The Shocking Truth About Raw Milk and Pasteurization
by Vin Miller
Despite dairy being a major staple of the modern diet and often being promoted as an excellent source of nutrition, it’s also one of the most common sources of food sensitivities and is associated with many disorders and diseases. However, as with most foods, there’s a significant amount of variation in the quality of milk, and this is a critical factor to consider.
More than 2000 years ago, Hippocrates, often referred to as the father of medicine, promoted the healing effects of milk. Since then, many doctors have continued to do the same. Milk is essential to the survival and development of baby mammals, including humans, and even the adult members of traditional tribes such as the Masai and Samburu continue to thrive on significant amounts of it. In addition, anecdotal evidence as well as published research supports its numerous health benefits. If this is the case, then how can milk be associated with so many health problems? One of the most compelling reasons is the difference between pasteurized milk and raw milk. However, to understand why pasteurization is not the great idea that it’s widely believed to be and why it destroys many of milk’s inherent health benefits, it’s necessary to consider the history of milk and the politics behind pasteurization.
How Alcohol Influenced the Need for Pasteurization
In the early 1800s and continuing into the early 1900s, as the populations of major cities in America increased, so did the demand for whiskey and milk. At the same time, the amount of land available for dairy farming was also decreasing. This encouraged the practice of housing dairy cattle in whiskey distilleries and feeding them the grain based waste product of distillation, also known as distillery slop. This feed was so poor in quality that the cattle it was fed to often became diseased and emaciated, but when fed in large amounts, it promoted abundant milk production. Commonly referred to as slop milk or swill milk, this milk was so poor in quality that butter and cheese couldn’t be made from it. In addition, because of its thinness and pale bluish color, additives such as sugar, starch, flour, and chalk were used to improve its taste and appearance.
The conditions of distillery cattle pens were even worse than those of modern day factory farms. The cattle were tied to the same spot for their entire lives which rarely lasted longer than 9 months. This is just a fraction of their typical 12 to 15 year lifespan and was a result of the rapid development and spread of disease caused by inadequate nutrition and unsanitary conditions.
Around the time that swill milk became popular, infant mortality and tuberculosis became much more prevalent. Although it was eventually determined that swill milk was an unlikely source of the tuberculosis pathogen that infected humans, the poor quality of the milk certainly didn’t help one’s immune system fight it, and there was still good reason to believe that swill milk was associated with the increased mortality of young children. This is what eventually prompted the need for pasteurization, but it’s critically important to realize that this perceived need was nothing more than a compensation for the seriously flawed dairy farming practices that compromised the health of cattle and the quality of their milk. In fact, it was widely accepted at the time that raw milk from healthy cattle was safe, and nearly all proponents of pasteurization supported the availability of it as long as it was certified.
The Disadvantages of Pasteurization
Pasteurization was invented by Louis Pasteur in the 1800s and is a process that exposes raw milk to high temperatures for a short duration to destroy pathogens. Unfortunately, it also destroys many of the desirable nutrients and microorganisms that give milk its health promoting benefits. In particular, pasteurization destroys enzymes that contribute to immunity as well as the digestive enzymes needed to digest and assimilate milk’s nutrients. In fact, the test for successful pasteurization is the complete destruction of the enzyme phosphatase. One of the enzymes inactivated by pasteurization is lactase which breaks down the milk sugar lactose. The destruction of this enzyme is an important factor in the high prevalence of lactose intolerance. Pasteurization also destroys a significant amount of the vitamin content in milk including vitamins C, B6, and B12, and it alters the chemical state and absorption of calcium and other minerals.
Another criticism of pasteurization, aside from the fact that it promotes undesirable farming practices, is that it prioritizes the sterilization of milk above the resistance of the person drinking it. One of the important functions of milk is to transfer immunity from mother to baby, and not only does this include the existence of immune supporting compounds, but also the pathogens that cause the initiation of an immune response and the development of antibodies. Pasteurization greatly compromises both of these benefits. While it’s certainly a smart idea to pasteurize low quality milk to reduce the excessive quantity of pathogens, this doesn’t mean that the natural pathogen levels of properly produced raw milk are inherently dangerous. In reality, it’s actually a benefit.
Modern research associates pasteurized milk with a number of allergies and illnesses including asthma, bronchitis, eczema, rheumatoid arthritis, musculoskeletal pain, multiple sclerosis, Lou Gherig’s disease, and even antisocial and aggressive behavior. One study even found that young criminals drank almost 10 times as much milk as the control group which isn’t really that surprising considering the effects diet can have on character. In many cases, when milk is removed from the diet, these problems subside or completely disappear. This is a significant concern considering that dairy is a staple of the modern diet, and it’s unfortunate that this type of research doesn’t differentiate between pasteurized milk and raw milk.
