Got Milk? Don't Get Raw Milk! A Cautionary Tale.

[Braggi]

I'm not very worked up about this mini-controversy. I think the raw milk people should have access if they really want it. I also think illness caused by raw milk should be closely monitored and if it reaches ... some level (?) then it should be outlawed. I'm not very impressed by the numbers discussed in this article, and yet, if it was my kid that lost her kidneys to E. coli from raw milk I wouldn't be very happy about it.

In any case, here is the current thinking from a CDC expert:


From CDC Expert Commentary

Got Milk? Don't Get Raw Milk! A Cautionary Tale.
Robert V. Tauxe, MD, MPH
Authors and Disclosures
Posted: 05/16/2011

Not so long ago, milk was this country's number 1 food safety concern. Before milk was routinely pasteurized beginning in the 1920s, it regularly caused large outbreaks of deadly diseases. Now in 2011, raw, unpasteurized milk has made its way back into some Americans' diets and is once again causing outbreaks of disease.

Hello, I'm Dr. Robert Tauxe, internal medicine physician and infectious disease epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). I'm pleased to speak with you today as part of the CDC Expert Video Commentary Series on Medscape about the dangers -- as well as some persistent myths and misperceptions -- surrounding raw milk or products made from raw milk.

Milk is an important and nutritious natural food, but the recurrent outbreaks related to unpasteurized milk and milk products requires that we work together to put out accurate and consistent messages about the serious illnesses that can be caused by consuming raw milk.

First, let's dispel some common myths about raw milk.

Myth #1. Raw milk is healthier and more nutritious than pasteurized milk.

Not so! All of the nutritional benefits of drinking milk are available from pasteurized milk without the risk for disease that comes with drinking raw milk.

Myth #2. Drinking raw milk can prevent or cure diseases such as asthma, allergies, heart disease, or cancer.

No. There are no health benefits from drinking raw milk that cannot be obtained from drinking pasteurized milk that is free of disease-causing bacteria.

Myth #3. Milk is safe as long as it is labeled "organic."

Again, this is not true. Even raw organic milk is not safe. Only organic milk that has been pasteurized is safe to drink.

Myth #4. Milk and raw milk products like soft cheeses and yogurts are safe if they come from healthy animals.

No, even the healthiest of animals can carry pathogens, such as Escherichia coli O157, Campylobacter, and Salmonella that can contaminate milk.

Myth #5. If animals are raised in sanitary conditions on humane farms, this ensures that their milk is safe.

It may surprise many to know that the dairy farm environment, even when every precaution is taken, is a reservoir for illness-causing germs. Even if the farm's raw milk tests come back negative, it is no guarantee that the milk, or the products made from the milk, are always free of those pathogens.

Myth #6. Drinking raw milk may not be safe, but no harm will come from eating products (cheeses, yogurts) made from raw milk.

Unfortunately, this too is quite false. In fact, both people who died in outbreaks related to unpasteurized milk between 1999 and 2008 died of infections caused by fresh Mexican-style cheese made from raw milk. These unfortunate cases show how raw milk made into fresh cheese can cause dangerous infections.

Now that we've put to rest the myths about raw milk, let's discuss the recent facts about the illnesses caused by consuming raw milk and raw milk products. In the 10 years from 1999 to 2008, 86 outbreaks related to unpasteurized milk were reported to CDC, leading to 1676 illnesses, 191 hospitalizations, and 2 deaths.

That is about 8 outbreaks per year. Most of them were due to either E coli O157, Campylobacter, or Salmonella. Especially concerning was that, of the 86 outbreaks reported to CDC, 79% involved at least 1 person under the age of 20.Some of the most severe illnesses can occur in young children, like kidney failure due to E coli O157. And remember, E coli O157 can spread from one young child to another in a day care or nursery school.

