![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
babusyatanyahttp://babusyatanya.blogspot.ca/2013/05/blog-post.html
"вы что нас за идиотов держите"?
Health myths: Pasteurized versus raw milk - Weighing the risks and benefits
Vancouver Sun May 1, 2013
для коллекции процитирую эту газетную говнятину
ЭThe milk we buy in stores is heat pasteurized, a process that destroys some vitamins, enzymes and beneficial bacteria. Raw unpasteurized milk contains all of the above. We don’t need to argue about that. The question you really need to consider is: Do the perceived benefits of drinking raw cow’s milk outweigh the potential dangers?
The raw milk debate is raging in newspapers, on the web and in courtrooms across the land. Raw milk advocates don’t want the government telling them what they can and cannot eat. I totally understand that. They have websites full of testimonials from self-appointed experts and apocryphal tales of raw milk curing everything from scurvy to psoriasis and tuberculosis.
A lot of these tales are so outlandish that it tends to undermine their credibility, but I’m willing to overlook that for the moment because there is a grain of truth in what they say. Pasteurization does destroy vitamins C and B12 and it does kill lactobacillus. It probably also harms the natural antibodies in milk.
Like breast milk, cow’s milk contains everything a baby needs to thrive. Well, everything a baby cow needs to thrive. But human babies might benefit from those antibodies, too. In one of the few legitimate peer-reviewed studies on the health benefits of raw milk, scientists at Johns Hopkins University found that an antibody found in raw milk inhibits bovine and human rotavirus that causes diarrhea in small children.
The researchers concluded that altering milk-processing procedures or adding the antibody to infant formula might be useful if it preserved the antibody for human consumption. They did not advocate giving children raw milk and they certainly didn’t give it to humans in their study. All that happened in tissue cultures. Oh, they also mentioned that the antibody was present and functional in pasteurized milk, too.
There really isn’t any good science to back any of the claims made by the raw milk people, but I’m still prepared to concede that a natural unprocessed product might convey some benefit to the consumer. The question remains: Should you drink it?
Raw milk is a rich and nutritious product. That makes it an excellent medium for bacteria. There are good ones like lactobacillus, which you can easily get in much higher concentrations in yogurt. But there are also bad ones like salmonella, E. coli and listeria. Food processors and government regulators go to a lot of trouble to avoid passing these bacteria along to the public. The tiniest trace of E. coli is enough to send millions of kilos of ground meat to the landfill.
The proven cost of consuming these harmful bacteria is illness, organ damage and sometimes death. Raw milk has been implicated in outbreaks of serious illness across North America involving hundreds of people. So the question you have to consider is this: Is the unproven benefit or the great taste of raw milk worth the potential cost to you or your child?
rshore@vancouversun.com
"
комментарии здесь интересней: особенно мне понравилось Norico и старушка Erasmus
Tata Bubu · 95 years old
Mr. Shore,
again and again you are manipulating with "a child" whose interests are the highest of all... - children benefit from having real milk from the local cows who eat grass. Instead of these manipulations You should consider in more details the issue of industrial food production, industrial food processing - that too often makes food harmful - a source of E coli and the other "beauties" which you have mentioned. We need real milk, produced by people whom we know and whose method of production is transparent and responsible - this what should Health Authorities concentrate on - assisting local producers in organizing dairy production in a way it's ecologically safe and controlled for a possibility of contamination. It is more responsible to control these small scales productions, than as you proudly say - sending to dumps tons of food for a trace of bacteria in a sample. Local farmers, small scale producers - these are the people we should support - we are one community, they do care about what they produce, what are relationships between them and their customers, unlike the dairy corporations, who for sure can afford sending to dumps tons of milk in case of a danger, but the only thing they care is their profit and do not give a damn what do they sell - mixed in large quantities dead milk or packaged E.coli, or strychnine. you have twisted the subject and this is just a dirty trick, not an honest journalism.
Reply · 1 · Like · Follow Post · 23 hours ago
Tata Bubu · 95 years old
and yes, as for the benefits of cousuming the real milk (raw or in other forms) I have my own and my family experience, + the people having this milk in their diet whom I know well enough to see they are as healthy as they can be - this is my evidence - and I would love to consider Your, Mr, Shore evidence presented in studies, staticsics, historical data... this battle is already long enough for being able collecting and summarizing large massives of data both local, national and international. Instead we see something rediculous like your article and something really dangerous like the Health Authorities raids on a small local farm.
Reply · Like · Follow Post · 23 hours ago
Janeen Covlin · Follow · Co-Owner/Operator at Cool Springs Ranch
oh this raw milk and 'health risk' topic is getting sooo tiring! WHY can't people see this is purely a smoke screen to prevent a hole in the perfect Canadian CARTEL called DAIRY SUPPLY MANAGEMENT. it's purely market protection!
Raw milk was only dangerous in a period in history when they stopped grazing cows and set up set up Dairies beside Breweries to feed the waste. the resulting low pH of the cows and milk, lack of hygene, lack of refridgeration allowed pathogens to flourish.
We KNOW how to produce safe milk now...so lets fight for our right to FREEDOM to eat the nourishing food that raw milk is! My family is healthy, allergy-free and cavity-free thanks to our Jersey girls and city families should have that same opportunity!
Reply · 24 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 6:29amDale Macdonald · Works at Jack of all trades and master of all of them
so janeen when did you become so intelectual //
Reply · Like · Yesterday at 8:17am
Alice Jongerden · Chilliwack, British Columbia
Hi Randy. I can appreciate your intentions with this article, but to imply that people do not think when they choose raw milk as their choice food is to call the educated, stupid. The real challenge is people have not taken the time to become educated with the real facts. Facts like what Inspector George Rice stated under oath "In all the years of working with Fraser Health, there has been NO illnesses from raw milk". Check www.freshmilkfoodpolitics.com in the next day or so to see the latest research and real data regarding raw milk. It is time Canadians educate themselves with facts instead of being sheeple believing everything the government says is true. Today is Day 17 of my FRESH MILK FROM GRASSFED COWS ONLY 'diet'. I have consumed nothing but raw milk that has been sitting on my counter for at least a day, some raw yogurt, and the odd piece of raw cheese. Not only am I still here to tell about it, I feel great, and am enjoyiing the freedom to choose what I eat. Grass Fed Milk from our cows. It is time for a change in Canada.
Reply · 17 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 11:18am
Johanna Stein · Dalhousie University
I find it interesting that it is legal to consume raw shellfish, raw fish, raw eggs, and raw beef in restaurants. It is legal to purchase alcohol and cigarettes, even though these substances have clear and unquestioned health risks. But raw milk - absolutely not. Completely out of the question - in Canada. There's a logical flaw there. I am curious if Mr. Shore has ever consumed raw milk, or truly educated himself on the science.
Reply · 11 · Like · Follow Post · Wednesday at 11:05pmRandy Shore · Follow · Top Commenter · Weekend Editor, Food, Science and
Sustainability beat writer at The Vancouver Sun
I have in fact consumed raw milk and cheese made from raw milk. If you read the article closely you'll note that did not tell anyone NOT to drink raw milk. I fact, I said "Raw milk is a rich and nutritious product."
What I did was to research the peer-reviewed scientific literature on raw milk and potentially dangerous pathogens and look through the anecdotal evidence presented by raw milk supporters.I have been covering the raw milk debate for many years, in doing so I have never condemned it.
Like all foods, raw milk poses risks and offers benefits. If you have looked at the hard evidence and decided its right for you, that's great. But be sure you go into this with your eyes open.
I simply offer you the intellectual tools to make the decision.
Good studies offer some findings worth pondering.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22054181
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22564928
http://www.experts.scival.com/jhu/pubDetail.asp?t=pm&id=2983202&n=Robert+Yolken&u_id=3567
Reply · Like · Yesterday at 7:40am
Elisabeth Bartlett Gibson · Works at Flat-Out MotorSport Photography
Yes, Mr. Shore. Raw milk has been tainted with dangerous bacteria. So, has it's pasteurized counterparts, raw vegetables, raw and processed meats, and processed foods such as peanut butter and cereals. The argument that raw milk may be tainted is moot. So, why the article? It's point appears to be to remind the public that raw milk can be tainted. That's not news. Those educated on the benefits and risks of consuming raw milk (or any food, for that matter), are more than aware. It matters not, to me, that you feel that raw milk advocates espouse only "anecdotal evidence," and no hard science because this statement is untrue. It is merely an attempt to make raw milk advocates seem foolish. My family has been consuming raw milk products for more than eight years. No one I know who participates in this practice has ever had an illness relating to it. I also subscribe to FDA.gov and I've combed pubmed for a lot more than just raw milk studies.