The Germ Theory and Why Pasteurization is a Poor Solution
Louis Pasteur, the inventor of pasteurization, is well known for his germ theory which attributes the cause of illness and disease to pathogens. This theory is very much alive and well today and continues to be the basis of modern medicine. Despite the popularity of Pasteur’s theory, a well respected scientist of the same era named Claude Bernard disagreed with him. Bernard believed that the “terrain”, which can be interpreted to mean the level of one’s health or physiological function, particularly in regard to the immune system and the balance of intestinal flora, to be the primary factor in preventing illness and disease. This theory is a major basis of the natural health movement and is even starting to gain support from conventional medicine. Despite the overwhelming popularity of Pasteur’s germ theory and the influence it has had on our society, many sources claim that shortly prior to Pasteur’s death, he admitted that Bernard was right and that the “terrain” is indeed everything.
The germ theory, along with pasteurization, promotes an unrealistic ideal of eliminating foreign microorganisms. About 90 percent of the cells in the human body are that of foreign bacteria, and in just the intestines alone, there exists an estimated 6 pounds of beneficial bacteria which contribute to digestion, immunity, detoxification, and a number of other important functions. It’s obvious that human health depends on a symbiotic relationship with these foreign microorganisms, but pasteurization and modern medicine’s support of the germ theory directly contradict this. Granted, there are instances when the immune system is overwhelmed with harmful pathogens and intervention is necessary, but in reality, the excessive attempts to sterilize our food and environment are mostly a compensation for compromised health and the poor food quality that results from bad farming practices.
Unhealthy Cows Produce Unhealthy Milk
A cow’s health is largely determined by its diet, and the nutritional quality of a cow’s milk is determined by the health of the cow. Therefore, the nutritional quality and healthfulness of milk depends on the diet of the cow that produces it. Cows naturally graze on grass, but most modern dairy cattle are fed grain and soy. Even worse, factory farmers feed their cattle bakery waste, citrus peels loaded with pesticides, and other items that barely resemble food. These unnatural diets greatly compromise the health of the cattle, and in turn, the quality of the milk that they produce. Furthermore, modern dairy cattle are often fed antibiotics on a regular basis to compensate for their poor health and susceptibility to illness, and some are also fed hormones to increase their milk production. Some dairy producers are even reviving swill milk by feeding their cattle the waste products of ethanol production. As a result of all this, modern dairy cattle generally live only about a quarter of their typical lifespan, and although these issues have been understood for more than 160 years, feeding dairy cattle an unnatural and poor quality diet continues to be the industry standard.
A common outcome of the poor conditions that dairy cattle are raised in is an infection of the mammary glands called mastitis. It’s estimated that 40% of all dairy cows in the United States have this infection, and the ones that do often secrete pus into their milk. This is identified by high counts of somatic cells, and according to the State and Federal Pasteurized Milk Ordinance, milk can contain a somatic cell count as high as 750,000 per milliliter prior to pasteurization. In contrast, raw milk from a healthy and properly raised cow typically contains a somatic cell count of 50,000 per milliliter or less.
Another common illness which results from the poor conditions in which most dairy cattle are raised is paratuberculosis, and similar to mastitis, it’s estimated to affect 40% of American cattle. Paratuberculosis is believed to be pathogenic to humans as well as cattle and has been identified as a possible cause of Crohn’s disease. The beneficial bacteria that exists in raw milk from healthy cattle can naturally inhibit pathogens like this and provide resistance to them, but ironically, these bacteria are destroyed by pasteurization while the pathogen that causes paratuberculosis survives it.
Why Raw Milk from Pasture Raised Cattle is Superior
Modern dairy cows are forced to produce as much as 17,000 pounds of milk per cycle which is 20 times more than what’s needed to sustain a healthy calf. Because cows transfer a fixed amount of vitamins into their milk, this has the effect of diluting its nutritional quality. This especially applies with vitamin E and beta-carotene. Pasture raised cattle generally aren’t pushed to this extent and their milk therefore contains more vitamins. The dairy industry’s solution to this is to fortify the diluted milk with calcium and synthetic vitamins which are poorly absorbed and can sometimes have toxic effects.
Cattle that naturally graze on pasture produce milk with higher concentrations of the fat soluble vitamins A, D, and K2 which the work of Dr. Weston A. Price has shown to be critical to excellent health. Milk from pastured cattle also contains higher amounts conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) which is believed to help fight cancer and prevent excessive weight gain. Finally, pasture fed cattle produce milk with a much healthier balance of essential fatty acids while the milk from grain fed cattle tends to be excessively high in omega 6 fatty acids which is an imbalance that promotes inflammation and has been associated with cancer and heart disease.