Some states permit sale of raw milk and, not surprisingly, about 80% of these outbreaks occurred in states that permit the sale of raw milk. Finally, because not all foodborne outbreaks are investigated or reported to CDC, the actual number of outbreaks that occur is likely to be greater than the number reported.

Our recommendations are simple and straightforward.

Pasteurization of milk is a fundamentally important food safety measure;
CDC strongly supports measures to promote pasteurization and restrict the sale of raw milk; and
Specifically for clinicians, we urge you to educate your patients about the dangers of consuming raw milk or raw milk products.
Thank you!

Web Resources

CDC Features: Raw (unpasteurized) milk

CDC Food Safety and Raw Milk

CDC Raw Milk Questions and Answers

Foodsafety.gov. Drinking raw milk: it's not worth the risk.

Foodsafety.gov. Drinking raw milk: more details on the risk.

Robert V. Tauxe, MD, MPH , is Deputy Director, Division of Foodborne, Waterborne and Environmental Diseases, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Tauxe is Deputy Director of the division that is charged with prevention and control of foodborne, waterborne, and fungal infections at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Division monitors the frequency of these infections in the United States, investigates outbreaks, and develops strategies to reduce the disease, disability, and deaths that they cause.

Dr. Tauxe graduated cum laude from Yale University, in New Haven, Connecticut, in 1975, and received his medical degree from Vanderbilt Medical School in Nashville, Tennessee. In addition, he holds a Masters in Public Health degree from Yale University. Dr. Tauxe's interests include bacterial enteric diseases, epidemiology and pathogenesis of infectious diseases, epidemiologic and clinical consequences of bacterial genetic exchange, antimicrobial use and resistance to antimicrobial agents, and teaching epidemiologic methods. Dr. Tauxe has supervised many domestic and overseas epidemiologic investigations. Dr. Tauxe has authored/co-authored 254 scientific journal articles, letters, and book chapters.

MORE ON THIS TOPIC
Nutrition News & Perspectives
Integrative Medicine News & Perspectives
© 2011
Public Information from the CDC and Medscape

[Glia]

Got milk? Unless your a lactating new mother or other female mammal, get rid of it!

There is no need for any mammal, including humans, to ingest milk after weaning, which up until very recently was about 4 years of age for a Homo sapiens child.

My great-grandfather (family doctor and surgeon) maintained that pasteurization denatured the milk proteins (it does) and renders them indigestible. He did use raw milk from the neighbor's cow and ferment it into something we would probably now recognize as keifer or yogurt.

The fermentation process does not work with tainted milk, much like fermented beer, wine or apple cider is reasonably sure to be clean. All of these fermented products provide probiotics and "good" gut bacteria.

Easy fix for all of these problems: lose the milk, especially the liquid form!

[Braggi]

Got milk? Unless your a lactating new mother or other female mammal, get rid of it!

There is no need for any mammal, including humans, to ingest milk after weaning ...

There is no need for me ever to ingest chocolate either, but I do love chocolate and I love cheese as well. Since I'm not lactose intolerant, there is no health reason for me to avoid milk products. We could find environmental reasons to argue against milk consumption and because of that I've reduced my household's use of milk products over the years. I think it's a good trend. I also think milk products contributed to my daughter's relatively good health.

... My great-grandfather (family doctor and surgeon) maintained that pasteurization denatured the milk proteins (it does) and renders them indigestible. ...

Pasteurization is a quick cooking process, similar in some ways to quick steaming vegetables, or stir frying thinly sliced meat. These processes actually make the nutrients more easily digestible; especially proteins. If you have science to the contrary when it comes to milk, I'd like to see it. Logic doesn't take me down that road.

Thanks,

-Jeff

PS. I love lactating mothers too. Thanks for mentioning them.

[Glia]

both you and your daughter (especially the latter) would be wise to skip the dairy, and there is a good need to ingest chocolate -- it's a good plant food. Baby mammals do not ingest chocolate and they do not have a genetically-programmed drop-off of chocolate-digesting enzymes as they do with milk-digesting enzymes.