Reply · 7 · Like · Yesterday at 8:07am
Randy Shore · Follow · Top Commenter · Weekend Editor, Food, Science and
Sustainability beat writer at The Vancouver Sun
The reason for the article (actually the script for my piece on TV's Empowered Health on CHEK) is that the claims made for the healing powers of raw milk border on ridiculous. Raw hamburger carries E coli risk, but there are no websites extolling the healing powers of raw hamburger. I have drunk raw milk and I eat raw milk cheese because I judge the taste to be worth the risk. All I said was to be clear in your mind about the benefits and weigh the risks. I don't know why an article that advises people to be sensible is so controversial. I never said don't do it. I did say it's nutritious. The message is: think about it.
Reply · 1 · Like · Yesterday at 8:59am
View 4 more
Mary-Anne Wise · Surrey, British Columbia
I find it fascinating that he says "raw milk has been implicated in outbreaks of serious illness across North America involving hundreds of people" I want to see how many actually got sick from raw milk as opposed to spinach and or beef.. or even the peanut butter scare. And what about all the people hurt by the processed meat fiasco? We banter about that people are getting sick from raw milk. I want to see the real DATA. Give me facts not YOUR OPINION.
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Health+myths+Pasteurized+versus+milk+Weighing+risks+benefits/8322984/story.html#ixzz2S8ij3Q4M.
Reply · 10 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 5:01amJohn Craenen · Strathroy District Collegiate Institute
Hundreds of dairy farmer's children are filling hospital beds because of all the raw milk they are consuming.
Reply · 2 · Like · Yesterday at 5:06am
Mary-Anne Wise · Surrey, British Columbia
I sense a touch of sarcasm.. ;-)
Reply · 2 · Like · Yesterday at 5:16am
Christine Thomas
I still dont' see any facts, or one sick child from raw milk when there there have been many from pasteurized
Reply · 3 · Like · Yesterday at 5:31am
View 4 more
Heather Passmore
Cases of food poisoning from raw milk are far fewer than other foods like meat, spinach, pasteurized milk and shellfish. In any case, the technology exists to test raw milk for pathogens and these practices are used in countries where raw milk is sold for everyday consumption (almost all G8 countries EXCEPT Canada btw). The main point however, is that to be safe, raw milk must be produced in a clean dairy from healthy cows -this means NO grain-fed animals from concentrated animal feedlots which are a breeding ground for disease and drug use in the animals. I wouldn't touch raw milk from a conventional dairy. But raw milk from a small farm of grass-fed cows is as safe as any other food humans have been eating since agriculture was developed 10,000 years ago. In other words its NOT the risk this article makes it out to be. What a misleading piece of 'news' this is!
Reply · 9 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 8:00am
Manda Aufochs Gillespie · Vancouver, British Columbia
I think it is brave that you were willing to write about drinking and enjoying raw milk, Randy. I would have liked you to use your platform with the Vancouver Sun to write an article that delved more into the issue: both the wide range of science (some of which you mention, but a great deal of which you dismiss, including some solid studies out of Europe that show that raw milk from small, organic, well-tended farms are linked to a reduction of allergies. Evidence showing that in human milk pasteurization affects antibacterial properties, etc.) and the bigger issues of food rights.
Really, it's what makes this debate interesting: should we as consumers have the right to do our own research and make informed choices about our health when those choices run contrary to what Health Canada, the government, or industry wishes for us. Every other G8 country allows raw milk in some shape or form. Other foods proven to be much more likely to cause illness: spinach, eggs, chicken, peanuts, are not only allowed but in some places are encouraged in our backyards. Yet, for some reason raw milk is worth the time and money for our government to prosecute small dairy farmers, contest court cases where these dairy farmers are found to be acting legally, and to (against public opinion) continue to limit consumer access to clean raw milk.
Consumers and small dairy farmers BOTH benefit from a system that inspects, legitimizes and certifies dairy farms producing raw milk. They have a similar system of inspecting and process milk in England as we do in Canada and there they manage to have pasteurized AND raw milk safely available to consumers (and sometimes delivered to your door).
The whole debate reminds me about the debate over legalizing midwives to perform homebirths in BC. In the end, having a system that inspects, licenses, and legalizes midwifery benefited families, tax payers, and the Health Care system as a whole. Wouldn't it be the same thing for raw milk?
In full disclosure: I, too, am a writer and raw milk drinker and I wrote a couple articles last year on the subject: http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/greenmama/2011/10/17/raw-milk-debate-did-canada-just-give-away-your-right-choose-what-you.
Reply · 5 · Like · Follow Post · 20 hours ago
Judie Poitras Paden
Every child that ever grew up on the farm drank raw milk, my mother did until 17, she is 80 now. I too find it interesting that people can purchase alcohol and cigarettes, eat Sushi(raw fish), raw meat, however oh my gosh raw milk is poison and illegal! Ludicrous. This gentleman has been invited to educate himself on raw milk, however never showed up to any of the conferences, he is ignorant on the subject. To make raw milk illegal is ridiculous.......Throwing tons of tax payers money away, in court cases to defend the legality of selling raw milk............par for the course for our government..........
Reply · 5 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 4:30am
Victoria Gazeley · Gibsons, British Columbia
Considering what IS legal to buy in this country, and what they put in food and water on purpose (synthetic preservatives, GE organisms, fake fats, fluoride, chlorine, chemical insecticides, etc.) that is sickening millions of people to the point of chronic illness that costs 'the system' billions, organically raised 'real' milk is the least of our worries. In fact, if people are health conscious enough to have done the research to choose it, we should be encouraging it, not the other way around. It's a product considered safe enough to be offered on the shelf in multiple jurisdictions around the world (more than where it is not 'allowed'), so there's no other explanation for the fact it still isn't in Canada outside of those of politics, money and control. Funny - you'd think that considering there's such a demand, that the dairy marketing boards would be falling over themselves to get a market share. But instead, they just lean on the health departments to continue to make this an issue. I guess old habits die hard. Bottom line - we and many of our friends have been consuming 'real' dairy for almost a decade without incident (as did umpteen generations before us) - but we know our animals, their health, and follow appropriate protocols. I've not heard of one child sickened by it, but I have heard of others taken down by industrially produced beef, chicken, canteloupe and a whole bunch of other produce imported from elsewhere. Not to compare one to the other, but it makes the whole argument a bit ridiculous considering what we should be focussing on - the complete takeover of our food system by big industrial, chemical-based biotech-promoting agriculture and its practices.
Reply · 4 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 8:33am
Luiza Zlatovic · Follow · New Westminster, British Columbia
It is unbelievable that in this country that values cultural differences and celebrates diversity people are not free to make an informed decision about the food they would like to eat. Nourishment is the basic right we all have and each of us should be therefore free to decide on what we eat. I don't want to eat dead and over-processed milk-like liquid from confined sickly animals that never ever step on pasture during their short and sad lives. That liquid should be illegal not a real milk from cows on pasture produced in sanitary conditions and regularly tested. I don't think that government official loves me or my children more than I do, do you?
Reply · 5 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 5:49pm
Alexandra Bennett
Everybody can buy raw eggs. But we are warned that the very young and very old and pregnant women are safer if they consume the eggs only cooked. Why can't we give the same recommendations for raw milk? And then - shock horror - let people make their own decisions and take responsibility for what they put into their own bodies?
Reply · 4 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 6:43am
Kurtis Staven
Real food freedom means taking responsibility for ones choices and not begging a government for protection. Look at all the realities presented and make a true informed choice. There is a good degree of truth in the how it is done argument that people need to understand. Then if you want a further measure of safety the reality is there is a Simple, relatively cheap and effective solution to the whole problem.
Reply · 2 · Like · Follow Post · about an hour ago
Aaron Friesan · Science Teacher at Ideal Mini School
The issue that seems to be ignored in this is the way conventional dairy is processed. The volumes of milk in single lots being so large it makes contamination risks high so pasteurization becomes imperative. Most raw dairy producers have small cow herds (the cows are often named) where their health is more easily monitored. The milk is collected in much smaller volumes and more easily controlled. It is safe if you have a good source. Know your source. Strange that I can not drink a full glass of pasteurized milk without GI upset, yet I can consume more than a half liter of raw milk and feel revitalized. True story.
Reply · 2 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 7:21amJessica Roman
Aaron, where can I get some?? Massive GI probs here too!!