One of the most dangerous effects of feeding grain to cattle is that it causes their digestive tract to become more acidic which increases pathogen resistance. This is particularly the case with E. coli, and there are now strains of it that are resistant to the stomach acid of humans which normally kills it.
In addition to the higher quality of meat and milk that results, raising cattle on pasture is also much better for the environment because it eliminates the need for the grain and soy crops that are used to manufacture feed. More importantly, cattle manure is a natural fertilizer for the very same pastures that they graze on, but when they’re deprived of frequent opportunities to graze, their manure becomes a massive source of pollution, especially if it contains pathogens and chemical residues which is typically the case.
Why Organic Isn’t Good Enough
Even when certified by the USDA, organic food can be of poor quality, and this is especially the case with milk. Although policy changes are underway, the USDA requirements for organic certification are extremely vague in regard to how often cattle should graze on pasture. As such, many cattle that produce certified organic milk are confined to a feed lot most of the time and are fed grains. Although the grains are organic, this unnatural diet still compromises the health of the cattle and the quality of their milk. Horizon Organic, one of the most popular brands of organic milk, has been criticized many times for such practices. With large dairy operations cutting corners like this and pressure from major retailers like Walmart practically making it mandatory, it’s very difficult for honest dairy farmers to follow sound and natural farming practices and still make a profit.
In addition, many organic brands are ultrapasteurized which means that the milk is exposed to higher temperatures, but for a shorter duration. Ultrapasteurization destroys more nutrients than regular pasteurization, and the milk that results can last up to 6 months without being refrigerated. Since people would be less likely to buy ultrapasteurized milk if they knew this, stores refrigerate it anyway. Even without the residues of antibiotics, pesticides, and other chemicals, it’s arguable that ultrapasteurized organic milk is even less nutritious than conventional pasteurized milk.
The Politics Behind Pasteurization
Within the last thirty years, legislation has banned the retail sale of raw milk in most states and only allows it to be purchased directly at certified farms. Some states don’t allow it to be sold at all. The FDA asserts that raw milk is inherently dangerous, but evidence suggests otherwise. Furthermore, who is the FDA protecting by discouraging the legal sale of raw milk, us or the dairy industry? As we’ve seen from their interactions with the drug industry, the FDA isn’t very deserving of our trust.
Government policies, laws, and regulations on milk sales and pricing have reduced the number of dairy farms in America from approximately four million in 1950 to just over one hundred thousand in 2000. Meanwhile, the dairy industry has spent decades investing in propaganda and political lobbying that has left much of modern society, including many politicians, believing that raw milk is inherently dangerous. Unfortunately, it’s harder than ever for a small dairy farmer to survive, especially if they wish to embrace natural farming practices and sell raw milk. Despite the growing consumer demand for this, state and federal government agencies have gone out of their way to make it excessively difficult for raw dairy farmers to stay in business.
It seems obvious that this is more a result of political lobbying from the dairy industry than the concern for truth and public health that should drive political decisions. The dairy industry has two major incentives to do this. First, the nutritional superiority of raw milk presents a threatening potential for competition that they don’t want, and second, pasteurization allows large dairy farmers to get away with the industrialized farming practices that greatly increase profit at the cost of quality and the environment.
Proponents of pasteurization will reference research that shows the supposed benefits of pasteurized milk and the disadvantages of raw milk, but similar to the drug industry’s influence on research, many academic researchers who conduct studies on milk and promote pasteurization have financial ties to the dairy industry. In addition, because the dairy industry also funds many of the research journals that publish this research, it’s politically dangerous for a researcher to oppose the overwhelming bias for pasteurization. As a result, most modern nutritional recommendations are based more on politics than good science and common sense.
A Closer Look at the Safety of Raw Milk
Raw milk contains enzymes and beneficial bacteria that help to destroy pathogens. It also contains immune cells which can also destroy pathogens in addition to transferring immunity and producing antibodies. As such, it shouldn’t be surprising that raw milk has been shown to be inhospitable to the growth of pathogens such as salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria monocytogenes which are some of the very same pathogens that pasteurization is used to destroy. It’s unfortunate and ironic that some types of harmful pathogens can survive pasteurization while many of the natural ingredients in milk that can provide protection against them are destroyed. In addition, the proliferation of such pathogens is usually caused by the poor dairy farming practices that pasteurization compensates for.
In reality, it’s much more likely to develop a food borne illness from other common foods such as meat and vegetables than it is from raw milk, but these other foods aren’t subjected to the excessive amount of scrutiny that raw milk is. For example, on a per serving basis, illness from the pathogen Listeria monocytogenes is estimated to be 10 times more likely to result from deli meats than raw milk, but nobody is warned about such a danger, and it’s certainly much easier to purchase deli meat than raw milk.