If you must drink a white liquid, use hemp milk. Even better, use chocolate hemp milk!

Wrap your lips around this:

Dairy: 6 Reasons You Should Avoid It at all Costs


Do Milk and Sugar Cause Acne?


Cooking food breaks the proteins down into smaller amino acids and peptide chunks. It also makes it easier to digest, requiring less volume of food for the same caloric bang. It has been postulated that cooking is what made us human! Catching fire: how cooking made us human

Pasteurization is not cooking. It is brief heating to a bacterial kill temperature but not a protien-breaking temp. I'm with great-grandaddy on this one: the milk proteins get denatured (reshaped) but not clipped apart. Never seen a study on this (who would pay for it?) but physiology, microbiology, biochemistry and, yes, intuition all tell me it makes sense.

There is no need for me ever to ingest chocolate either, but I do love chocolate and I love cheese as well. Since I'm not lactose intolerant, there is no health reason for me to avoid milk products. We could find environmental reasons to argue against milk consumption and because of that I've reduced my household's use of milk products over the years. I think it's a good trend. I also think milk products contributed to my daughter's relatively good health.



Pasteurization is a quick cooking process, similar in some ways to quick steaming vegetables, or stir frying thinly sliced meat. These processes actually make the nutrients more easily digestible; especially proteins. If you have science to the contrary when it comes to milk, I'd like to see it. Logic doesn't take me down that road.

Thanks,

-Jeff

PS. I love lactating mothers too. Thanks for mentioning them.

[CSummer]

When I was growing up in rural Santa Cruz County, my family could sometimes get raw milk from local sources. My mother said my brother and sister, who had asthma, did considerably better when they could get raw milk. My guess is that pasteurization breaks down enzymes that aid in digesting the amino acids and milk sugar (lactose), and incompletely digested proteins cause allergic reactions.

I've also read that pasteurized milk is tested for pathogens after processing. If this is true, why can't raw milk be tested in the same way to determine if it's safe or not? (FYI, I worked in a model dairy as a young adolescent and helped run the pasteurizing equipment. Of course, it's changed a lot since then.)

The article to me smacks of a lobbyist's scare tactics, which is very common. e.g., this message was brought to you by the FDA and CDC in close collaboration with US dairy processors associations. Leaves me wondering how much their real motivation is public health and how much corporate profits.

CS

[DynamicBalance]

From CDC Expert Commentary

Got Milk? Don't Get Raw Milk! A Cautionary Tale.
Robert V. Tauxe, MD, MPH
Authors and Disclosures
Posted: 05/16/2011

Not so long ago, milk was this country's number 1 food safety concern. Before milk was routinely pasteurized beginning in the 1920s, it regularly caused large outbreaks of deadly diseases. Now in 2011, raw, unpasteurized milk has made its way back into some Americans' diets and is once again causing outbreaks of disease.

This article is completely devoid of references to back up the claims it makes. I looked at the resources listed and was unable to find a single reference, scientific or otherwise, that backed up any claim about raw milk. Apparently if the FDA or CDC say something is true, they don't feel the need to provide any evidence whatsoever.

Conversely, a PowerPoint presentation from the Campaign for Real Milk goes into these topics in detail and is overflowing with numerous references to the scientific literature. This is essential reading for anyone who has questions about raw milk:

https://www.realmilk.com/ppt/index.html

Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com

[DynamicBalance]

both you and your daughter (especially the latter) would be wise to skip the dairy, and there is a good need to ingest chocolate -- it's a good plant food. Baby mammals do not ingest chocolate and they do not have a genetically-programmed drop-off of chocolate-digesting enzymes as they do with milk-digesting enzymes.

If you must drink a white liquid, use hemp milk. Even better, use chocolate hemp milk!

Wrap your lips around this:

Dairy: 6 Reasons You Should Avoid It at all Costs


Do Milk and Sugar Cause Acne?