Reply · Like · Yesterday at 8:55am
Carolyn Marie Cook · Salt Spring Island
we get raw milk from tilly and willy, but of course, it's for the cats because it's illegal for me to buy/consume raw milk directly...interesting too, it costs the same as the hormone-riddled, pasteurized crap that comes in plastic.....man, I love living on SaltSpring! homesteading rocks! even making cheese now, Aar! and butter! yee-haw!
Reply · Like · Yesterday at 11:47am
Aaron Friesan · Science Teacher at Ideal Mini School
Awesome stuff Care!!!!
Reply · Like · Yesterday at 12:03pm
Noriko Okamoto · UBC
We are allowed to buy a piece of raw meat and cook on our own liking. Why can't we cook our milk on our own liking?
Reply · 2 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 3:57pm
Raw Milk Canada
Randy, no-one is denying that some of the health claims about raw milk could be exaggerated in comparison with published research (of which there is very little). People who have experienced health benefits from any lifestyle change (diet, exercise, medication, etc.) will of course relate their experience.
But tarring all raw milk advocates with the same brush of having "self-proclaimed experts" and "outlandish" websites is unfair to the majority, and stigmatizes all raw milk consumers, farmers, and supporters as being outright fanatical lunatics. Most of us are ordinary consumers who choose to drink raw milk -- not because of purported claims -- but because we have personally done the research about what raw milk can provide, learned about raw milk safety, read both sides of the debate, found a trusted source, tried it, and now continue to drink it based on the benefits (over pasteurized milk or milk substitutes) that we and our families have personally experienced. This is not wrong or outlandish, and nor should readers be told that we are endangering our children as this article implies.
Please consider talking to the raw milk community, representatives such as the speakers at the recent Fresh Milk Food Politics conference (http://www.freshmilkfoodpolitics.com), and learning about "the other side" of the story - not the "outlandish websites," but the other 95% of us.
Reply · 1 · Like · Follow Post · Edited · 5 hours agoRob Bright · Top Commenter
I'm loving the insightful, thoughtful, and educated comments on this article. Very encouraging!
Reply · Like · 5 hours ago
Bill McCaig
One of the major benefits of milk pasteurization is that it allows farmers to follow less stringent protocols for milk handling, sloppy even. It allows for the mass production of milk that would easily result in contamination, so if you're buying milk strictly on price and convenience - pasteurization is the best way. If you care about the quality of food you put in your body: meet your farmer, get to know their practices for every product they produce and make an informed decision.
Reply · 1 · Like · Follow Post · 9 hours ago
Kurtis Staven
What every article misses is the fact that raw milk can be tested to verify it does not contain the nasties they refer to. do this and the scare mongering we see in this article has no valid grounds.
Reply · 1 · Like · Follow Post · 2 hours ago
Mike Bell · Top Commenter
can this writer provide the source for the hundreds of people sickened by raw milk? this article is propaganda, most likely this writer got a kickback from big dairy to slam raw milk.
Reply · 1 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 6:08amRandy Shore · Follow · Top Commenter · Weekend Editor, Food, Science and
Sustainability beat writer at The Vancouver Sun
Why do you assume I don't drink raw milk? I happily eat raw milk cheese. This isn't a slam, it's a clear cost benefit process that applies to milk, oysters and raw beef and every other food in the world. Here's a few links to outbreak info.
http://barfblog.com/2013/04/13-sick-salmonella-from-raw-milk-cheese-outbreak-in-minn/
http://www.foodpoisonjournal.com/food-poisoning-information/from-our-friends-at-wwwbarfblogcom-list-of-raw-milk-outbreaks/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2012/02/22/raw-milk-warning.html
Reply · 1 · Like · Yesterday at 9:18am
Raw Milk Canada
But if this cost-benefit process applies to every other food, then why is raw milk singled out in specific and not foods which have a higher incidence rate of disease, e.g. produce, eggs, and seafood? Yes, one can list illnesses from raw milk -- and also cantaloupe, cucumbers, oysters, spinach, beef, etc. Also, the 3rd link here citing the CDC study which states that raw milk is "150-times more dangerous" is questionable - even CDC data itself does not support this statement. Please see http://chriskresser.com/raw-milk-reality-is-raw-milk-dangerous for an alternate analysis of CDC data. This "150-times" statistic has got a lot of air-play in the form of government-funded press releases, but some question whether it is indeed "fact."
As well, these "outbreak" reports do not separate out the issues of illegally-distribut...See More
Reply · 3 · Like · Yesterday at 4:31pm
Noriko Okamoto · UBC
People talk about cost/benefit - sure, life is a balancing act, right? Now if you widen the view, you might notice that, by inflate the fear of raw milk, you'll also drive a small family dairy farm to extinction as they cannot typically buy a milk quota. Do yo know how many family farmers Canada has lost in last half century or so? What you're left is a big dairy Ag, exercising factory farming. Do you think it's too little a cost to pay to gain a little peace of mind?
You must also be aware of government push to change raw milk cheese regulation too, right? It's matter of time - canada is only a few years behind US.
Frankly, the heart of the issue is not even milk anymore. Canadian government infringes the constitutional right at an alarming rate. With introduction of new Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, the inspectors are allowed to raid a private property (incl. your kitchen, ha!) without court order. Soon you'll lose your raw milk cheese. Soon you'll lose pacific salmon. Soon you may notice how much cost you've actually paid to fulfill your paranoia of sterilization.
Reply · Like · 21 hours ago
View 1 more
Andy Bower · Amsterdam, Netherlands
Let me print this out so I can wipe my ass with it.
Reply · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 6:10am
Randy Shore · Follow · Top Commenter · Weekend Editor, Food, Science and Sustainability beat
writer at The Vancouver Sun
Majority of dairy-related disease outbreaks linked to raw milk
CDC Report Shows Higher Rates of “Raw” Milk Outbreaks in States Where It′s Legal
The rate of outbreaks caused by unpasteurized milk (often called raw milk) and products made from it was 150 times greater than outbreaks linked to pasteurized milk, according to a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The 13-year review also revealed that the states where the sale of raw milk was legal had more than twice the rate of outbreaks as states where it was illegal.
The study, published Feb. 21 in the CDC journal Emerging Infectious Diseases, reviewed dairy product outbreaks from 1993 to 2006 in all 50 states. The authors compared the amount of milk produced in the United States during the study period (about 2.7 trillion pounds) to the amount that CDC estim...See More
Reply · Like · Follow Post · 4 hours ago
Royce Hamer · Belford University B.S. c Mechanical eng.
I am so tired of the organized rhetoric from the industrial milk industry. As in all foods there is a possibility of contamination be it raw or pasteurized milk, spinach, tomatoes, and a host of fruit. The meat industry has nothing to be proud of but if these products were grown in a natural way with proper hygiene then the risk is reduced to near zero. I drank raw milk for 23 years and it came out of the bulk tank with no additional precautions above what was required by the milk authorities. We did adhere to strict procedures and our cows were clean and happy in a free run environment. During school tours we were accused of washing our cows that is how clean they appeared. Most of this debate should never be held since it is not so much about raw milk but our right to access it as free human beings opposed to government corruption. I suggest that the real and quickest solution to this travesty of rights and venial propaganda is to start supporting the CACL --Canadian Anti Corruption League. We stand for the health conscience consumer in all mattes of food choice and we are against forced medication as out web site illustrates. www.canadiananticorruptionleague.org. If you are a food freedom advocate with a web site please post a link to CACL site. You need us and we need you plus it is unfair for CACL to do all the political fighting alone when you will benefit in the long run. We will soon be registered as a political party and under our Anti Corruption Platform everything is possible. Visit our web site for details and do something constructive to end this criminal industrial oppression.
Reply · Like · Follow Post · 6 hours ago
Raw Milk Canada
"I have never condemned it."
Unfortunately, this article *does* condemn raw milk. It portrays raw milk as a dangerous product having a ""proven cost ... of illness, organ damage and sometimes death;" raw milk drinkers as fringe lunatics who therefor endanger their children; and all raw milk-related websites as specious and unreliable. It is too bad that you didn't interview raw milk farmers, consumers, or advocacy groups first.
You should also be aware of the shortcomings of some of the existing scientific literature: First, some research is performed by university departments and research facilities which rely on funding or other support from the industrialized dairy sector, or which have other close ties (personnel migration, etc.) with the dairy industry. Is this conflict-of-interest and relationship information disclosed by the study authors? And, as one researcher in CA noted recently, you cannot obtain funding in North America to study the benefits of raw milk, only the benefits of pasteurized.
