In 1907 President Roosevelt had the PHS study the pros and cons of pasteurized milk. They reported " it does not affect taste, quality,nutrition, or digestibility but did prevent much sickness and saved many lives."~In 1912 New York finally passes a law requiring all mile to be pasteurized that milk producers fought because of the added expense. They eventually lost and by the end of 1914 95% of all milk sold in NY was pasteurized.~In 1885 infant mortality in NYC was 273 per 1000 live births. By 1915, that dropped to 94 per 1000.I personally don't care what you drink MT but I wouldn't touch the stuff or give it to my children. :wub:
This info would be pertinent if we were living 100 years ago. Back then people thought smoking was healthy too. Conditions, knowledge, refridgeration, and dairy practices have evolved enough to make about every point you list meaningless. Raw milk is not nutritionally the same as pastuerized and homogenized milk. I laugh every time I hear lawmakers rail on how dangerous raw milk is then go back to budgeting how they will spend the millions in taxes they raised from the sale of alcohol.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just happened to read about this a few weeks ago. Here are some facts:

~In 1893 10% of all children died before the age of 5, Nathan Strauss, co-owner of Macy's suspected unpasteurized milk at the culprit

~In 1898 Strauss switch raw milk with pasteurized milk in an orphanage on Randall's Island in New York. Death from tuberculosis and other milk borne diseases dropped from 42% to 28% in one year.

~Typhoid fever is carried in raw milk.

~Pasteurization began in New York in 1885 but people didn't "trust" it thinking that it would taste bad or wouldn't provide the same nutritional value. Free samples were given away all over the city.

~In 1907 President Roosevelt had the PHS study the pros and cons of pasteurized milk. They reported " it does not affect taste, quality,nutrition, or digestibility but did prevent much sickness and saved many lives."

~In 1912 New York finally passes a law requiring all mile to be pasteurized that milk producers fought because of the added expense. They eventually lost and by the end of 1914 95% of all milk sold in NY was pasteurized.

~In 1885 infant mortality in NYC was 273 per 1000 live births. By 1915, that dropped to 94 per 1000.

I personally don't care what you drink MT but I wouldn't touch the stuff or give it to my children. :wub:
If you knew what kind of milk that was -- milk in New York in 1898 -- you'd be sick to your stomach even without drinking it. It was from cows that were not on a farm -- not even on a factory farm.Before that time, most families had their own cow. They'd drink raw milk from it every day and be fine.

But the population eventually started to grow enough in cities that people could generally no longer keep their own family cow. And without refrigerated transportation from rural farms, that meant that no milk was available in cities. That is, until somebody figured out that cows could eat the leftover swill from distilleries. Every city had at least one distillery by that time. The slop was a waste product that cows were willing to eat. So cows were brought to the distilleries and fed the slop, and these "distillery dairies" were where milk was produced for city folk. The cows were all sick, of course, and the milk they produced was not anything like real milk. It was thin and blueish, and some producers added chalk or plaster of paris to it to give it more body and more whiteness. Not only that, but the milk was collected in dirty buckets by people who didn't wash their hands often. This milk caused a lot of disease.

That's the opposite of the milk I want to drink. I want real milk -- milk from cows raised on pasture as nature intended, the milk humans drank with no problems for thousands of years before Big Agra hired their first lobbyist to outlaw it.

The fake milk from the distillery dairies from the turn of the 20th century was the worst of the worst. Today's pasteurized milk from factory farms isn't nearly as bad. But it's still greatly inferior to real milk.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just happened to read about this a few weeks ago. Here are some facts:

~In 1893 10% of all children died before the age of 5, Nathan Strauss, co-owner of Macy's suspected unpasteurized milk at the culprit

~In 1898 Strauss switch raw milk with pasteurized milk in an orphanage on Randall's Island in New York. Death from tuberculosis and other milk borne diseases dropped from 42% to 28% in one year.

~Typhoid fever is carried in raw milk.

~Pasteurization began in New York in 1885 but people didn't "trust" it thinking that it would taste bad or wouldn't provide the same nutritional value. Free samples were given away all over the city.