Cooking food breaks the proteins down into smaller amino acids and peptide chunks. It also makes it easier to digest, requiring less volume of food for the same caloric bang. It has been postulated that cooking is what made us human! Catching fire: how cooking made us human

Pasteurization is not cooking. It is brief heating to a bacterial kill temperature but not a protien-breaking temp. I'm with great-grandaddy on this one: the milk proteins get denatured (reshaped) but not clipped apart. Never seen a study on this (who would pay for it?) but physiology, microbiology, biochemistry and, yes, intuition all tell me it makes sense.

Most of the reasons for avoiding dairy that were cited by Dr. Hyman in the video and article you posted are only applicable to pasteurized milk. The fact that most people show allergic symptoms from dairy products is due to several factors. One is that the natural enzyme lactase, which conveniently breaks down lactose for us, is destroyed by pasteurization. Another is that most people nowadays have low stomach acid, which results in poor protein digestion. When casein, the protein in milk, is not digested fully, it can leak across the gut lining and provoke an allergic reaction. This can happen with any protein, not just the one in milk. Neither of these things indicate that raw milk is unhealthy for people with normal levels of stomach acid. There are examples of healthy people with great bones and teeth that have lived on (raw) cow's milk as a staple of their diet. That alone proves that milk is not inherently unhealthy.

Hemp milk is usually sweetened with some form of refined sugar. Even when it is sweetened with brown rice syrup, it always contains synthetic vitamins which are best avoided. There are no commercial brands of hemp milk that I would recommend.

I do agree that cooking certain foods makes them easier to digest and can make the nutrients they contain more available, but I don't think milk is one of those foods. Culturing and fermenting milk to make yogurt, kefir, cheese, and cultured butter will make them more digestible, mostly because the casein is partially broken down.

Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com

[Glia]

When I was growing up in rural Santa Cruz County, my family could sometimes get raw milk from local sources. My mother said my brother and sister, who had asthma, did considerably better when they could get raw milk. My guess is that pasteurization breaks down enzymes that aid in digesting the amino acids and milk sugar (lactose), and incompletely digested proteins cause allergic reactions.

Sounds like you're on the right track there with the incompletely digested proteins causing trouble. The same can be said of denatured proteins that the body does not have the enzymes to handle since they have been denatured.

While raw milk is an improvement, your siblings very likely would have done even better with no milk at all. Milk coats the throat and upper respiratory system, making a lovely breeding ground for bacteria. Milk also causes inflammation. This is especially problematic for people with inflammatory conditions -- like asthma.

The proteins and enzymes may get denatured by pasteurization, but it seems that the plethora of cow/sheep/goat hormones remain.

I've also read that pasteurized milk is tested for pathogens after processing. If this is true, why can't raw milk be tested in the same way to determine if it's safe or not?

If pasteurized milk needs to be tested AFTER the processing, it begs the question of how effective the process is! California allows the sale of raw milk and it probably does need to be tested before sale -- just a guess, though.

The article to me smacks of a lobbyist's scare tactics, which is very common. e.g., this message was brought to you by the FDA and CDC in close collaboration with US dairy processors associations. Leaves me wondering how much their real motivation is public health and how much corporate profits.
CS

With you 100% there! Given the other health issues that the FDA and their kissing cousins the CDC do seem to be parroting the corporate party line, this seems likely.

[Glia]

Most of the reasons for avoiding dairy cited by Dr. Hyman have nothing to do with pasteurized milk or are made worse by the pasteurization process. The main reason why people have trouble with milk is that they do not have the enzymes to digest it. This is because the human body stops making these enzymes after weaning, just as all mammals put away the milk processing equipment when they no longer need it. And absolutely low stomach acid or ineffective stomach enzymes will cause digestive problems with milk or any other animal product.

It is difficult to imagine that pasteurization adds that lengthy list of hormones to milk.