It’s estimated from CDC data that you’d have to drink more than 3 million glasses of raw milk before you might expect to contract an illness of any kind from it, and according to data on the incidence of illness caused by raw milk, you’re more than 25 times as likely to get sick from other foods. Raw milk causes about 60 cases of illness per year, which may very well be exaggerated, and is only 0.01% of the estimated 500,000 raw milk drinkers in America. In contrast, the rate of illness from other foods is 25%, or 76 million cases in a population of about 300 million.
Many years ago, contamination of raw milk from the farmer or the milking equipment was a legitimate concern, but these issues have been eliminated by closed system milking equipment and strict sanitation regulations. I can appreciate the fact that pasteurization makes milk available to those who might not be able to afford it otherwise, but based on the compromised nutritional quality of pasteurized milk and the many health issues that have been associated with it, is it really worth it? Either way, there’s really no good reason why the government should restrict people from making their own choices about purchasing and consuming raw milk. After all, who is the government really protecting, us or the dairy industry?
Another concern that applies to both raw milk and pasteurized milk is whether or not it contains A1 beta casein. Several thousand years ago, a genetic mutation in some breeds of cattle has resulted in their production of A1 beta-casein which has been associated with autism, heart disease, and type 1 diabetes. Fortunately, some breeds of cattle don’t produce this type of casein, but most American breeds do. To minimize this risk, it’s best to get milk from Jersey or Guernsey cows, or even better, drink goat’s milk instead.
Raw Milk Resources
Despite how difficult the government has made it to purchase raw milk and how few raw dairy farmers remain, it’s still possible to get it if you’re willing to go out of your way. The Weston A. Price Foundation has created the website RealMilk.com which is an excellent resource on raw milk and lists by state the places where you can purchase it.
For more information on milk in general, I highly recommend reading The Untold Story of Milk by Ron Shmid ND. This book provides a fascinating recap of Milk’s history, an unsettling account of the politics behind pasteurization, and most importantly, a compelling case for the benefits of raw milk.
Post this on Twitter
Post this on Facebook
Support this on StumbleUpon
Email this to friends
Leave a comment
Hi Vin, this is really fascinating.
First of all I think it is a crime against freedom for the government to prevent the population from buying what they want. As far as I’m concerned if you are willing to take the risk, you should be able to buy it.
However, I recently read that in 1938 before widespread pasteurization, that 25% of all food born illnesses in the U.S. were caused by milk and that by 1993 that was down to 1% as a result of pasteurization. Maybe this was because of contamination that no longer applies.
I do understand your point about heating destroying the benefits. The one thing the raw food people have really correct is that cooking food destroys critical enzymes. I don’t drink milk anymore because I didn’t tolerate it well.
Like about everything else I say let the buyers decide. If you want raw milk it should be freely available. If you want pasteurized milk it should be freely available.
This article certainly gives me a different perspective on raw milk. The problem is that we don’t really know because it is not widely used. There are no modern statistics for he U.S. for the relative safety of widespread raw milk. Let us decide for ourselves. The government rarely protects the consumer. It usually ends up protecting the producer from competition and knowledge.
Hi Stephen, thanks for your comment!
I’m glad you’re reevaluating your position on raw milk and I think you’re absolutely right that the decision should be left to the buyer. After all, we’re free to purchase alcohol, soda, and processed foods despite their obvious contributions to many of today’s numerous health problems.
I believe the 1938 statistic you’re referring to is largely a result of the swill milk and some of the other dairy farming shortcuts that I described in the article. For more detail on this, I highly recommend reading The Untold Story of Milk. It truly is a wealth of information.
For another view of the risks of raw milk, I would urge your readers to review these posts and download the articles:
Before You Consider Drinking Raw Milk
A Risky Drink: Raw Milk Consumption Does Cause E. Coli and Campylobacter Infections
Comparing the Food Safety Record of Pasteurized and Raw Milk Products
Hi Bill, thank you for presenting an opposing view. I think it’s important for everyone to understand both sides of the argument and come to their own conclusion.
I agree that some people get carried away with promoting raw milk as a miracle cure. I’m also glad to see that you’re not just isolating raw milk and have taken a stance against food industry giants like Cargill. However, I think you may not truly understand the motivation behind raw milk, especially as an attorney who’s focused on the contamination of food more so than it’s nutritional quality. It’s not only about the miracle cures that you mention, but also the excellent nutrition that is so necessary for optimal health.