Second, these studies do not disclose the sources of the raw milk they study. Is it industrial milk produced by methods intended for pasteurization, or fresh milk produced by raw milk "Best Practices" (such as Cowshare Canada and RAWMI standards) intended for direct consumption? Where the cows A1 or A2? CAFO, grain-fed, pastured? If pastured, then details? What time of year was the milking? What care was given to transportation and storage of samples? We all know that these factors make a difference in milk quality.
Third, when one hears about "raw milk outbreaks," again, were these outbreaks related to "industrial milk" or "fresh milk"? Were they related to illegal "Mexican bathtub cheese"? Was the milk produced according to raw milk best practices or not? Health inspectors often have little training in evaluating these factors.
The statement of "hundreds of illnesses" implies hundreds every year and implies that pasteurized dairy causes no illness, neither of which are true. Deaths? None since 1998 and there are over nine million consumers in the U.S. alone. Illness? The chance of hospitalization per year appears to be closer to perhaps one in six million according to a different analysis. Yes, there are illnesses as with any food, and there are unsafe producers but that is why consumers look to certification and internationally-recognized standards for raw milk production. Raw milk is safer per unit consumed than seafood, produce, or eggs, for example.
Unfortunately, this article appears to have been written in order to scare people away from drinking fresh, clean, unpasteurized milk. Listing a few benefits does not make this article balanced, as the worth of these are completely dismissed in the two closing paragraphs.
Please consider talking to raw milk experts such as Nadine Jiaz, Michael Schmidt, or Mark McAfee, Jiaz's recent report is ground-breaking in the field of studying raw milk safety and nutrition, using international standards for quantifying risk.
Instead of a "scare story," a more productive article may have informed the consumer about how to tell industrial "raw" milk from fresh "raw" milk and why this is important; the difference between CAFO, pastured and other feeding methods; A1 and A2 milk; what questions to ask when selecting your farmer; farmer training and certification resources; and tell consumers how to care for the milk following the "cold chain" principle (see Peggy Beals book "Safe Handling," soon to be published in a Canadian edition); and good books and websites are recommended. It could have interviewed spokespersons for raw milk, and talked about proposed changes in B.C. law to legalize raw milk as it is legal in many other nations and in many American states.
Reply · 4 · Like · Edited · Yesterday at 3:40pm
Vreni Gurd · Movement Re-Education, Personalized Nutrition, Visceral Massage at Self employed
Raw milk for human consumption from grass-fed Jersey or Guernsey cows is a completely different product than grain-fed unpasteurized Holstein milk from the bulk tanks of factory farms. When an article on raw milk consumption does not distinguish between these two very different products, one can't help but think that the article has missed the point.
Grain is not the natural diet of a cow. Cows get sick on grain. Drinking raw milk from grain-fed, factory-farmed cattle IS very risky, and I doubt any raw-milk enthusiasts would do that.
Cows are meant to eat grass. They are healthy and don't need antibiotics when they graze on pasture. The resulting milk is low in harmful bacteria, high in the beneficial probiotic bacteria, higher in omega 3 and CLA, and lower in the inflammatory omega 6 fatty acids.
There is no co...See More
Reply · 2 · Like · 20 hours ago
Athana Mentzelopoulos
been meaning to tell you how much I enjoy your stuff -- always something to learn. thanks!
Reply · Like · 9 hours ago
View 1 more
Lydia Travers · Follow
You really have a very uninformed and one sided view of this issue. You have not mentioned all the many very adverse, chronic and debilitating effects many have using the product after it has been processed and degraded. The latest, some dairies want to add artificial sugars to their product - I even hesitate to call it milk. This is only the tip of the iceberg in the control of our natural foods by government agencies for the large food industries; whose acctions currently threatening to make the whole planet unlivable. The public is not listened to, the information is distorted, the agenda is defiantly not a healthy population.
Reply · Like · Follow Post · 12 hours ago
Rob Bright · Top Commenter
Wow! Whether it's one-sided, biased, baseless op-eds that promote GMOs, or one-sided, biased, baseless articles on the "dangers of raw milk," the Van Sun proves itself again to be a misinformed, unenlightened rag. Way to go Van Sun!
Reply · Like · Follow Post · 6 hours ago
Christy Forte Erasmus · University of British Columbia
Hi Randy, You say you would like to encourage critical thinking......you say you drink raw milk....you say you have followed this debate for sometime, and have a in depth knowledge of the topic.....can't say I got any of that from this article, and it looks like I'm not alone. That was a loaded question, and you know it. Way to pull the "Child" Trump card.....I applaud you for your stealth, and cunning. Fortunately for us, the implications you laced your article with are just not true, and we are extremely intelligent. The risk of drinking RAW milk is EXTREMELY low, and is in fact one of the lowest risk foods on the planet. Oh, and by the way that awesome fact CAN and HAS NOW been proven WITH SCIENCE. If you had attended the Fresh Food Politics seminar with the rest of us, you would have that nice little tid-bit of knowledge, and would have been able to add that to your "Research". In fact, if we are going to ask this question of raw milk, we should be asking it of ANY food that we did not grow, or produce by our own hand. I also resent the implications that the human populace is inherently stupid, and we would require someone, such as yourself to "ASK US TO THINK ABOUT OUR CHOICES." Seriously? We are not imbeciles, and can think for ourselves, AND can make intelligent decisions without your help. This is insulting to both RAW MILK, and NON-RAW MILK drinkers alike. Instead of treating us like we are morons, how about use your powers for good, and pull an entire re-write of this article? Prove to us you really do drink RAW milk. If you do, you would ONLY be singing it's phrases, instead of attempting to guise that little slam at the end as "Opportunities to encourage critical thinking." Give us a break.....we are not idiots, and know EXACTLY what you were really trying to do despite what you say to the contrary. To all of you NON-RAW milk drinkers out there.....we are only asking what is ours by civil right. Join the fight, even if you never plan on drinking RAW. What other rights will they take away from us in the name of "safety" if we allow them to have this one? Our food system is dying as we speak.....control being taken further, and further from the hands of the consumer. Join us and fight for something real.......fight for you, your families, your children and the freedom to choose what you eat always. You are smart, wise, and have the ability to make good, informed choices. I enjoy making this choice, I enjoy being able to feed my family what I now refer to as "Liquid White Gold" With this product we have flourished!
Reply · Like · Follow Post · 20 hours ago
Douglas Aaring · Chief Executive Officer at Meta Living Design
If you're looking for real studies to back the claims for why raw milk is safe to drink, here you go. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/06/07/don-t-be-misled-by-dairy-ads.aspx … I really hope you read it, and then do a REAL article on the truth; unlike what they've done here. Needless to say, you'll soon see, pasteurized milk is deadly the choice.
Reply · Like · Follow Post · Edited · Yesterday at 6:10pm
Obadiah Ford
Your article looks a lot more like dairy board propaganda than real news. Please check your facts more accurately before spreading missinformation that denys people's right to choose what is healthy for themselves. Your article is thinly disguised, slanted media and not appreciated by the public consumer
Reply · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 3:40pm
Sukhwant Sumbal
The only time any significant number of people will get sick from raw (fresh) milk is when the people who control our food supply surreptitiously tamper with its production, of which there is a real possibility if too many people start switching over.
Reply · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 11:20am
Obadiah Ford
To publish missinformed, slanted media, is to lose credibilty with an educated public.
Reply · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 3:45pm
Noriko Okamoto · UBC
It's interesting that you hand pick "implicated" (not proven) cases of "milk related incidents" to bashing unpasteurized milk. If we follow your logic, we shouldn't sell any raw meat, raw vegetables, raw cantaloup - everything has to be cooked before they hits the store shelves.
Because you're concerned about public health issue so much, I assume you are aware of the recent DNA based investigation of turkey meat - more than half of them are contaminated with "fecal bacteria" (http://www.consumerreports.org/turkey0613). I am waiting for your sequel of the article stating"ban the unprocessed turkey" before next thanksgiving - followed by "no more raw beef", "no more raw lettuce/spinach/cantaloup" and start a campaign banning caesar salad from eatries in whole country.
Give me a break.
Reply · Like · Follow Post · Edited · Yesterday at 3:43pmYana Eglit · Bloomington, Indiana
I've been living off raw milk, cream and butter for almost 2 years now. Still alive and kicking. Never as much as a stomach-ache =)
Reply · 1 · Like · Yesterday at 3:48pm
Noriko Okamoto · UBC
you may want to think twice moving back to canada - oh, never mind, cross the border to Maine, and you'll get them legally.
