Skip to main content

View Diary: How regulation came to be: Pasteurization (205 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Don't know where you guys (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tirge Caps, Glinda, aimlessmind

    get your information about raw milk, but, at the conferences I go to and in the studies I read, raw milk is extremely nutritious, filled with beneficial enzymes, good for our stomach flora, rich in vitamins and minerals, strengthens the immune system, and on and on.

    Check out Weston Price Foundation, Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon,  Eat Fat, Lose Fat by Fallon and Mary Enig

    Funny that you would be advocating for pasteurization, which is a corporate/industrial solution to a problem that was brought on by trying to turn milk production into the equivalent of today's factory farm.  Just like having to put antibiotics into feedlot steers because, by golly, jammed in there at 1,000 head per acre, they tend to get sick and die.

    Pasteurization of milk is no guarantee against solmenella or other bacteria, because the lactic acid (naturally occuring in raw milk)  that protects against pathogens is destroyed in the heating process.  But that's not all, heat ruins the lysine and tyrosine amino acids making the whole complex of proteins much less available to the human body.  Basically, this is a destruction of important vitamins, like C and B-12, and minerals, like calcium, chloride, magnesium, phosphorus and potassium, and makes milk much more susceptible to rancidity.

    There is nothing wrong with raw milk from properly pastured cows, where good soil and sanitary conditions prevail.  To the contrary, it is much better for you than the crap you get out of cows who eat GMO grain, get regular antibiotics in their feed and take RGBH, a growth hormone.

    And why the bashing of people who are willing to let you drink whatever you want -- pasteurized milk -- and who only want the chance to freely choose what they believe is a better, more nutritious and wholesome product?  Isn't that their right?

    Industrial food production in America ruins our health, our environment and consumes more fossil fuel than any segment of our economy.

    by Mi Corazon on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 07:16:40 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Pasteurization is efective vs Salmonella because (22+ / 0-)

      the exact heat and time used is calibrated specifically to kill pathogens like Salmonella. Much of the "natural" lactic acid is produced by Lactobacillus bacteria which are not eradicated by pasteurization. Some levels of vitamins may be reduced but not completely and if you can explain how heat will destroy

      minerals, like calcium, chloride, magnesium,
      phosphorus and potassium
      You may have a Nobel prize in Chemistry in the offing.

      I'd tip you but they cut off my tip box.

      by OHdog on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 07:26:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It doesn't destroy them (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dsteffen

        but it does greatly reduce their bio-availability to our system, because they no longer have the enzymes accompanying them.

        Industrial food production in America ruins our health, our environment and consumes more fossil fuel than any segment of our economy.

        by Mi Corazon on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 07:31:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You mean the enzymes that get (12+ / 0-)

          destroyed by proteases in the stomach and small intestine? Honestly, this is junior-high-level biochemistry and physiology here.

          Banksters are harmful for the same reason neutrinos are harmless: neither are inclined to share what they've got (wealth and energy, respectively)

          by ebohlman on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 08:12:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It is well known that live enzymes in food (0+ / 0-)

            aid in digestion, mineral absorption, nutrient absorption and a host of other factors.

            You have no idea what you are talking about.

            •  can you please elaborate on this? (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gnbhull, mmacdDE, dsteffen, ebohlman

              This is a serious comment, because if specific enzymes are able to help with digestion, I'd like to learn how they do it. Is it well known in published literature? If so, can you please point me to specific publications (Medline isn't proving very helpful). I'm a skeptical biochemist, but I'm always open to real data to change my mind.

              If you put a raw egg in stomach acid, it will look like it's been cooked because its proteins irreversibly denature (unfold). Stomach acid also serves as a catalyst to help break apart the proteins in our diet. Ingested proteins will also encounter pepsin (cuts up proteins into smaller parts) in the stomach as well as trypsin, chymotrypsin, and other protein cutters in the intestine. Few proteins will survive a trip through the digestive tract.

              Which enzymes from food survive? How are they acid and digestive enzyme resistant? What do they do to aid in digestion and absorption? I know it's possible for a protein to survive the trip, as this seems to be the pathway of entry for prions that lead to mad cow disease, scrapie, kuru, etc. But I have yet to

          •  Well it IS ignorance, but it's even more insidious (6+ / 0-)

            It's willful ignorance. The knowledge to debunk these kinds of urban myths is out there, yet they don't care to learn more. They reject expert opinions and simply buy into the opinions of other ill-educated people who have ideas that match with these fools' preconceived notions.

            We see that on a regular basis here, and I argue against those ideas in those kinds of diaries all the time, and get labeled as a troll as a result - since I shoot down their hair on fire hysteria and refute their nonsense. Rather than appreciating the truth, and being respectful of facts, they attack the messenger.

            It's sickening. This is supposed to be a reality-based community. That's why 9/11 Conspiracy Theory diaries are strictly verboten.