~In 1907 President Roosevelt had the PHS study the pros and cons of pasteurized milk. They reported " it does not affect taste, quality,nutrition, or digestibility but did prevent much sickness and saved many lives."

~In 1912 New York finally passes a law requiring all mile to be pasteurized that milk producers fought because of the added expense. They eventually lost and by the end of 1914 95% of all milk sold in NY was pasteurized.

~In 1885 infant mortality in NYC was 273 per 1000 live births. By 1915, that dropped to 94 per 1000.

I personally don't care what you drink MT but I wouldn't touch the stuff or give it to my children. :bye:
If you knew what kind of milk that was -- milk in New York in 1898 -- you'd be sick to your stomach even without drinking it. It was from cows that were not on a farm -- not even on a factory farm.Before that time, most families had their own cow. They'd drink raw milk from it every day and be fine.

But the population eventually started to grow enough in cities that people could generally no longer have their own family cow. And without refrigerated transportation from rural farms, that meant that no milk was available in cities. That is, until somebody figured out that cows could eat the leftover swill from distilleries. Every city had at least one distillery by that time. The slop was a waste product that cows were willing to eat. So cows were brought to the distilleries and fed the slop, and these "distillery dairies" were where milk was produced for city folk. The cows were all sick, of course, and the milk they produced was not anything like real milk. It was thin and blueish, and some producers added chalk or plaster of paris to it to give it more body and more whiteness. Not only that, but the milk was collected in dirty buckets by people who didn't wash their hands often. This milk caused a lot of disease.

That's the opposite of the milk I want to drink. I want real milk -- milk from cows raised on pasture as nature intended, the milk humans drank with no problems for thousands of years before Big Agra hired their first lobbyist.

The fake milk from the distillery dairies from the turn of the 20th century were the worst of the worst. Today's pasteurized milk from factory farms isn't nearly as bad. But it's still greatly inferior to real milk.
True and I unintentionally left that part out. It also said that "farmers" would put flour, chalk or anything else in with the bluish milk to turn it white.Like I said, I don't care what anybody puts in their body, I'm a funny Libertarian that way. However there should be some giant warning labels on products that have raw milk in them. All it would take is one dairy that cuts a couple of corners to make a whole lot of people sick.

 
Maurile:

Not sure if this has already been brought up but have your read what the FDA has said about Raw Milk? http://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Co...s/ucm079516.htm

Now I do not know if I have ever had raw milk (and i have family and friends that live on dairy farms) but the best tasting milk I have ever had came from a small family farm market called The Springhouse*** They milk their own cows and process and bottle their own milk. There is definitely a difference between this milk and large Dairy's that buy milk from different farmers.

***I have no affiliation with this place except for buying their products

 
Maurile:

Not sure if this has already been brought up but have your read what the FDA has said about Raw Milk? http://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Co...s/ucm079516.htm
Yes, I may not have seen that particular article before, but I've seen a number of (more detailed) statements by the FDA on the topic of raw milk. Rebuttals can be found on realmilk.com, among other places.
Now I do not know if I have ever had raw milk (and i have family and friends that live on dairy farms) but the best tasting milk I have ever had came from a small family farm market called The Springhouse*** They milk their own cows and process and bottle their own milk. There is definitely a difference between this milk and large Dairy's that buy milk from different farmers.
I don't think pasteurization itself affects taste. But there's definitely a huge difference in taste between milk from cows roaming on pasture eating grass, and cows stanchioned on cement eating mostly corn. It's hard to describe the difference. Once you've tasted both, though, it's quite noticeable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile:

Not sure if this has already been brought up but have your read what the FDA has said about Raw Milk? http://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Co...s/ucm079516.htm
Yes, I may not have seen that particular article before, but I've seen a number of (more detailed) statements by the FDA on the topic of raw milk. Rebuttals can be found on realmilk.com, among other places.
Now I do not know if I have ever had raw milk (and i have family and friends that live on dairy farms) but the best tasting milk I have ever had came from a small family farm market called The Springhouse*** They milk their own cows and process and bottle their own milk. There is definitely a difference between this milk and large Dairy's that buy milk from different farmers.
I don't think pasteurization itself affects taste. But there's definitely a huge difference in taste between milk from cows roaming on pasture eating grass, and cows stanchioned on cement eating mostly corn. It's hard to describe the difference. Once you've tasted both, though, it's quite noticeable.
And that is probably why the market I sometimes buy milk (usually chocolate, oh God is it good) tastes better as you can see their cows out grazing.