Reply · Like · Yesterday at 4:05pm
"вы что нас за идиотов держите"?
Health myths: Pasteurized versus raw milk - Weighing the risks and benefits
Vancouver Sun May 1, 2013
для коллекции процитирую эту газетную говнятину
ЭThe milk we buy in stores is heat pasteurized, a process that destroys some vitamins, enzymes and beneficial bacteria. Raw unpasteurized milk contains all of the above. We don’t need to argue about that. The question you really need to consider is: Do the perceived benefits of drinking raw cow’s milk outweigh the potential dangers?
The raw milk debate is raging in newspapers, on the web and in courtrooms across the land. Raw milk advocates don’t want the government telling them what they can and cannot eat. I totally understand that. They have websites full of testimonials from self-appointed experts and apocryphal tales of raw milk curing everything from scurvy to psoriasis and tuberculosis.
A lot of these tales are so outlandish that it tends to undermine their credibility, but I’m willing to overlook that for the moment because there is a grain of truth in what they say. Pasteurization does destroy vitamins C and B12 and it does kill lactobacillus. It probably also harms the natural antibodies in milk.
Like breast milk, cow’s milk contains everything a baby needs to thrive. Well, everything a baby cow needs to thrive. But human babies might benefit from those antibodies, too. In one of the few legitimate peer-reviewed studies on the health benefits of raw milk, scientists at Johns Hopkins University found that an antibody found in raw milk inhibits bovine and human rotavirus that causes diarrhea in small children.
The researchers concluded that altering milk-processing procedures or adding the antibody to infant formula might be useful if it preserved the antibody for human consumption. They did not advocate giving children raw milk and they certainly didn’t give it to humans in their study. All that happened in tissue cultures. Oh, they also mentioned that the antibody was present and functional in pasteurized milk, too.
There really isn’t any good science to back any of the claims made by the raw milk people, but I’m still prepared to concede that a natural unprocessed product might convey some benefit to the consumer. The question remains: Should you drink it?
Raw milk is a rich and nutritious product. That makes it an excellent medium for bacteria. There are good ones like lactobacillus, which you can easily get in much higher concentrations in yogurt. But there are also bad ones like salmonella, E. coli and listeria. Food processors and government regulators go to a lot of trouble to avoid passing these bacteria along to the public. The tiniest trace of E. coli is enough to send millions of kilos of ground meat to the landfill.
The proven cost of consuming these harmful bacteria is illness, organ damage and sometimes death. Raw milk has been implicated in outbreaks of serious illness across North America involving hundreds of people. So the question you have to consider is this: Is the unproven benefit or the great taste of raw milk worth the potential cost to you or your child?
rshore@vancouversun.com
"
комментарии здесь интересней: особенно мне понравилось Norico и старушка Erasmus
Tata Bubu · 95 years old
Mr. Shore,
again and again you are manipulating with "a child" whose interests are the highest of all... - children benefit from having real milk from the local cows who eat grass. Instead of these manipulations You should consider in more details the issue of industrial food production, industrial food processing - that too often makes food harmful - a source of E coli and the other "beauties" which you have mentioned. We need real milk, produced by people whom we know and whose method of production is transparent and responsible - this what should Health Authorities concentrate on - assisting local producers in organizing dairy production in a way it's ecologically safe and controlled for a possibility of contamination. It is more responsible to control these small scales productions, than as you proudly say - sending to dumps tons of food for a trace of bacteria in a sample. Local farmers, small scale producers - these are the people we should support - we are one community, they do care about what they produce, what are relationships between them and their customers, unlike the dairy corporations, who for sure can afford sending to dumps tons of milk in case of a danger, but the only thing they care is their profit and do not give a damn what do they sell - mixed in large quantities dead milk or packaged E.coli, or strychnine. you have twisted the subject and this is just a dirty trick, not an honest journalism.
Reply · 1 · Like · Follow Post · 23 hours ago
Tata Bubu · 95 years old
and yes, as for the benefits of cousuming the real milk (raw or in other forms) I have my own and my family experience, + the people having this milk in their diet whom I know well enough to see they are as healthy as they can be - this is my evidence - and I would love to consider Your, Mr, Shore evidence presented in studies, staticsics, historical data... this battle is already long enough for being able collecting and summarizing large massives of data both local, national and international. Instead we see something rediculous like your article and something really dangerous like the Health Authorities raids on a small local farm.
Reply · Like · Follow Post · 23 hours ago
Janeen Covlin · Follow · Co-Owner/Operator at Cool Springs Ranch
oh this raw milk and 'health risk' topic is getting sooo tiring! WHY can't people see this is purely a smoke screen to prevent a hole in the perfect Canadian CARTEL called DAIRY SUPPLY MANAGEMENT. it's purely market protection!
Raw milk was only dangerous in a period in history when they stopped grazing cows and set up set up Dairies beside Breweries to feed the waste. the resulting low pH of the cows and milk, lack of hygene, lack of refridgeration allowed pathogens to flourish.
We KNOW how to produce safe milk now...so lets fight for our right to FREEDOM to eat the nourishing food that raw milk is! My family is healthy, allergy-free and cavity-free thanks to our Jersey girls and city families should have that same opportunity!
Reply · 24 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 6:29amDale Macdonald · Works at Jack of all trades and master of all of them
so janeen when did you become so intelectual //
Reply · Like · Yesterday at 8:17am
Alice Jongerden · Chilliwack, British Columbia
Hi Randy. I can appreciate your intentions with this article, but to imply that people do not think when they choose raw milk as their choice food is to call the educated, stupid. The real challenge is people have not taken the time to become educated with the real facts. Facts like what Inspector George Rice stated under oath "In all the years of working with Fraser Health, there has been NO illnesses from raw milk". Check www.freshmilkfoodpolitics.com in the next day or so to see the latest research and real data regarding raw milk. It is time Canadians educate themselves with facts instead of being sheeple believing everything the government says is true. Today is Day 17 of my FRESH MILK FROM GRASSFED COWS ONLY 'diet'. I have consumed nothing but raw milk that has been sitting on my counter for at least a day, some raw yogurt, and the odd piece of raw cheese. Not only am I still here to tell about it, I feel great, and am enjoyiing the freedom to choose what I eat. Grass Fed Milk from our cows. It is time for a change in Canada.
Reply · 17 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 11:18am
Johanna Stein · Dalhousie University
I find it interesting that it is legal to consume raw shellfish, raw fish, raw eggs, and raw beef in restaurants. It is legal to purchase alcohol and cigarettes, even though these substances have clear and unquestioned health risks. But raw milk - absolutely not. Completely out of the question - in Canada. There's a logical flaw there. I am curious if Mr. Shore has ever consumed raw milk, or truly educated himself on the science.
Reply · 11 · Like · Follow Post · Wednesday at 11:05pmRandy Shore · Follow · Top Commenter · Weekend Editor, Food, Science and
Sustainability beat writer at The Vancouver Sun
I have in fact consumed raw milk and cheese made from raw milk. If you read the article closely you'll note that did not tell anyone NOT to drink raw milk. I fact, I said "Raw milk is a rich and nutritious product."
What I did was to research the peer-reviewed scientific literature on raw milk and potentially dangerous pathogens and look through the anecdotal evidence presented by raw milk supporters.I have been covering the raw milk debate for many years, in doing so I have never condemned it.
Like all foods, raw milk poses risks and offers benefits. If you have looked at the hard evidence and decided its right for you, that's great. But be sure you go into this with your eyes open.
I simply offer you the intellectual tools to make the decision.
Good studies offer some findings worth pondering.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22054181
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22564928
http://www.experts.scival.com/jhu/pubDetail.asp?t=pm&id=2983202&n=Robert+Yolken&u_id=3567
Reply · Like · Yesterday at 7:40am
Elisabeth Bartlett Gibson · Works at Flat-Out MotorSport Photography
Yes, Mr. Shore. Raw milk has been tainted with dangerous bacteria. So, has it's pasteurized counterparts, raw vegetables, raw and processed meats, and processed foods such as peanut butter and cereals. The argument that raw milk may be tainted is moot. So, why the article? It's point appears to be to remind the public that raw milk can be tainted. That's not news. Those educated on the benefits and risks of consuming raw milk (or any food, for that matter), are more than aware. It matters not, to me, that you feel that raw milk advocates espouse only "anecdotal evidence," and no hard science because this statement is untrue. It is merely an attempt to make raw milk advocates seem foolish. My family has been consuming raw milk products for more than eight years. No one I know who participates in this practice has ever had an illness relating to it. I also subscribe to FDA.gov and I've combed pubmed for a lot more than just raw milk studies.