The bottom line is that the raw milk from properly raised and healthy cattle is an excellent source of nutrition and should be readily available for anyone who chooses to purchase it. Your position on this matter leads me to believe that you haven’t read Nutrition and Physical Degeration which I’d like to think would give you a much better appreciation for traditional whole foods that aren’t altered by pasteurization or other forms of modern processing. Pottenger’s Cats might be an enlightening read for you as well.
For anyone who reads Mr. Marler’s articles, I also encourage you to also read the responses to them prepared by the Weston A. Price Foundation. They address every reference cited and also explain how some of these references actually support the safety and benefits of raw milk.
Raw Milk: What the Scientific Literature Really Says
Response to Anti-Raw Milk Position Paper by Bill Marler
I used not to tolerate milk and dairy products very well either. I switched to unpasteurized milk and cheeses made from it and have had no difficulties since. YMMY.
Hi David, thanks for your comment! Many people have reported similar experiences which are likely a result of the additional enzymes and beneficial bacteria that exist in raw milk.
Wow, Vin, excellent and very thorough post about raw milk! We switched to raw the summer of ‘09 and haven’t looked back. I can’t even imagine drinking pasteurized now!
Thank you for bringing up the issue of ultra-pasteurization. I don’t think most people are even aware of what that means. Ultra-pasteurized milk is so dead it’s just plain scary. The fact that it can be stored at room temperature without souring should make people suspicious. But of course, at the store it’s in the refrigerated section – just for show, I guess?
I’ve been blessed with a great supplier of raw milk less than an hour from my house. Most people aren’t so fortunate. But it’s still legally sold as “pet milk” here, not for human consumption. But between my family and our two dogs I think you can guess who’s getting the milk in this house…
Thanks, Elizabeth!
I agree that ultrapasteurization is an important issue that many people aren’t aware of, especially those who buy organic milk and are expecting much better quality than what they may really be getting.
I fortunately have two farms to choose from within about an hour’s drive, and it’s legal to buy raw milk for human consumption, but only on the farm. With the growing demand for raw milk, I’m hopeful that it will become easier to get.
Hi Vin,
I love your blog! I completed the Nutritional Therapist Training program through the NTA http://nutritionaltherapy.com/ . It was a great program which focused on Weston A. Price fundamentals and eating as close to natural as possible.
They promoted drinking raw milk in the program, but what most students found was that we all gained weight when switching to it! Just wondering if you might know why? It doesn’t discourage me from drinking it but I just don’t drink a whole lot of it.
Thanks!
Wendy
Hi Wendy, thanks for your feedback!
There are so many factors that contribute to weight gain that it’s hard to say. An 8 ounce glass of raw milk contains about 9 grams of fat and 12 grams of sugar. Depending on what else someone is eating and what their individual metabolic tendencies are, either type of nutrient can cause weight gain, but I’d be more likely to blame the sugar than the fat. Milk is a common cause of food sensitivities which can cause weight gain as well.
If the weight gain resulted from replacing pasteurized whole milk with an equal amount of raw milk, then that would be really interesting. Raw milk does tend to have more fat than pasteurized whole milk, but I don’t think this factor alone would make enough of a difference to cause noticeable weight gain. Homogenization could also be a factor as can the body’s adjustment to the additional amount of living microorganisms that exists in raw milk.
Another thought is that the larger amounts of enzymes and beneficial bacteria in raw milk may improve the absorption of nutrients from the milk as well as from other foods. Since improved absorption is almost like eating more food, I think it’s reasonable to consider it as a potential cause of weight gain. However, I think the appropriate response would be to eliminate or restrict other foods in the diet that have less nutritional benefit.
As a strength trainer – NOT nutritionist – I must admit that the topic of milk is arguably the most confusing subject out there.
There are so many conflicting views – each battling one another – from milk is great for you to organic milk is horrible to milk causes cancer and death. With so much overwhelming information being tossed in all directions, the topic of milk is something we all need to carefully read, research, and understand in all angles, not just one —> this including myself, who consumes approximately 1 glass of organic milk every other day, usually late at night.
Furhman’s book EAT TO LIVE has some sections about milk. Great book to read.
Hi Arin, thanks for your comment!
As you can see from my response to Bill Marler below, I agree that this can be a complicated issue, and the politics behind all of it certainly doesn’t help. There’s even more to consider in regard to beta casein which I’ll be writing about soon.
Thanks for the book recommendation, I added it to my reading list.
Vin – the earlier citations that I gave you were NOT the ones the folks at Weston Price discussed. Here are the ones that they had some objections too:
Raw Milk Pros: Review of the Peer Reviewed Literature
Raw Milk Cons: Review of the Peer Reviewd Literature
I was trying to start an honest discussion. I have not seen anyone refute or comment on this paper I published on my blog (yet):
Comparing the Food Safety Record of Pasteurized and Raw Milk Products
Regarding being opposed to raw milk – I am not per se – although in my experience of representing the people who drank it and became severely ill – the claimed benefits do not outweigh the risks – IMHO. If raw milk is to be consumed, I would hope that it is at a direct farm sale (not retail) at a certified, inspected and tested dairy – this is how raw milk sales in Washington are done for the most part.