 
Maurile what are your thoughts on the organic, grass-fed, non-homogonized, ultra-low pasturized milk? We made that switch about 2 years ago and I love that milk. There is a definite difference in taste over regular grocery store milk.

 
FBGirl79 said:
Maurile what are your thoughts on the organic, grass-fed, non-homogonized, ultra-low pasturized milk? We made that switch about 2 years ago and I love that milk. There is a definite difference in taste over regular grocery store milk.
The fact that it's grass-fed means it will be a lot higher in most vitamins and minerals, and that its fat content will be more healthful (more CLA, more Omega-3). And it will taste better.I don't know what "ultra-low pasteurized" means. But pasteurization tends to do the following:1) Destroys some vitamins (e.g., vitamin C). This effect is greater at higher temperatures, so ultra-low pasteurization may be better than other forms of pasteurization.2) Kills bacteria. If it's pasteurized at all, most of the bacteria will probably be killed (otherwise, what's the point of pasteurization?), so you may not want to rely on milk for your probiotics.3) Kills enzymes. Enzymes tend to be rather sensitive to heat. The enzymes in raw milk are the reason people who are lactose-intolerant generally do fine with raw milk but get stomach cramps with pasteurized milk. For people who are not lactose-intolerant, this probably doesn't matter.4) Changes the structure of some of the milk's proteins, possibly causing an auto-immune response in some people. I don't know what temperature this tends to happen at, so ultra-low pasteurization may well be preferable to other forms of pasteurization here. And actually, this may happen in the homogenization process rather than during pasteurization - I'm not sure.Anyway, just the fact that it's grass-fed gives you a lot of benefits. I would rather have grass-fed, pasteurized milk than corn-fed, unpasteurized milk, if those were the choices.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm all for raw milk products.

However, I will say that pasteurization has likely saved thousands of lives over the years, and there are definitely some groups that should NOT be drinking raw milk (pregnant women, the immunocomprimized, etc.)

 
http://www.jsonline.com/business/88259417.html

Modified raw milk legislation moves ahead

By Rick Barrett of the Journal Sentinel

Posted: March 17, 2010 |(8) Comments

State legislation to allow the sale of raw farm milk to the general public moved a step forward Wednesday with some key changes, including the removal of an immunity clause for farmers.

By a 5-0 vote, the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Higher Education recommended approval of the bill that would allow raw milk sales direct from farms licensed by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection.

The legislation is expected to be voted on by the full Assembly and Senate before the session ends in April.

Under the latest version of Senate Bill 434, raw milk sales could only take place at farms where the milk was produced.

Farmers would have to post a sign declaring that raw milk does not provide the benefits of pasteurization and may contain disease-causing pathogens, and warns certain people of other health risks.

Farmers would be prohibited from advertising the sale of raw milk except for an on-farm sign.

Their milk would have to meet all of the requirements of a Grade-A dairy farm license, including delivery of a portion of the raw milk to a dairy plant where it would be tested for things such as pathogens and antibiotics.

Sellers of raw milk also would be required to obtain monthly tests for pathogens, and the results would be filed with the state Agriculture Department.

Temporary measure

The authorization for raw milk sales would expire Dec. 31, 2011. Before then, some legislators hope to pass a permanent measure allowing raw milk sales.

Last week, hundreds of raw milk advocates packed a legislative hearing in Eau Claire, demanding the right to buy and sell unpasteurized dairy products that some claim have powerful health benefits but that detractors call dangerous.