Europeans and Scandinavians started using dairy as a source of food, in contrast to just about every other ethnic group on the planet, because they have a genetic mutation that keeps the lactase enzyme in production after weaning. In the case of the Scandinavians, dairy was one of the few sources of food during the winter, so that mutation was a real lifesaver. Not all individuals have this mutation, of course. In the genetic melting pot that is North America, that gene is becoming more and more rare and lactose intolerance is becoming more and more common. The reference to tribes or ethnic groups that use dairy as a main foodstuff is not applicable to this place and time.

With respect to hemp milk, there are unsweetened versions available. Those that are sweetened are sweetened with cane sugar or rice syrup, both natural plant products. As far as added vitamins (B12 and D2), what is wrong with that? Most of us take these substances as supplements; they are often given to us by "alternative" practitioners. It's hard to see a downside here. Is the objection that they are not "natural" or are added to the product?

Liquid milk is a good food for baby mammals of the same species as the milk producer. For humans after weaning, it is not a good idea at all. Fermented/cultured raw milk, preferably goat or sheep milk, is a possibility for some. However, the fermentation organisms and by-products can cause allergies and inflammation for a lot of people. Fermented/cultured milk products are a common source of food sensitivities. The casein is a real problem for people of all ages with an autistic gut. The gluten-free casein-free (GF-CF) diet is now a first line of defense for these folks, which should be a clue. Even those who do not necessarily have ASD type symptoms feel better on the GF-CF diet!

As far as the CDC and FDA and reliability and veracity of their "information" -- you've got it pegged spot-on.

Most of the reasons for avoiding dairy that were cited by Dr. Hyman in the video and article you posted are only applicable to pasteurized milk. The fact that most people show allergic symptoms from dairy products is due to several factors. One is that the natural enzyme lactase, which conveniently breaks down lactose for us, is destroyed by pasteurization. Another is that most people nowadays have low stomach acid, which results in poor protein digestion. When casein, the protein in milk, is not digested fully, it can leak across the gut lining and provoke an allergic reaction. This can happen with any protein, not just the one in milk. Neither of these things indicate that raw milk is unhealthy for people with normal levels of stomach acid. There are examples of healthy people with great bones and teeth that have lived on (raw) cow's milk as a staple of their diet. That alone proves that milk is not inherently unhealthy.

Hemp milk is usually sweetened with some form of refined sugar. Even when it is sweetened with brown rice syrup, it always contains synthetic vitamins which are best avoided. There are no commercial brands of hemp milk that I would recommend.

I do agree that cooking certain foods makes them easier to digest and can make the nutrients they contain more available, but I don't think milk is one of those foods. Culturing and fermenting milk to make yogurt, kefir, cheese, and cultured butter will make them more digestible, mostly because the casein is partially broken down.

Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com

[DynamicBalance]

Most of the reasons for avoiding dairy cited by Dr. Hyman have nothing to do with pasteurized milk or are made worse by the pasteurization process. The main reason why people have trouble with milk is that they do not have the enzymes to digest it. This is because the human body stops making these enzymes after weaning, just as all mammals put away the milk processing equipment when they no longer need it. And absolutely low stomach acid or ineffective stomach enzymes will cause digestive problems with milk or any other animal product.

As I stated previously, it does not matter whether or not people produce the enzyme themselves or not, because raw milk contains the enzyme already. The argument that people shouldn't be drinking milk because they are "lactose-intolerant" does not apply to raw milk. Our bodies do not make cellulase either; does this mean that we should not eat any plant material because it contains cellulose? Definitely not!

It is difficult to imagine that pasteurization adds that lengthy list of hormones to milk.

The main problem with hormones in milk is due to genetically modified rBGH and rBST, which greatly increase levels of IGF-1 in milk, as well as generally making the cows who take it unhealthy. Cows fed this hormone are extremely susceptible to mastitis, a bacterial infection of the udder which causes their milk to contain pus and blood (yuck!). The existence of natural levels of natural hormones in milk is not a problem, as people have been eating dairy products for thousands of years without developing hormonal problems.