Hi Bill,
Yes, the two responses from the Weston A Price Foundation are based on your “pros” and “cons” articles which are a basis for the first two articles that you originally provided. I should have been more clear in pointing out that the responses from the Weston A Price Foundation don’t address your third article, although a good amount of it is based on these responses.
While I think there’s unfortunately a lot of bias on both sides of the argument to sort through, I understand your preference for direct farm sales. I have no doubt that many dairy producers are relying on pasteurization to compensate for poor quality, and as demand grows, I think we may find more raw milk farmers who are guilty of this as well. However, such a farmer can just as easily sell their milk directly from their farm, and in contrast, the retail sale of raw milk doesn’t directly affect its safety if it’s from a reputable source.
If you think the retail sale of raw milk would be a concern for uninformed consumers, then I think a warning label would be a good compromise. As with most things, especially regarding health, the consumer must embrace some responsibility for learning more about where their food comes from.
Here are a few points that I think are missing from your comparison article.
Mastitis and Milk Contamination
You reference mastitis as one of the causes of contamination. Obviously, a cow’s susceptibility to this infection is largely based on its health. Clearly, a farmer who goes out of their way to raise their livestock in natural conditions is going to have much healthier cattle with a greatly reduced risk of contamination. In addition, if such a farmer takes it upon themselves to regularly test their cattle and remove them from the milking rotation if infected, the risk will be reduced even further. While this is pretty much a necessity for raw milk farmers because they can’t rely on pasteurization to compensate for short cuts, I still think it’s an important point that you neglected to acknowledge. Farming practices make a big difference, and in the midst of refuting numbers and statistics, it seems that this simple and critical concept has been overlooked.
I think it’s also important to point out that there are many dairy farmers who do take these precautions, some of which have been written about in The Untold Story of Milk.
You also reference manure as a source of contamination and state that there are copious amounts of it even on farms that raise their cattle naturally and on pasture. It should be pointed out that a cow being confined and forced to stand in manure is much different than it being free to roam and defecate on many acres of land. In addition, the manure of a healthier cow is less likely to contain a worrysome amount of harmful pathogens.
Beneficial Bacteria
You suggest that the Weston A Price’s cocern of pasteurization destroying beneficial bacteria is questionable and that there’s very little research on this topic. The part about the research seems to be true, but there are studies that provide some valuable insight.
Anyone who’s interested in the probiotic benefits of milk will obviously be interested in fermented milk, especially if they’ve embraced the beliefs of the Weston A Price Foundation. A 1989 study titled Factors affecting the development of two fermented milk products in Zimbabwe showed raw milk to have more beneficial lactic acid bacteria than pasteurized milk which continued to be the case after fermentation. However, the discussion also states “it is difficult to recommend that unpasteurized milk be used to produce fermented milk products on an industrial scale since this constitutes a possible health hazard”, but I think this is a fair statement based on the poor quality that typically results from modern industrial farming practices.
You also say that the Weston A. Price Foundation’s claim that beneficial bacteria protects against harmful pathogens is unsubstantiated. Although WAPF may not have fully elaborated on the results of the Doyle and Roman study, it does still show the existence of an antimicrobial benefit. A similar study to the one previously mentioned, Fate of pathogenic and non-pathogenic Escherichia coli strains in two fermented milk products, provides some evidence of this benefit as well. In the study, milk was inocculated with several strains of E. coli and allowed to ferment. During fermentation, the raw milk allowed less E. coli proliferation than pasteurized milk, and during 4 days of storage, the concentration of E. coli was reduced more in the raw milk than the pasteurized milk
Also, Organic Pastures subjected their raw milk and colostrum to a challenge test conducted by the independent lab BSK Food & Dairy Laboratories. The pathogen counts declined over time and in some cases were undetectable within a week. Although the results don’t appear to be published, the lab concluded that “raw colostrum and raw milk do not appear to support the growth of Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7 or Listeria monocytogenes.”
While it may be true that the antimicrobial benefits of raw milk aren’t enough to overcome significant contamination, which was the conclusion that the authors of the E. coli study on fermented milk, I think it’s important to acknowledge that the antimicrobial benefits do exist. Arguing about their effectiveness in fighting infection is a different matter with many variables.