Advocates say the dairy state's handling of the issue will send an important signal to the rest of the country. With the exception of limited, incidental sales, state law currently prohibits the sale of unpasteurized milk to the public because it could carry bacteria that cause food-borne illnesses.

The original legislation would have given farmers immunity from liability if someone became ill from their unpasteurized milk.

Immunity clause dropped

But the immunity clause was dropped after critics said it would set an unfair precedent in the food and beverage industry.

"A lot of people saw that we were granting immunity to this one group of people and not others," said state Rep. Chris Danou (D-Trempealeau), one of the sponsors of Assembly Bill 628 that would allow raw milk sales.

 
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/88979747.html

Health issues are at heart of raw milk debate

By Rick Barrett of the Journal Sentinel

Posted: March 24, 2010

The claims are appealing: Milk straight from the cow's udder is a "living food" that can help fend off illnesses, such as asthma, and has kept farm families healthy for generations.

Anecdotally, the claims are supported by people who drink raw, unpasteurized milk. Some have said it has reduced behavioral problems in children and has cured autism.

"One mother's anecdote is science to her," said Sally Fallon, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, which sponsors a national campaign in favor of raw milk sales.

Yet as Wisconsin's Legislature considers a measure that would allow raw milk sales under certain circumstances, dairy industry experts - including University of Wisconsin-Madison scientists - dismiss claims that it is any healthier than pasteurized milk.

In fact, public health agencies and epidemiologists say raw milk can be dangerous because of the harmful bacteria it may carry. There were "astounding, huge outbreaks" of food-borne illnesses before pasteurization was common, said Rob Tauxe, a deputy director at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Unpasteurized milk "was the No. 1 food safety problem in the nation," Tauxe said in an interview Monday. "People embraced pasteurization because they knew there was a problem."

With pasteurization, milk is briefly heated to a temperature high enough to kill off most bacteria. Federal officials say it's essential, since pathogens in untreated milk may include E. coli, salmonella and campylobacter, which can cause severe illness or even death.

In the 1930s, before the U.S. dairy industry widely adopted the heat treating process, 25% of all food-borne disease outbreaks were from milk. Today that figure is 1%."If you pass a law that makes it easier to buy raw milk, you certainly will have more instances of illnesses and deaths. That's inevitable," said Bill Keene, senior epidemiologist with the Oregon Division of Public Health.

Twenty-five states allow some form of raw milk sales to the general public. Oregon rewrote its law to largely ban the practice, but it's still allowed on farms with three or fewer milk-producing cows where people pick up the milk themselves.

"I think after a few dead kids, people will lose their enthusiasm for raw milk," Keene said. "We know that raw milk is a high-risk product, and that a low-risk alternative (pasteurized milk) was introduced 80 years ago. So if you are trying to thumb your nose at medical science, then good luck to you."

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says the risks of unpasteurized milk greatly outweigh any purported benefits.

Drinking raw milk or eating raw milk products is like playing Russian roulette with your health, the FDA says on its Web site.

"Raw milk is inherently dangerous," FDA official John Sheehan said at a recent state legislative hearing on whether its sale should be allowed in Wisconsin. "It should not be consumed by anyone, at any time, for any reason."

AMA's view

The FDA's opinion is backed by the American Medical Association, which says all milk sold for human consumption should be pasteurized.

"Claims that raw milk has miraculous disease-curing properties are not supported by the scientific literature," Sheehan said. "The scientific literature is, however, rife with reports of food-borne illnesses attributed to the consumption of raw milk."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Wisconsin Department of Health Services and the Marshfield Clinic all have warned people about the dangers of unpasteurized dairy products.

"Many parents have never heard of E. coli 0157 and would not recognize that raw milk poses a serious health threat," Marshfield Clinic doctors said in written testimony submitted at the legislative hearing.

"If children knew that raw milk might cause them to develop a severe and painful illness, with a chance of kidney failure or even death, would they choose to drink it anyway?" wrote Edward Belongia, director of Marshfield's epidemiology research center.

