Infinite Blogging

Tales of love, fertility and nourishing food.

No evidence seen for benefits of ‘raw milk’ January 8, 2009

Filed under: Food,Health — Annette @ 3:04 pm

I haven’t looked into the raw milk issue myself (besides knowing that organizations don’t recommend it because of food safety issues), and I know I’m going to get blasted for posting this, but I thought it was worth passing along.


11 Responses to “No evidence seen for benefits of ‘raw milk’”

  1. Lyndell Says:

    How about the UV light on the store shelves?

  2. Annette Says:

    What? What about it?

    I don’t really know what you’re asking. The only thing I know about light and milk is that light destroys riboflavin, which is why milk is stored in opaque containers instead of clear glass.

  3. crystal Says:

    I’m not going to “blast” you. I would never try to push my food beliefs on anyone else. But we get raw milk & we love it. Of course we thorouhly looked into it before making the switch. Also, where we get our milk from, it’s tested twice a week for any bacteria or anything that would keep it from being healthy. But keep in mind, for all the people who have researched & written about & blasted raw milk, there are also many who have researched & written about & blasted pasteurized milk. I say, do your research & make the choice you feel most comfortable with. (plural “you”) πŸ˜‰

  4. Terri Says:

    No blasting; just some thoughts.

    This article states “There’s no evidence that raw milk has any health benefits, and it can be harmful…” but they do not cite how they determined this. I realize that this is a short article reporting on a journal article, so if they actually did any studies, perhaps it was cited there. This short article doesn’t give us enough information to even know what aspects of raw milk and health were studied. There simply isn’t enough information here.

    Reports about studies are slippery slopes. They give just enough information that people tend to automatically believe them without actually looking at what was studied. The interpretaton of studies is very subjective. I’ve read studies where “2%” experienced a certain result and the conclusion was that is was “not significant”. I’ve read other studies where “2%” experienced a certain result, and the conclusion was that there was a “significant difference.” I would not draw a conclusion from an article like this without looking at the actual studies.

    Raw milk was created by God. There is evidence in the Bible that humans have consumed raw milk for millenia. Abraham served raw milk to the Lord. I just have to believe that what God created is healthier for us than what man manufactures.

    As for safety, there’s an interesting report that was drawn for the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors about food-borne illnesses. It compared reported outbreaks of food-borne illnesses of raw milk, pasteurized milk and other foods. It can be found at The facts are quite interesting.

    The history of pasteurizing milk is also interesting. The “need” for pasteurizing was actually created by the commercializing, mass-production and mass-distribution of raw milk. Raw milk is absolutely NOT safe when it comes from cows crowded into small spaces (often never seeing daylight), fed inadequate (but cheap) food, with disease running rampant through the herds, and then distributed over long distances. If that were my only option, I’d never drink raw milk.

    But raw milk, fresh from a cow that has spent its life on non-chemically-treated pastures, eating what God intended cows to eat and milked the morning that I pick it up…..yum!

  5. crystal Says:

    umm… keep it from being UNhealthy. lol. you knew what i meant, right?

    hey… cut me some slack… i’m on pain meds. (=

  6. Charlie Says:

    In addition to a balanced diet, regular exercise is also necessary to maintain your health.

  7. Annette Says:

    You’ll have to forgive me if I’m a bit skeptical of Weston A. Price.

    Like I said, I haven’t done a ton of research into this. I’m not anti-raw milk by any means. I’ve had raw milk in times past. All I’m saying is that reputable organizations tend to maintain that drinking raw milk comes with a certain risk of food safety issues. (But then, eating anything does, so it’s just a question of what level of risk you’re willing to accept for what benefits.)

  8. Charlie Says:

    Look, I just want to point something out about the mindset of being in the Church.

    There is a strong counter-cultural aspect to the Church of God.

    I’ve seen it, and I myself relish “being different.”

    But in the same way that we “don’t take Herbert W. Armstrong’s word for it” we can’t take a single man’s health advice (especially when he’s a dentist).

    In the same way that a mainstream Christian believes truth mixed with errors, a quack doctor like Price believes in good health practices and… welll, quackery.

    Just because something goes against the mainstream, that doesn’t make it true.

  9. Leona D Says:

    But raw milk tastes so much better – yum, yum!!! πŸ™‚

  10. Kerr Says:

    I hereby blast you and your liberal agenda. Keep your propaganda to yourself next time. I have no opinion myself on the issue, but I still think you’re wrong. Actually I don’t even know what you think on the issue, but I still think you’re wrong.
    PS – with my blister healed I’m almost out of excuses for not running. Hopefully.

  11. Annette Says:

    Glad to hear it, Kerr. πŸ™‚ I’m glad you’re here to keep us all in line. BTW, training for the half officially starts on the 26th. Oh, and a bunch of KC people might be coming over for the race, too.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s