            •  The messenger here (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dsteffen, RunawayRose

              ..is frequently rude, abrasive, and insulting. You are not a troll; you generally have your facts straight, to the best of my recollection, and make honest arguments. Your points would be better made frequently by calmer and more courteous posts.

              Cogito, ergo Democrata.

              by Ahianne on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 07:47:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  You are 100% correct. It amazes me the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      prgsvmama26

      bad press raw milk gets these days and the pressure on farmers. I grew up on raw milk. I drank it until I left home. I drink it today.

      I have never once in my life gotten sick from it. And I have also never broken a bone.

      WAPF is an awesome organization.

      Far as I am concerned, if anyone wants to drink pasteurized milk, I am not going to stop you, I am not going to preach to you, I am not going to get in your way.

      Now stay out of my way as I drink this fresh raw grass fed Jersey milk.

      •  So what - that you never got sick from it? (8+ / 0-)

        I never got sick from eating raw chocolate chip cookie dough - until I got sick from eating raw cookie dough.

        I did it for years. The whole time I was growing up, it was always a treat to get to lick the bowl and the beaters after we'd made brownies or cake or cookies, and eating spoonfuls of chocolate chip cookie dough was my favorite.

        Until I got sick, and puked for hours, long after there wasn't anything really left in my stomach even.

        So your assertion that you've never gotten sick from doing something is 100% irrelevant anecdotal information. And you're apparently too stupid to even know that - that your personal experience is irrelevant to the overall average risk to the general public.

        I swear - the grandmother survived, and her brother didn't, yet they were raised with the same stuff. And what you're doing is saying "well, look, see, the grandma didn't die - it can't be bad for someone", despite the fact that we HAVE evidence that it WAS bad for many people.

        •  Have all the puss filled homogenized nutrientless (0+ / 0-)

          milk you like. That's your choice. My problem is with people trying to stop me from drinking raw milk.

          Raw milk is what we drank for thousands of years. Glad to know you think you are smarter than evolution.

          It was the mass production of milk that made it dangerous, fyi.

          •  We didn't have antibiotics for 1,000s of years (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gnbhull, mmacdDE, dsteffen

            Does that mean we shouldn't use them in cases where they're going to save lives? If you want to drink raw milk, more power to you, but the "our ancestors didn't do X, so we shouldn't either" is a seriously fallacious argument.

            Kelly McCullough - author of the WebMage series and the Fallen Blade books (Penguin/ACE)

            by KMc on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 08:33:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Comparing apples to asphalt. Don't try again. (0+ / 0-)

              I can't take the idiocy here.

              •  Adult milk drinking is Northwest European (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dsteffen, eigenlambda

                Most of the rest of the world didn't get hooked on dairy, stopped drinking milk when they were weaned from their mothers, and were (and are) incapable of properly digesting lactose.

                You're using a rather small sample of "we", and an even smaller one when you cite only your own experience.

                If it's
                Not your body,
                Then it's
                Not your choice
                And it's
                None of your damn business!

                by TheOtherMaven on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 09:39:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  You made a fallacious argument (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gnbhull, dsteffen, eigenlambda

                I called you on it. Why on Earth wouldn't I do it again? Seriously? I don't care if you want to drink raw milk. Go for it. Drink it by the bucket. But don't claim that just because something's been done for thousands of years it's good for people. It's a stupid and easily shot down argument, and doesn't help your case. Neither does getting in a snit when you get called on it.  

                Kelly McCullough - author of the WebMage series and the Fallen Blade books (Penguin/ACE)

                by KMc on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 09:39:56 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I didn't make a fallacious argument and you (0+ / 0-)

                  didn't call me on anything. Your statement has little bearing on anything. The fact that humans have been safely drinking raw milk for milleniums has nothing to do with not having anti-biotics.

                  I am sorry you think you have made some point but you haven't.

                  •  safely? How do you know it was safe? (0+ / 0-)

                    Presumably, from taking samples from milk supplies through the ages and checking them for diseases?

                    People died of all kinds of dread diseases all the time and thought it was demons back before we figured out modern biology and pulled ourselves out of the muck.

                    Global warming is the inconvenient truth, nuclear power is the inconvenient alternative.

                    by eigenlambda on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 09:40:07 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Also do you think "don't try again" is convincing? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gnbhull

                It's not even an argument. It's stomping your feet and yelling "la-la-la." If you want to convince, you need to be convincing. I'm genuinely puzzled as to what you hope to achieve by doing that. I'd prefer to believe that you have an actual goal beyond giving the appearance of having a tantrum, but I'm not seeing much evidence for it.

                Kelly McCullough - author of the WebMage series and the Fallen Blade books (Penguin/ACE)

                by KMc on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 09:49:48 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Exhibit A. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RunawayRose
          So your assertion that you've never gotten sick from doing something is 100% irrelevant anecdotal information. And you're apparently too stupid to even know that - that your personal experience is irrelevant to the overall average risk to the general public.
          Valid argument about anecdotal information interrupted by unnecessary personal insult.