Reply · 7 · Like · Yesterday at 8:07am
Randy Shore · Follow · Top Commenter · Weekend Editor, Food, Science and
Sustainability beat writer at The Vancouver Sun
The reason for the article (actually the script for my piece on TV's Empowered Health on CHEK) is that the claims made for the healing powers of raw milk border on ridiculous. Raw hamburger carries E coli risk, but there are no websites extolling the healing powers of raw hamburger. I have drunk raw milk and I eat raw milk cheese because I judge the taste to be worth the risk. All I said was to be clear in your mind about the benefits and weigh the risks. I don't know why an article that advises people to be sensible is so controversial. I never said don't do it. I did say it's nutritious. The message is: think about it.
Reply · 1 · Like · Yesterday at 8:59am
View 4 more
Mary-Anne Wise · Surrey, British Columbia
I find it fascinating that he says "raw milk has been implicated in outbreaks of serious illness across North America involving hundreds of people" I want to see how many actually got sick from raw milk as opposed to spinach and or beef.. or even the peanut butter scare. And what about all the people hurt by the processed meat fiasco? We banter about that people are getting sick from raw milk. I want to see the real DATA. Give me facts not YOUR OPINION.
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Health+myths+Pasteurized+versus+milk+Weighing+risks+benefits/8322984/story.html#ixzz2S8ij3Q4M.
Reply · 10 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 5:01amJohn Craenen · Strathroy District Collegiate Institute
Hundreds of dairy farmer's children are filling hospital beds because of all the raw milk they are consuming.
Reply · 2 · Like · Yesterday at 5:06am
Mary-Anne Wise · Surrey, British Columbia
I sense a touch of sarcasm.. ;-)
Reply · 2 · Like · Yesterday at 5:16am
Christine Thomas
I still dont' see any facts, or one sick child from raw milk when there there have been many from pasteurized
Reply · 3 · Like · Yesterday at 5:31am
View 4 more
Heather Passmore
Cases of food poisoning from raw milk are far fewer than other foods like meat, spinach, pasteurized milk and shellfish. In any case, the technology exists to test raw milk for pathogens and these practices are used in countries where raw milk is sold for everyday consumption (almost all G8 countries EXCEPT Canada btw). The main point however, is that to be safe, raw milk must be produced in a clean dairy from healthy cows -this means NO grain-fed animals from concentrated animal feedlots which are a breeding ground for disease and drug use in the animals. I wouldn't touch raw milk from a conventional dairy. But raw milk from a small farm of grass-fed cows is as safe as any other food humans have been eating since agriculture was developed 10,000 years ago. In other words its NOT the risk this article makes it out to be. What a misleading piece of 'news' this is!
Reply · 9 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 8:00am
Manda Aufochs Gillespie · Vancouver, British Columbia
I think it is brave that you were willing to write about drinking and enjoying raw milk, Randy. I would have liked you to use your platform with the Vancouver Sun to write an article that delved more into the issue: both the wide range of science (some of which you mention, but a great deal of which you dismiss, including some solid studies out of Europe that show that raw milk from small, organic, well-tended farms are linked to a reduction of allergies. Evidence showing that in human milk pasteurization affects antibacterial properties, etc.) and the bigger issues of food rights.
Really, it's what makes this debate interesting: should we as consumers have the right to do our own research and make informed choices about our health when those choices run contrary to what Health Canada, the government, or industry wishes for us. Every other G8 country allows raw milk in some shape or form. Other foods proven to be much more likely to cause illness: spinach, eggs, chicken, peanuts, are not only allowed but in some places are encouraged in our backyards. Yet, for some reason raw milk is worth the time and money for our government to prosecute small dairy farmers, contest court cases where these dairy farmers are found to be acting legally, and to (against public opinion) continue to limit consumer access to clean raw milk.
Consumers and small dairy farmers BOTH benefit from a system that inspects, legitimizes and certifies dairy farms producing raw milk. They have a similar system of inspecting and process milk in England as we do in Canada and there they manage to have pasteurized AND raw milk safely available to consumers (and sometimes delivered to your door).
The whole debate reminds me about the debate over legalizing midwives to perform homebirths in BC. In the end, having a system that inspects, licenses, and legalizes midwifery benefited families, tax payers, and the Health Care system as a whole. Wouldn't it be the same thing for raw milk?
In full disclosure: I, too, am a writer and raw milk drinker and I wrote a couple articles last year on the subject: http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/greenmama/2011/10/17/raw-milk-debate-did-canada-just-give-away-your-right-choose-what-you.
Reply · 5 · Like · Follow Post · 20 hours ago
Judie Poitras Paden
Every child that ever grew up on the farm drank raw milk, my mother did until 17, she is 80 now. I too find it interesting that people can purchase alcohol and cigarettes, eat Sushi(raw fish), raw meat, however oh my gosh raw milk is poison and illegal! Ludicrous. This gentleman has been invited to educate himself on raw milk, however never showed up to any of the conferences, he is ignorant on the subject. To make raw milk illegal is ridiculous.......Throwing tons of tax payers money away, in court cases to defend the legality of selling raw milk............par for the course for our government..........
Reply · 5 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 4:30am
Victoria Gazeley · Gibsons, British Columbia
Considering what IS legal to buy in this country, and what they put in food and water on purpose (synthetic preservatives, GE organisms, fake fats, fluoride, chlorine, chemical insecticides, etc.) that is sickening millions of people to the point of chronic illness that costs 'the system' billions, organically raised 'real' milk is the least of our worries. In fact, if people are health conscious enough to have done the research to choose it, we should be encouraging it, not the other way around. It's a product considered safe enough to be offered on the shelf in multiple jurisdictions around the world (more than where it is not 'allowed'), so there's no other explanation for the fact it still isn't in Canada outside of those of politics, money and control. Funny - you'd think that considering there's such a demand, that the dairy marketing boards would be falling over themselves to get a market share. But instead, they just lean on the health departments to continue to make this an issue. I guess old habits die hard. Bottom line - we and many of our friends have been consuming 'real' dairy for almost a decade without incident (as did umpteen generations before us) - but we know our animals, their health, and follow appropriate protocols. I've not heard of one child sickened by it, but I have heard of others taken down by industrially produced beef, chicken, canteloupe and a whole bunch of other produce imported from elsewhere. Not to compare one to the other, but it makes the whole argument a bit ridiculous considering what we should be focussing on - the complete takeover of our food system by big industrial, chemical-based biotech-promoting agriculture and its practices.
Reply · 4 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 8:33am
Luiza Zlatovic · Follow · New Westminster, British Columbia
It is unbelievable that in this country that values cultural differences and celebrates diversity people are not free to make an informed decision about the food they would like to eat. Nourishment is the basic right we all have and each of us should be therefore free to decide on what we eat. I don't want to eat dead and over-processed milk-like liquid from confined sickly animals that never ever step on pasture during their short and sad lives. That liquid should be illegal not a real milk from cows on pasture produced in sanitary conditions and regularly tested. I don't think that government official loves me or my children more than I do, do you?
Reply · 5 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 5:49pm
Alexandra Bennett
Everybody can buy raw eggs. But we are warned that the very young and very old and pregnant women are safer if they consume the eggs only cooked. Why can't we give the same recommendations for raw milk? And then - shock horror - let people make their own decisions and take responsibility for what they put into their own bodies?
Reply · 4 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 6:43am
Kurtis Staven
Real food freedom means taking responsibility for ones choices and not begging a government for protection. Look at all the realities presented and make a true informed choice. There is a good degree of truth in the how it is done argument that people need to understand. Then if you want a further measure of safety the reality is there is a Simple, relatively cheap and effective solution to the whole problem.
Reply · 2 · Like · Follow Post · about an hour ago
Aaron Friesan · Science Teacher at Ideal Mini School
The issue that seems to be ignored in this is the way conventional dairy is processed. The volumes of milk in single lots being so large it makes contamination risks high so pasteurization becomes imperative. Most raw dairy producers have small cow herds (the cows are often named) where their health is more easily monitored. The milk is collected in much smaller volumes and more easily controlled. It is safe if you have a good source. Know your source. Strange that I can not drink a full glass of pasteurized milk without GI upset, yet I can consume more than a half liter of raw milk and feel revitalized. True story.
Reply · 2 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 7:21amJessica Roman
Aaron, where can I get some?? Massive GI probs here too!!