But raw milk advocates, including a physician from Michigan, say the health risks are exaggerated.

They also point to a small number of scientific studies, mostly from Europe, that say raw milk's beneficial properties include an ability to reduce allergies in children.

A study of more than 4,000 children in England found that children who drank unpasteurized milk were 40% less likely to have symptoms of eczema, an inflammatory skin condition. A New Zealand study, published in the journal Allergy, reported similar results.

One of the studies concluded that there were lifelong benefits from consuming raw milk, even if you drank it only when you were a child, said Ted Beals, a retired Veterans Administration pathologist who taught at the University of Michigan Medical School.

Raw milk advocates say they can't replicate the European studies here because the FDA has deemed the farm-fresh product hazardous, making it impossible to conduct human experiments.

The University of Wisconsin has not done comparison tests of raw and pasteurized milk because the testing would cost several hundred thousand dollars, would take several years to complete, and no one has asked for it.

"It could be done. But right now we are doing work on behalf of the dairy industry, on things like low-sodium cheese or protein in sports drinks. That is where the state, and the industry, wants to spend its money," said Rusty Bishop, director of the Center for Dairy Research at the university.

Some of the properties of milk are changed when it's heated to kill harmful bacteria. But raw milk and pasteurized milk are essentially the same in terms of their protein, nutrient, fat and carbohydrate content, according to Bishop.

Advocates for raw milk say it contains enzymes that aid digestion.

"But these are enzymes meant to help a calf digest milk. They have very little if any impact on the digestive system of humans," Bishop said.

There's a mountain of evidence on the benefits of pasteurization, a process invented by French scientist Louis Pasteur in 1864 as a way to preserve wine.

The only nutrient in milk that is degraded up to 10% by pasteurization is vitamin C, according to Bishop.

"But most people don't drink milk for vitamin C content, which is very low," he said. "There are a lot of good things in milk, raw or pasteurized, but the big difference is that a pasteurized product is safer. Milk is a perfect food, but bacteria love it, too. That's why we pasteurize."

The heat-treating process, he added, does not cause lactose intolerance and allergic reactions - two claims made by raw milk advocates.

Infection reports

From 1993 through 2005, 69 outbreaks of human infections related to raw milk were reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The outbreaks led to more than 1,500 reported illnesses, about 200 hospitalizations and two deaths, according to the CDC.

In the past 10 years, outbreaks of salmonella, campylobacter, E. coli 0157:H7 and listeria have been documented as the result of drinking raw milk. In 2009, an outbreak in southeast Wisconsin caused at least 35 cases of campylobacteriosis, and 27 of the ill were children.

The incidence rate of E. coli 0157 infection in Wisconsin is highest in children 3 to 5 years old. And the state Division of Health has reported that consumption of raw milk and raw milk products is among the top three causes of the E. coli infection, according to the Marshfield Clinic.

Often, those sickened by raw milk are young users who don't live on farms and have not developed immunities to the harmful bacteria.

"Personal stories from farm residents who routinely drink raw milk without developing illness do not provide any evidence that raw milk consumption is safe for the general population," the Marshfield Clinic physicians wrote.

Many people have consumed unpasteurized milk their entire lives and have never become ill from it.

Others, though, were severely sickened the first time they drank even a small amount of it. "The chances of that happening are not too high, probably," Oregon's Keene said. "But you pay your money and take your chances."

The farm-fresh appeal of raw milk drew some of Bill Marler's clients to the product. He is a Seattle attorney who has represented hundreds of victims of food-borne illnesses, including some attributed to raw milk.

"It was a casual purchase," Marler said. "And they certainly regretted it."

Under the latest version of state Senate Bill 434, raw milk sales could take place only at farms where the milk was produced. Farmers would have to post a sign declaring that raw milk does not provide the benefits of pasteurization and may contain disease-causing pathogens, and warns certain people of other health risks.

Capitol observers say the bill has a good chance of approval, since lawmakers are trying to help small dairy farms.