Europeans and Scandinavians started using dairy as a source of food, in contrast to just about every other ethnic group on the planet, because they have a genetic mutation that keeps the lactase enzyme in production after weaning. In the case of the Scandinavians, dairy was one of the few sources of food during the winter, so that mutation was a real lifesaver. Not all individuals have this mutation, of course. In the genetic melting pot that is North America, that gene is becoming more and more rare and lactose intolerance is becoming more and more common. The reference to tribes or ethnic groups that use dairy as a main foodstuff is not applicable to this place and time.

There are tribes in Africa that traditionally use dairy as staples in the diet, as well as many areas of Latin America (including the people of Vilcabamba). So it is not just Europeans and Scandinavians that tolerate lactose. But again, it really does not matter because raw milk contains lactase.

With respect to hemp milk, there are unsweetened versions available. Those that are sweetened are sweetened with cane sugar or rice syrup, both natural plant products. As far as added vitamins (B12 and D2), what is wrong with that? Most of us take these substances as supplements; they are often given to us by "alternative" practitioners. It's hard to see a downside here. Is the objection that they are not "natural" or are added to the product?

Just because a practitioner is "alternative" does not necessarily mean they know what they are talking about. The form of vitamin B12 that is generally added to fortify food products (cyanocobalamin) is synthetic and cheaply produced. It is not found in nature. Synthetic B-vitamins are not very effective, which is why they are generally taken in such high doses. Natural B-vitamins are expensive to produce, but you need far less of them to get a similar effect. Vitamin D2 can be natural (in foods like mushrooms), but when added to fortify foods it is made from irradiated yeast (yuck!). Vitamin A is also added to dairy alternatives, and it is the synthetic form which has been linked to birth defects. Personally, I avoid all foods that have been fortified with synthetic vitamins. The fact that they need to be fortified means that they are not very nutritious to begin with. I prefer to get my vitamins in the natural forms found in food, which is what our physiology is designed for.

Likewise, whether you consider cane sugar to be a "natural" product depends on your definition of natural. Yes, it is made from a natural plant, but all of the live-giving nutrients have been stripped away. White sugar is not only devoid of nutrition, but it can actually deplete your levels of certain vitamins and minerals that are necessary for processing glucose, like B1 and chromium. These nutrients are found in whole cane juice but not in processed sugar (evaporated cane juice is NOT the same as whole cane juice). Brown rice syrup is an acceptable sweetener, but given the synthetic vitamins I still would not recommend commercial hemp milks.

Liquid milk is a good food for baby mammals of the same species as the milk producer. For humans after weaning, it is not a good idea at all. Fermented/cultured raw milk, preferably goat or sheep milk, is a possibility for some. However, the fermentation organisms and by-products can cause allergies and inflammation for a lot of people. Fermented/cultured milk products are a common source of food sensitivities. The casein is a real problem for people of all ages with an autistic gut. The gluten-free casein-free (GF-CF) diet is now a first line of defense for these folks, which should be a clue. Even those who do not necessarily have ASD type symptoms feel better on the GF-CF diet!

I am not aware of any evidence that fermentation makes people more sensitive to dairy products. In fact, fermentation breaks down most of the casein, making these products far more digestible than regular milk. I'm also not sure why you feel that goat or sheep milk is preferable to cow's milk. As far as autism goes, I am very familiar with it because my brother is on the autism spectrum. When he was younger, he was a typical case, with major meltdowns everyday, etc. Now that he has changed his diet he is a normal person. He finds that he tolerates raw milk and cream just fine. Gluten is whole different story.

As far as the CDC and FDA and reliability and veracity of their "information" -- you've got it pegged spot-on.

Why, thank you!

Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com