Nutritional Quality
You use nutrition labels to support your claim that the nutritional quality of pasteurized milk is similar to raw milk, but nutrition labels only account for a few nutrients. It’s well known that pasteurization destroys enzymes and denatures protein, and research also shows that it destroys immune compounds and reduces the amounts of some vitamins. As such, the information on nutrition labels is obviously not adequate for a reasonable comparison.
Final Thoughts
While pastuerization destroys harmful pathogens, it also makes milk less nutritious. Unfortunately, evaluating if this is a tradeoff that’s worth while is a very complicated matter. Raw milk can easily be contaminated, but the quality of milk produced for pasteurization is typically poor, and it’s possible for pasteurized milk to be contaminated too. There’s a lot to consider, and there’s no right answer. It should be up to the consumer to decide, but in some states, raw milk can’t be purchased anywhere, not even on the farm.
One might argue that even if there’s a very slim chance of becoming severely ill from raw milk that it’s not worth it. However, it’s important to realize that it’s possible to become just as ill from pasteurized milk, and given the nature of epidemiology and the difficulty in accurately identifying the true cause of such an illness, it’s not at all easy to say where the most risk lies. One thing that everyone should be able to agree on is that excellent nutrition and healthy lifestyle habits will strengthen immunity and reduce the risk of such illnesses, and in my opinion, raw milk is more conducive to this approach. Perhaps fermented raw milk is a slightly safer choice than unfermented raw milk, and it’s probably a lot more beneficial as well.
Hi Vin, great article again. I really enjoy reading all your work. Many books have been read down to your recommendations and spurred further research from myself into many areas. Thank you for that, the last few months have been most enlightening.
The subject or raw milk is another example of how the food industry take us for a ride. To me it is just obvious, anything in it’s raw unaltered state is better than anything tampered with. You should only add when sprouting, fermenting or soaking something which are age old practices. I have one question incidently regarding soaking. Do you drain what you soak after or put everything in together?
Regarding milk, I believe homogenization is worse than pasteurization. I believe it also causes inflammation as well as further problems. I do believe that warming milk up slight is a very good sleep aid. What is your position on having milk away from another meal? I have read numerous times especially in more ancient practices to consume it alone to not interfere with digestion?
Thanks again Vin, loving your work.
Thanks, Justin!
I’m glad to hear that I’ve inspired you to do some reading! I can’t help wanting to share a lot of what I read about, so it’s always nice to know when it makes a difference.
Although I think there are a few exceptions, I completely agree about it being best to consume food in it’s raw and unaltered state. It’s what nature intended, and to me, it’s a voice of reason to balance the technical flaws, politics, and conflicts of interest that often influence research.
When I soak nuts, I put them in a glass bowl, fill it with filtered water, add some sea salt, and let it sit overnight. The next day, I drain all of the water out of the bowl, use whatever nuts I need to prepare meals, and store the rest in the refrigerator.
I’d say that homogenization is definitely worse then pasteurization from the perspective that it’s totally unnecessary. It’s primary purpose of preventing the cream from separating in milk is just a matter of convenience.
I don’t know of any good reason to consume milk separately from other foods. I don’t believe in the food combining concept except perhaps for people who need to do it because of compromised digestion. I’d be happy to read more into it if you have any good resources to recommend.
Vin,
Very clear and articulate. I enjoy reading what you write. Here are a couple thoughts.
The number 1 way to increase the health of lactating cows, goats etc. is to increase the brix reading of the forages when harvested. This goes back to a proper fertility and amendment program for the soil.
When forages are at 16 brix or higher the milk quality has a phenomenal taste. You have to taste it to really understand the immense improvement in flavor as compared to dairy animals eating 12 brix forages. With high brix forages the need for grain (concentrated energy) is negligible since the energy requirements are being met by the forages. The weakness of the WAPF approach to raw organic milk is the absence of an objective standard to measure forage quality such as a brix reading.
The second aspect to consider when talking about cow’s milk is the issue of A1 vs. A2 milk. If you contact http://www.acresusa.com and ask them for a reprint of their recent interview on that subject it will be quit enlightening. This is an issue that needs to be discussed and offered to the discerning public.
Keep up the good work Vin,
Jon
Thanks, Jon!
I definitely agree that the quality of soil and the resulting quality of the forage are key issues. Not just for the energy requirements of dairy cattle, but for farming in general. Having read Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, I know that Weston Price himself was definitely an advocate of the importance of soil quality, especially relating to the rapidly growing spring and fall grasses that he associated with his discovery of “Activator X” (now believed to be vitamin K2).
I also agree that A1 beta casein is an important issue to consider. Devil in the Milk by Keith Woodford is a great resource on this matter.