Public health officials tend to emphasize "worst-case scenarios," said Rep. Chris Danou (D-Trempealeau), one of the bill's sponsors.

"Anything we do in life carries some risk," Danou said. "But we allow sales of sushi, raw oysters and all kinds of other products that could be dangerous. We could have a 10-mph speed limit, too, and that would probably save lives. But it would not stop speeding, and the tradeoff is that people want to get places faster."

 
http://www.jsonline.com/business/89519417.html

Legislature gets raw milk bill

Tougher measures pass Assembly committee; Doyle signals he might approve it

By Rick Barrett of the Journal Sentinel

Posted: March 30, 2010 |(19) Comments

Madison — Gov. Jim Doyle said Tuesday he may favor legalizing raw milk sales to the general public, under the right circumstances.

"I think we all understand what the issues here are," Doyle said when asked about the raw milk bill at a news conference in Verona.

"There are some people who prefer to drink raw milk, and I think under certain circumstances that's fine. But I think we also need to know that the mass-milk market is one that is healthy and in control."

The governor's comments came after legislation to allow the sale of raw milk to consumers moved a step forward, with lawmakers saying there were enough changes in the proposal to address safety concerns and still meet farmers' needs.

Twenty-five states allow some form of unpasteurized milk sales.

Advocates say milk straight from the cow's udder is a bacteria-rich food that can help fend off illnesses and has kept farm families healthy for generations.

Critics dismiss claims that raw milk is healthier than pasteurized milk, and they say the raw version is dangerous because of harmful bacteria it may carry.

By an 8-1 vote, the Assembly Committee on Rural Economic Development recommended approval of Assembly Bill 628 that would allow unpasteurized milk sales direct from farms licensed by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection.

The legislation, including an identical version in the Senate, is expected to be voted on by the full Assembly and Senate before their session ends in April.

Would Doyle favor the proposal to legalize raw milk sales?

"I have to see what comes to my desk," he said, adding that a bill could probably be crafted that would meet his approval.

Legislators have been swamped with impassioned pleas for and against raw milk sales.

"I have heard from a lot of my public health people who are urging me to vote against this. On the other side, I believe in the people's right to do what they want to do, with some restrictions," said Rep. Ann Hraychuck (D-Balsam Lake), a committee member.

Under the latest version of the raw milk legislation, sales could only take place at farms where the milk was produced.

Farmers would have to post a sign declaring that raw milk does not provide the benefits of pasteurization - a process where milk is heated to a high temperature for a brief time to kill bacteria.

The sign would have to say that unpasteurized milk may contain dangerous pathogens. It also would have to say that raw milk is not recommended for certain people including the very young, very old, women who are pregnant or nursing, and individuals with diabetes or compromised immune systems.

Farmers would be prohibited from advertising the sale of raw milk except for an on-farm sign.

Their milk would have to meet all of the requirements of a Grade-A dairy farm license, including delivery of a portion of the raw product to a dairy plant where it would be tested for pathogens. And either the farmer or the consumer would have to provide a sanitary container for getting milk from the farm.

The ability to sell non-pasteurized buttermilk, butter and cream was removed from the legislation. Also, a farmer's license to sell raw milk could be suspended if pathogens were detected in two of four consecutive monthly samples.

Committee members said they were satisfied with the tougher requirements which, among other things, would allow state officials to track raw milk back to an individual farm should there be a food-borne illness outbreak.

Several committee members said they would not have supported the original legislation, which would have given farms selling raw milk immunity from liability.

There have been exaggerated claims about the benefits of unpasteurized milk and exaggerated opposition to it, said Rep. Phil Garthwaite (D-Dickeyville).

"Is it a wonder drug? No. I don't buy that," Garthwaite said. "But is it going to kill 100 people tomorrow? No, because if that were the case, my whole neighborhood as a kid would have been wiped out."

Rep. Andy Jorgensen (D-Fort Atkinson) was the only committee member to vote against the measure.

Jorgensen said he was not against raw milk sales but said legislators ought to do more research on the subject.

"There are too many things at stake if we don't do this right," Jorgensen said.