Reply · Like · Yesterday at 8:55am
Carolyn Marie Cook · Salt Spring Island
we get raw milk from tilly and willy, but of course, it's for the cats because it's illegal for me to buy/consume raw milk directly...interesting too, it costs the same as the hormone-riddled, pasteurized crap that comes in plastic.....man, I love living on SaltSpring! homesteading rocks! even making cheese now, Aar! and butter! yee-haw!
Reply · Like · Yesterday at 11:47am
Aaron Friesan · Science Teacher at Ideal Mini School
Awesome stuff Care!!!!
Reply · Like · Yesterday at 12:03pm
Noriko Okamoto · UBC
We are allowed to buy a piece of raw meat and cook on our own liking. Why can't we cook our milk on our own liking?
Reply · 2 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 3:57pm
Raw Milk Canada
Randy, no-one is denying that some of the health claims about raw milk could be exaggerated in comparison with published research (of which there is very little). People who have experienced health benefits from any lifestyle change (diet, exercise, medication, etc.) will of course relate their experience.
But tarring all raw milk advocates with the same brush of having "self-proclaimed experts" and "outlandish" websites is unfair to the majority, and stigmatizes all raw milk consumers, farmers, and supporters as being outright fanatical lunatics. Most of us are ordinary consumers who choose to drink raw milk -- not because of purported claims -- but because we have personally done the research about what raw milk can provide, learned about raw milk safety, read both sides of the debate, found a trusted source, tried it, and now continue to drink it based on the benefits (over pasteurized milk or milk substitutes) that we and our families have personally experienced. This is not wrong or outlandish, and nor should readers be told that we are endangering our children as this article implies.
Please consider talking to the raw milk community, representatives such as the speakers at the recent Fresh Milk Food Politics conference (http://www.freshmilkfoodpolitics.com), and learning about "the other side" of the story - not the "outlandish websites," but the other 95% of us.
Reply · 1 · Like · Follow Post · Edited · 5 hours agoRob Bright · Top Commenter
I'm loving the insightful, thoughtful, and educated comments on this article. Very encouraging!
Reply · Like · 5 hours ago
Bill McCaig
One of the major benefits of milk pasteurization is that it allows farmers to follow less stringent protocols for milk handling, sloppy even. It allows for the mass production of milk that would easily result in contamination, so if you're buying milk strictly on price and convenience - pasteurization is the best way. If you care about the quality of food you put in your body: meet your farmer, get to know their practices for every product they produce and make an informed decision.
Reply · 1 · Like · Follow Post · 9 hours ago
Kurtis Staven
What every article misses is the fact that raw milk can be tested to verify it does not contain the nasties they refer to. do this and the scare mongering we see in this article has no valid grounds.
Reply · 1 · Like · Follow Post · 2 hours ago
Mike Bell · Top Commenter
can this writer provide the source for the hundreds of people sickened by raw milk? this article is propaganda, most likely this writer got a kickback from big dairy to slam raw milk.
Reply · 1 · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 6:08amRandy Shore · Follow · Top Commenter · Weekend Editor, Food, Science and
Sustainability beat writer at The Vancouver Sun
Why do you assume I don't drink raw milk? I happily eat raw milk cheese. This isn't a slam, it's a clear cost benefit process that applies to milk, oysters and raw beef and every other food in the world. Here's a few links to outbreak info.
http://barfblog.com/2013/04/13-sick-salmonella-from-raw-milk-cheese-outbreak-in-minn/
http://www.foodpoisonjournal.com/food-poisoning-information/from-our-friends-at-wwwbarfblogcom-list-of-raw-milk-outbreaks/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2012/02/22/raw-milk-warning.html
Reply · 1 · Like · Yesterday at 9:18am
Raw Milk Canada
But if this cost-benefit process applies to every other food, then why is raw milk singled out in specific and not foods which have a higher incidence rate of disease, e.g. produce, eggs, and seafood? Yes, one can list illnesses from raw milk -- and also cantaloupe, cucumbers, oysters, spinach, beef, etc. Also, the 3rd link here citing the CDC study which states that raw milk is "150-times more dangerous" is questionable - even CDC data itself does not support this statement. Please see http://chriskresser.com/raw-milk-reality-is-raw-milk-dangerous for an alternate analysis of CDC data. This "150-times" statistic has got a lot of air-play in the form of government-funded press releases, but some question whether it is indeed "fact."
As well, these "outbreak" reports do not separate out the issues of illegally-distribut...See More
Reply · 3 · Like · Yesterday at 4:31pm
Noriko Okamoto · UBC
People talk about cost/benefit - sure, life is a balancing act, right? Now if you widen the view, you might notice that, by inflate the fear of raw milk, you'll also drive a small family dairy farm to extinction as they cannot typically buy a milk quota. Do yo know how many family farmers Canada has lost in last half century or so? What you're left is a big dairy Ag, exercising factory farming. Do you think it's too little a cost to pay to gain a little peace of mind?
You must also be aware of government push to change raw milk cheese regulation too, right? It's matter of time - canada is only a few years behind US.
Frankly, the heart of the issue is not even milk anymore. Canadian government infringes the constitutional right at an alarming rate. With introduction of new Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, the inspectors are allowed to raid a private property (incl. your kitchen, ha!) without court order. Soon you'll lose your raw milk cheese. Soon you'll lose pacific salmon. Soon you may notice how much cost you've actually paid to fulfill your paranoia of sterilization.
Reply · Like · 21 hours ago
View 1 more
Andy Bower · Amsterdam, Netherlands
Let me print this out so I can wipe my ass with it.
Reply · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 6:10am
Randy Shore · Follow · Top Commenter · Weekend Editor, Food, Science and Sustainability beat
writer at The Vancouver Sun
Majority of dairy-related disease outbreaks linked to raw milk
CDC Report Shows Higher Rates of “Raw” Milk Outbreaks in States Where It′s Legal
The rate of outbreaks caused by unpasteurized milk (often called raw milk) and products made from it was 150 times greater than outbreaks linked to pasteurized milk, according to a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The 13-year review also revealed that the states where the sale of raw milk was legal had more than twice the rate of outbreaks as states where it was illegal.
The study, published Feb. 21 in the CDC journal Emerging Infectious Diseases, reviewed dairy product outbreaks from 1993 to 2006 in all 50 states. The authors compared the amount of milk produced in the United States during the study period (about 2.7 trillion pounds) to the amount that CDC estim...See More
Reply · Like · Follow Post · 4 hours ago
Royce Hamer · Belford University B.S. c Mechanical eng.
I am so tired of the organized rhetoric from the industrial milk industry. As in all foods there is a possibility of contamination be it raw or pasteurized milk, spinach, tomatoes, and a host of fruit. The meat industry has nothing to be proud of but if these products were grown in a natural way with proper hygiene then the risk is reduced to near zero. I drank raw milk for 23 years and it came out of the bulk tank with no additional precautions above what was required by the milk authorities. We did adhere to strict procedures and our cows were clean and happy in a free run environment. During school tours we were accused of washing our cows that is how clean they appeared. Most of this debate should never be held since it is not so much about raw milk but our right to access it as free human beings opposed to government corruption. I suggest that the real and quickest solution to this travesty of rights and venial propaganda is to start supporting the CACL --Canadian Anti Corruption League. We stand for the health conscience consumer in all mattes of food choice and we are against forced medication as out web site illustrates. www.canadiananticorruptionleague.org. If you are a food freedom advocate with a web site please post a link to CACL site. You need us and we need you plus it is unfair for CACL to do all the political fighting alone when you will benefit in the long run. We will soon be registered as a political party and under our Anti Corruption Platform everything is possible. Visit our web site for details and do something constructive to end this criminal industrial oppression.
Reply · Like · Follow Post · 6 hours ago
Raw Milk Canada
"I have never condemned it."
Unfortunately, this article *does* condemn raw milk. It portrays raw milk as a dangerous product having a ""proven cost ... of illness, organ damage and sometimes death;" raw milk drinkers as fringe lunatics who therefor endanger their children; and all raw milk-related websites as specious and unreliable. It is too bad that you didn't interview raw milk farmers, consumers, or advocacy groups first.
You should also be aware of the shortcomings of some of the existing scientific literature: First, some research is performed by university departments and research facilities which rely on funding or other support from the industrialized dairy sector, or which have other close ties (personnel migration, etc.) with the dairy industry. Is this conflict-of-interest and relationship information disclosed by the study authors? And, as one researcher in CA noted recently, you cannot obtain funding in North America to study the benefits of raw milk, only the benefits of pasteurized.