          Cogito, ergo Democrata.

          by Ahianne on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 07:55:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Oh please, can you read? The writer here is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wonderful world

        speaking to something that you are obviously unable to comprehend.

        "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John F. Kennedy

        by helpImdrowning on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 04:38:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  This is known as 'survivor bias'. (9+ / 0-)

        If 99 people out of a hundred die from something, is that one person going to say 'well, I'm okay so it must not have been that bad'?

        This is also very much a 'first world attitude'.  People in other places know that these diseases can kill their children and are eager to obtain the latest (and in the case of pasteurization not so latest) techniques to prevent these diseases. Here, with our century or so of security, some have decided that thousands of deaths in the 19th century are somehow now irrelevant.  'It happened a long time ago and we'll hope it isn't true' as the old lady said about the Gospels.

        But the microbes are still there. I hope profoundly that folks like Tirge Caps will continue to be all right.

        A weapon that is also a treasure is certain to be used.

        by wonderful world on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 05:30:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No it isn't known as that. Mass production of milk (0+ / 0-)

          is what has made it dangerous and disgusting. It's not the milk, it's what we are doing with it. People in other places with access to milk producing animals drink it raw, like I did every day of my childhood, and they are fine. If you leave the milk out and don't refrigerate it, you will have problems. But raw milk is  a perfect whole food.

          I don't expect the modern American consumer society to understand this. You are the same people who would visit my farm and complain about the smell.

          WHat do you people know? Not much.

      •  There are folks who never wear seatbelts (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KMc, gnbhull

        ...while riding in cars, or motorcycle helmets while riding motorcycles, and make the same argument.

        I hope you're rational enough to see the flaws in using the fact that they haven't yet been killed or maimed as justification.

        •  wow what a bullshit mealy mouthed (0+ / 0-)

          little statement you just made.

          I hope you are rational enough to do some of your own research.

          The difference between hyper-produced milk and fresh local raw milk is a universe. You don't have to drink it. I don't care.

          Just stay out of my way when I do. THATS my problem with all you anti-raw ilk folks. Just stay out of my business.

          Go tackle industrial feed lots or the constant poisoning of Americans by pharmaceuticals. Go do something real that matters.

          •  You're not doing your position... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ahianne

            ...a whole lot of good with such a defensive response.

            The bottom line is, your argument is irrational.  You can admit that, or you can continue to attack those who point it out with irrelevancies.  Either way, it's obvious to pretty much everyone else.

      •  Well, I've never had anything but (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gnbhull, dsteffen

        pasteurized milk, and I've never broken a bone either. Not sure what that means, other than I've got good bones.

        I'm not going to stop you from drinking whatever you want, either. But I do appreciate that the vast majority of milk that's sold in this country is not carrying disease of any kind.

        You can't see or taste disease. And we know that most big dairies aren't going to pay to test for it.

    •  I got my information... (12+ / 0-)

      We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. - Justice Louis D. Brandeis

      by dsteffen on Sun Mar 25, 2012 at 08:47:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're not getting good info there (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JVolvo

        You do understand that the US government also approved the use of glyphosate, aka Round Up, without a single peer-reviewed academic journal study that said it was safe.

        Do you really think the US government has the individual consumer at heart and not big corporate, mono-cultural producers?

        I mean, really.  So many people at this site "get it" around other issues, like big oil, big defense, big pharmaceutical, but then, like automatons, they turn and imagine that the US government is out there protecting them by requiring pasteurization of milk and raiding farms that understand the value of raw milk.

        All I can really urge you to do is to study and read and talk to people.  Pasteurization saves lives all right, because otherwise the large-scale industrial producers would be killing people with the way they are making milk.   And they are, but slowly, over years and years.  

        Your small milk producers who pasture on grass don't need to re-engineer their product because it is safe and nutritious as nature intended.

        Industrial food production in America ruins our health, our environment and consumes more fossil fuel than any segment of our economy.

        by Mi Corazon on Mon Mar 26, 2012 at 07:06:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ahianne

          So you're saying they're falsifying the data?  Can you provide some evidence to support that contention?

          We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. - Justice Louis D. Brandeis

          by dsteffen on Tue Mar 27, 2012 at 10:52:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (128)
  • Community (59)
  • 2016 (50)
  • Environment (39)
  • Elections (37)
  • Media (34)
  • Republicans (32)
  • Hillary Clinton (31)
  • Law (29)
  • Jeb Bush (29)
  • Culture (27)
  • Iraq (27)
  • Barack Obama (26)
  • Climate Change (25)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (25)
  • Civil Rights (24)
  • Labor (20)
  • Economy (20)
  • LGBT (16)
  • Congress (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site