The authorization for raw milk sales would expire Dec. 31, 2011. Some legislators hope to pass a permanent measure after they have heard from an expert panel appointed by state Agriculture Secretary Rod Nilsestuen. Others have asked the Joint Legislative Council for a special committee to study the issues surrounding raw milk.

It's strange that legislators would pass a law and then go back and study the safety aspect of it, Hraychuck said.

Earlier this month, a Senate committee recommended approval of the raw milk legislation.

Raw milk advocates say they're satisfied with the tougher requirements in the amended legislation.

"It's more hoops for dairy producers to jump through," but raw milk is safe, said Dan Siegmann, a dairy farmer from Rubicon.

Opponents said the legislation does not alleviate their concerns that unpasteurized milk is dangerous.

Raw milk sales should not be allowed, said John Umhoefer, executive director of the Wisconsin Cheese Makers Association.

***

RULES OF RAW MILK

Under the proposed legislation:

• Raw milk must be sold on farms where it is produced.

• Signs must be posted declaring raw milk may contain harmful pathogens.

• Milk must be tested by the state.

• Farmers could lose their license to sell raw milk if pathogens are found in two of four consecutive samples.

 
eoMMan said:
So is this going to be something decided by each state?
Right now, each state can make its own rules about raw milk (but not raw cheese, which is federally regulated). It's illegal to transport raw milk across state lines.
 
Can I roll up to a dairy farm and say, "Hey buddy, I've never had raw milk. Okay if I buy a quart or two off of you?"

Would they think I'm crazy?

(FWIW, half/half out of the container tastes delicious) ;)

 
Can I roll up to a dairy farm and say, "Hey buddy, I've never had raw milk. Okay if I buy a quart or two off of you?" Would they think I'm crazy?(FWIW, half/half out of the container tastes delicious) :thumbup:
seems that around here the "friendly" places are known.. it's not something farmers are worried about hiding or getting arrested for
 
Here in MO, raw milk is somewhat popular and can be bought either on the farm or in farmer's markets without a permit. With proper bottling, it can even be sold in grocery stores.

We have a friend who is obsessed with raw milk and goes out to local farms to buy it and has gotten us some in the past. It is at least double the cost of regular store milk and at times has a funky taste. Plus it only lasts about a week before going completely sour. However, we still get it on occasion.

 
The first stat is somewhat misleading since so few people consume raw milk to being with. The issue is that raw milk is safe when produced and handled in small quantities and sold/consumed fresh. When you change that to produced in enormous quantities, transported long distances and sold/consumed not as fresh, you run into the problems. Of course, this could easily be remedied by special packaging and marking requirements for raw milk but that's far too simple.

 
I grew up on a dairy farm. We use to feed raw milk to the barn cats, I think only 10 or so a year got sick and passed from the milk, but it think it was mostly due to milk from sick cows that we were giving medication to.

 
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/90970264.html

Wisconsin Senate approves raw milk bill

By Rick Barrett and Patrick Marley of the Journal Sentinel

Posted: April 15, 2010 |(27) Comments

Madison — After months of debate between health agencies and people who believe that raw milk is a healthy food, the state Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly approved legislation that would legalize sales of unpasteurized milk to the public.

Senators passed the measure 25-8, sending it to the Assembly for a vote next week.

Those in favor of the legislation say it's a freedom-of-choice issue.

Sen. Pat Kreitlow (D-Chippewa Falls), an author of the bill, said it would help a small number of farmers who have decided to sell raw milk. They will be committed to making sure they sell a safe product "because it's their life and their livelihood on the line," he said.

Those against legalizing raw milk sales say it raises too many safety issues, because the unpasteurized beverage may carry pathogens that cause food-borne illnesses.

"We don't appreciate public health until we don't have it," said Sen. Judy Robson (D-Beloit), a retired nurse.

Gov. Jim Doyle has said he would sign a raw milk bill into law under the right circumstances.

There's strong support for the bill in both urban and rural areas, said Rep. Chris Danou (D-Trempeleau).