Some people are concerned about becoming sick from raw dairy foods. Initially, you may have some minor symptoms of detoxification from drinking certified raw milk. A few people will need to take the time to allow their bodies to adjust to the milk. For thousands of years, many groups in Africa, India, and other parts of the world have utilized raw milk. Raw milk from a grassfed cow or goat is one of the safest foods available. Don’t let the well meaning (but misguided) Bill Marler fool you into believing otherwise. High quality raw milk is much less likely to cause food-borne illness due to the presence of enzymes and probiotics, which help to disable the growth of any pathogens. As a result, unpasteurized high-quality raw milk has a better safety record than vegetables, fruits, packaged meats, and pateurized milk. The FACTS speak for themselves. Don’t let the misguided acts of a few destroy your right to REAL FOOD!
Being a vegan for over 13 years almost wrecked my health permanently. It wasn’t until I realized that not a single human on this planet can live a healthy and long life without eating somekind of animal protein and fat – be it fish or land animal. At the very least eat eggs and raw milk. My recovery is the result of a base diet of raw eggs and raw goat/cow milk. My body soaked it up like a sponge. No more colds (and no more feeling cold), no more cold sores, no more skin problems, better eye sight, stronger body overall. I do a morning kettlebell routine I wouldn’t have had the energy to do while restricting animal proteins from my diet. My metabolic type is clearly not centered around huge amounts of vegetable matter (moderate/lite only). I only wish I’d found out about metabolic typing 13 years ago.
Hi Jason,
Thanks for your support and especially for sharing your story about being a vegan. While I respect the choices of those who follow such a diet, I agree that it’s very difficult to support optimal health without protein and fat from animals. Raw dairy is an especially good option for those who are willing to abandon their vegan diets but are still unwilling to eat meat or fish.
Congratulations on making such a great recovery! Metabolic Typing has made a significant difference for me too. It sounds like you must be a protein type! That’s usually the case with people who have a lot of trouble with a vegan or vegetarian diet.
Hey Vin,
Just came across your site on Google Search by accident. Very nice site. I can tell you put a lot of hard work into every article you write. Great information too! Nice job on everything.
What do you think about vat pasteurization? I have been looking for raw milk from local farmers for a little while around my area. I haven’t had much luck, but I have found milk that has been vat pasteurized. Do you know anything about this?
Thanks again Vin. Keep up the great work.
Warm regards,
Josh
I agree that raw milk should be legally available everywhere in a free country and there are many industries colluding with the government to destroy consumer choice (probably including the dairy industry). To me this is a major political problem and the only way to solve it is for us to elect leaders that understand the role of government and are committed to keeping it as small and unobtrusive as humanly possible.
However, I’m not convinced that humans should be drinking the milk of other animals raw or otherwise. I haven’t done a lot of research on the issue but I believe that people have only been doing it for the last 9000 years or so, which seems to be roughly the same amount of time they have been growing and consuming grains, some of which are definitely bad for your health. Is it a coincidence that both came about at the same time or a natural consequence of farming? If consuming grains can be bad for your health isn’t it reasonable to suspect that drinking cow’s milk also might also be unhealthy? What is the compelling reason to do it?
Hi Dave, thanks for your comment!
I question how possible it would be for the rare politician who truly appreciates philosophies that contradict mainstream belief to have enough financial support to actually win an election. Either way, consumer demand can be a very influential force that should certainly be considered as well, if not instead.
According to The Untold Story of Milk, there is evidence of humans consuming milk as far back as 30,000 years ago which is about three times as long as we’re believed to have been consuming grains.
Although I agree that dairy and grain were an unlikely factor in our evolution, the work of Dr. Weston A. Price has convinced me that they can both be part of a diet that promotes optimal health. As Jason says below, there is both anecdotal and scientific evidence supporting numerous health benefits associated with raw milk. However, I also think it’s important to keep a balanced perspective and realize that dairy and grain are two of the most problematic foods in the modern diet. While some of this may be the result of modern farming and processing practices, this isn’t the case in regard to problems like A1 beta casein and gluten sensitivity, and these are important issues that shouldn’t be overlooked.
Hello Dave,
If you’re not covinced by googling the following:
“humans evolved milk” (NO QUOTATION) = 8,040,000 hits
nothing will.
What would be a compelling reason to drink raw cow or goat milk? Spend a few weeks reading the posts by real people with real health problems that end up being eliminated or drastically reduced. Just google “raw milk”. Then, try it yourself. No one thing is for “every-BODY”. My body responses negatively to huge abouts of vegetable matter. I found this out through many many years going against my genetic heritage and gut instincts (literally and figuratively). Know thyself – read, study and see how it fits.
Your point on “grains” can also be easily addressed if you research how cultures for centuries learned how to properly prepare grains, seeds and nuts to eliminate or reduce enzyme inhibitors and other elements that allowed them to be digested and all the nutrients assimilated.
Jason