Second, these studies do not disclose the sources of the raw milk they study. Is it industrial milk produced by methods intended for pasteurization, or fresh milk produced by raw milk "Best Practices" (such as Cowshare Canada and RAWMI standards) intended for direct consumption? Where the cows A1 or A2? CAFO, grain-fed, pastured? If pastured, then details? What time of year was the milking? What care was given to transportation and storage of samples? We all know that these factors make a difference in milk quality.
Third, when one hears about "raw milk outbreaks," again, were these outbreaks related to "industrial milk" or "fresh milk"? Were they related to illegal "Mexican bathtub cheese"? Was the milk produced according to raw milk best practices or not? Health inspectors often have little training in evaluating these factors.
The statement of "hundreds of illnesses" implies hundreds every year and implies that pasteurized dairy causes no illness, neither of which are true. Deaths? None since 1998 and there are over nine million consumers in the U.S. alone. Illness? The chance of hospitalization per year appears to be closer to perhaps one in six million according to a different analysis. Yes, there are illnesses as with any food, and there are unsafe producers but that is why consumers look to certification and internationally-recognized standards for raw milk production. Raw milk is safer per unit consumed than seafood, produce, or eggs, for example.
Unfortunately, this article appears to have been written in order to scare people away from drinking fresh, clean, unpasteurized milk. Listing a few benefits does not make this article balanced, as the worth of these are completely dismissed in the two closing paragraphs.
Please consider talking to raw milk experts such as Nadine Jiaz, Michael Schmidt, or Mark McAfee, Jiaz's recent report is ground-breaking in the field of studying raw milk safety and nutrition, using international standards for quantifying risk.
Instead of a "scare story," a more productive article may have informed the consumer about how to tell industrial "raw" milk from fresh "raw" milk and why this is important; the difference between CAFO, pastured and other feeding methods; A1 and A2 milk; what questions to ask when selecting your farmer; farmer training and certification resources; and tell consumers how to care for the milk following the "cold chain" principle (see Peggy Beals book "Safe Handling," soon to be published in a Canadian edition); and good books and websites are recommended. It could have interviewed spokespersons for raw milk, and talked about proposed changes in B.C. law to legalize raw milk as it is legal in many other nations and in many American states.
Reply · 4 · Like · Edited · Yesterday at 3:40pm
Vreni Gurd · Movement Re-Education, Personalized Nutrition, Visceral Massage at Self employed
Raw milk for human consumption from grass-fed Jersey or Guernsey cows is a completely different product than grain-fed unpasteurized Holstein milk from the bulk tanks of factory farms. When an article on raw milk consumption does not distinguish between these two very different products, one can't help but think that the article has missed the point.
Grain is not the natural diet of a cow. Cows get sick on grain. Drinking raw milk from grain-fed, factory-farmed cattle IS very risky, and I doubt any raw-milk enthusiasts would do that.
Cows are meant to eat grass. They are healthy and don't need antibiotics when they graze on pasture. The resulting milk is low in harmful bacteria, high in the beneficial probiotic bacteria, higher in omega 3 and CLA, and lower in the inflammatory omega 6 fatty acids.
There is no co...See More
Reply · 2 · Like · 20 hours ago
Athana Mentzelopoulos
been meaning to tell you how much I enjoy your stuff -- always something to learn. thanks!
Reply · Like · 9 hours ago
View 1 more
Lydia Travers · Follow
You really have a very uninformed and one sided view of this issue. You have not mentioned all the many very adverse, chronic and debilitating effects many have using the product after it has been processed and degraded. The latest, some dairies want to add artificial sugars to their product - I even hesitate to call it milk. This is only the tip of the iceberg in the control of our natural foods by government agencies for the large food industries; whose acctions currently threatening to make the whole planet unlivable. The public is not listened to, the information is distorted, the agenda is defiantly not a healthy population.
Reply · Like · Follow Post · 12 hours ago
Rob Bright · Top Commenter
Wow! Whether it's one-sided, biased, baseless op-eds that promote GMOs, or one-sided, biased, baseless articles on the "dangers of raw milk," the Van Sun proves itself again to be a misinformed, unenlightened rag. Way to go Van Sun!
Reply · Like · Follow Post · 6 hours ago
Christy Forte Erasmus · University of British Columbia
Hi Randy, You say you would like to encourage critical thinking......you say you drink raw milk....you say you have followed this debate for sometime, and have a in depth knowledge of the topic.....can't say I got any of that from this article, and it looks like I'm not alone. That was a loaded question, and you know it. Way to pull the "Child" Trump card.....I applaud you for your stealth, and cunning. Fortunately for us, the implications you laced your article with are just not true, and we are extremely intelligent. The risk of drinking RAW milk is EXTREMELY low, and is in fact one of the lowest risk foods on the planet. Oh, and by the way that awesome fact CAN and HAS NOW been proven WITH SCIENCE. If you had attended the Fresh Food Politics seminar with the rest of us, you would have that nice little tid-bit of knowledge, and would have been able to add that to your "Research". In fact, if we are going to ask this question of raw milk, we should be asking it of ANY food that we did not grow, or produce by our own hand. I also resent the implications that the human populace is inherently stupid, and we would require someone, such as yourself to "ASK US TO THINK ABOUT OUR CHOICES." Seriously? We are not imbeciles, and can think for ourselves, AND can make intelligent decisions without your help. This is insulting to both RAW MILK, and NON-RAW MILK drinkers alike. Instead of treating us like we are morons, how about use your powers for good, and pull an entire re-write of this article? Prove to us you really do drink RAW milk. If you do, you would ONLY be singing it's phrases, instead of attempting to guise that little slam at the end as "Opportunities to encourage critical thinking." Give us a break.....we are not idiots, and know EXACTLY what you were really trying to do despite what you say to the contrary. To all of you NON-RAW milk drinkers out there.....we are only asking what is ours by civil right. Join the fight, even if you never plan on drinking RAW. What other rights will they take away from us in the name of "safety" if we allow them to have this one? Our food system is dying as we speak.....control being taken further, and further from the hands of the consumer. Join us and fight for something real.......fight for you, your families, your children and the freedom to choose what you eat always. You are smart, wise, and have the ability to make good, informed choices. I enjoy making this choice, I enjoy being able to feed my family what I now refer to as "Liquid White Gold" With this product we have flourished!
Reply · Like · Follow Post · 20 hours ago
Douglas Aaring · Chief Executive Officer at Meta Living Design
If you're looking for real studies to back the claims for why raw milk is safe to drink, here you go. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/06/07/don-t-be-misled-by-dairy-ads.aspx … I really hope you read it, and then do a REAL article on the truth; unlike what they've done here. Needless to say, you'll soon see, pasteurized milk is deadly the choice.
Reply · Like · Follow Post · Edited · Yesterday at 6:10pm
Obadiah Ford
Your article looks a lot more like dairy board propaganda than real news. Please check your facts more accurately before spreading missinformation that denys people's right to choose what is healthy for themselves. Your article is thinly disguised, slanted media and not appreciated by the public consumer
Reply · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 3:40pm
Sukhwant Sumbal
The only time any significant number of people will get sick from raw (fresh) milk is when the people who control our food supply surreptitiously tamper with its production, of which there is a real possibility if too many people start switching over.
Reply · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 11:20am
Obadiah Ford
To publish missinformed, slanted media, is to lose credibilty with an educated public.
Reply · Like · Follow Post · Yesterday at 3:45pm
Noriko Okamoto · UBC
It's interesting that you hand pick "implicated" (not proven) cases of "milk related incidents" to bashing unpasteurized milk. If we follow your logic, we shouldn't sell any raw meat, raw vegetables, raw cantaloup - everything has to be cooked before they hits the store shelves.
Because you're concerned about public health issue so much, I assume you are aware of the recent DNA based investigation of turkey meat - more than half of them are contaminated with "fecal bacteria" (http://www.consumerreports.org/turkey0613). I am waiting for your sequel of the article stating"ban the unprocessed turkey" before next thanksgiving - followed by "no more raw beef", "no more raw lettuce/spinach/cantaloup" and start a campaign banning caesar salad from eatries in whole country.
Give me a break.
Reply · Like · Follow Post · Edited · Yesterday at 3:43pmYana Eglit · Bloomington, Indiana
I've been living off raw milk, cream and butter for almost 2 years now. Still alive and kicking. Never as much as a stomach-ache =)
Reply · 1 · Like · Yesterday at 3:48pm
Noriko Okamoto · UBC
you may want to think twice moving back to canada - oh, never mind, cross the border to Maine, and you'll get them legally.
Reply · Like · Yesterday at 4:05pm