Twenty-five states allow some form of unpasteurized milk sales. Advocates say the Dairy State's handling of the issue will send an important signal to the rest of the nation.

"It will give politicians courage to stand up to whatever pressures they are under," said Kimberly Hartke, spokeswoman for the Weston Price Foundation, a Reston, Va., group that says unpasteurized milk boosts the immune system and has cured a plethora of ailments including tuberculosis, heart failure, high blood pressure, prostate disease, diabetes, kidney disease, chronic fatigue syndrome, asthma and obesity.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says the risks of unpasteurized milk greatly outweigh any purported benefits because of the harmful bacteria it may carry.

The FDA's opinion is backed by the American Medical Association, which says all milk sold for human consumption should be pasteurized, a process in which milk is heated to a high temperature for a brief period to kill bacteria.

The Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation is opposed to legalizing raw milk sales, saying that if one person becomes sick from drinking it, the reputation of all milk and dairy products would be tarnished.

"Dairy farmers have invested millions of dollars promoting milk and dairy products. Whether food scares are real or perceived, farmers are the first to see a decline in the prices they receive for the livestock, crops and commodities they produce," the Farm Bureau said in a memo to senators.

It was disappointing that the Senate passed the raw milk bill, said Kim Brown Pokorny, executive director of the Wisconsin Veterinary Medical Association.

"I know that many proponents of raw milk often talk about health benefits. However none of those claims are supported by scientific evidence," she said.

Under the legislation, sales could take place only at farms where the milk was produced.

Farmers would have to post a sign declaring that raw milk may contain organisms that cause disease. It also would have to say that raw milk is not recommended for certain people including the very young, very old, women who are pregnant or nursing, and individuals with diabetes or compromised immune systems.

Farmers would be prohibited from advertising the sale of raw milk except for on-farm signs. Their milk would have to meet all of the requirements of a Grade-A dairy farm license, and samples would have to be tested for pathogens, including salmonella.

Farmers favoring the legislation, including some who have sold raw milk illegally, were ecstatic.

"We are struggling financially, and we can get twice as much for the milk we sell direct to the public," said Janet Brunner, a dairy farmer from Pepin County. "It feels good to come out of the closet."

The bill's requirements, while accepted by most raw milk producers, could be onerous for small farms.

Someone selling only 20 gallons of milk a month could not afford $100 in monthly testing fees. And the tests would be meaningless if someone already bought and drank the milk before test results were available, said Kay Craig, a dairy farmer from New Holstein who has sued the state Agriculture Department for the right to sell raw milk.

The ability to buy raw milk would be welcomed by some consumers - especially those whose provider had quit selling it after state officials cracked down.

"I have not drank raw milk for the last year," said Janet Skelton of Monroe.

 
Although this is not about raw milk, this is another example of the federal government's incredibly wasteful and counterproductive efforts on the part of US agriculture. This article contains some solid reporting from the NY Times, it is linked on their homepage: While Warning About Fat, U.S. Pushes Cheese Sales

...Dairy Management, which has made cheese its cause, is not a private business consultant. It is a marketing creation of the United States Department of Agriculture — the same agency at the center of a federal anti-obesity drive that discourages over-consumption of some of the very foods Dairy Management is vigorously promoting.

Urged on by government warnings about saturated fat, Americans have been moving toward low-fat milk for decades, leaving a surplus of whole milk and milk fat. Yet the government, through Dairy Management, is engaged in an effort to find ways to get dairy back into Americans’ diets, primarily through cheese...
 
I think people should be free to buy and consume raw milk, but they should also know that it comes with increased risk of disease and illness, especially the young, pregnant, old and immunosuppressed. Listeria infection is probably the most common one you would have to worry about. This risk comes with a no proven benefits, except a better taste. Maurile is too deeply involved in this issue and can not objectively look at it. I am a libertarian at heart, so I disagree with the government trying to over-regulate everything. Personal freedom and personal responsibility. If you want raw milk, that's fine. Just don't complain if you get ill from it.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top