/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5599461]

Alright, so I'm sure you're all aware that commercially sold milk is pasteurized in order to remove dangerous bacteria from it. However there are some people that believe that drinking raw milk is better for you.
There arguments were as follows:
-clean cows produce milk free of this bacteria
-babies don't die from breast milk so cow milk should be safe too

I'm almost 100% sure this is bullshit. But I need proof. Anybody know anything about the pasteurization process?

[Anonymous No.5599489]

It's true that healthy cows should produce pathogen free milk, but that doesn't mean much. It's impractical to try to avoid contamination in a farm setting.

Anyway, I think the dangers are greatly exaggerated. People have been drinking milk for thousands of years, and pasteurization has been around for how long?

Definitely tastes better too.

[Anonymous No.5599493]

Cows have some pretty nasty ass microbes. It follows, then, that milk has some pretty nasty ass microbes. Changing the environment of the milk to be hostile to microbes sure makes it a lot safer to drink. Consider that there are trillions of bacteria in the average human. Other animals are no different.

On the breast milk topic, this is some elements of the human immune system are innate. Humans are exposed to and build resistance to bacteria found in other humans. The average human does not spend its gestation period exposed to cow bacteria.

[Anonymous No.5599510]

Is it mostly placebo?
>Yes

Is there a chance unpasteurized breast milk could make you sick?
>Yes

Does it really matter?
>No

People should even be really drinking milk past infancy anyways.

[Anonymous No.5599515]

>>5599510
Ten cake post nigga

[Anonymous No.5599522]

a) Pasteurization degrades proteins and makes them more digestible
b) There's no way of telling a clean cow and a dirty one until far after infection
c) Human milk and cow milk are completely different things, a good amount of mammalian milk is completely indigestible to humans
d) Pasteurization removes no nutrients from milk at all

[Anonymous No.5599539]

>>5599522
Should they sell cartons of breast milk instead?

[Anonymous No.5599541]

>>5599539
I wish I was joking but PETA actually advocates this

[Anonymous No.5599546]

You can drink unpasteurized milk on around a day or two after it has been extracted.
Pasteurization only allows for longer conservation.

Babies drink and extract milk at the same time, so obviously it's healthy for them.
If you want to drink directly from a cow, go for it.

[Anonymous No.5599549]

Grew up on a dairy farm, drank nothing but un-processed milk for my entire life up to age 18. It’s fucking fine.

Want to know why it’s processed? Because it extends shelf life. Milk is tested at the farm upon collection and any kind of contamination like what is described in >>5599489 >>5599493 means the milk is rejected and the farmer won’t get paid. It happens very rarely.

Store bought milk lasts a week + in the fridge, fresh milk lasts days (we threw it out after 3 days in our fridge). It starts going off immediately and much of the bulk transport used by processors will not keep it cool enough to slow this process significantly. Processing also brings it back from the brink it reaches just getting to the plant.
Whilst unprocessed milk is delicious, selling it commercially is an absurd proposition, especially with the centralisation of the processing/bottling factories. Milk often has to cross entire states to get from where it is produced to where it’s sold, it just won’t last that long.

Also processed milk is probably better for you because it has all the delicious and therefore fattening components removed to be sold separately as cream etc.

As an asside, these raw fooders are usually madmen that have massively mis-applied a scientific paper or two.

The more you know.

[Anonymous No.5599550]

>>5599510
>People should even be really drinking milk past infancy anyways.
Why not? How do I get calcium?

Also, I've turned lactose deficient after stopping milk a few months ago. Feels bad, man.

[Anonymous No.5599553]

>>5599541
But it would be far more unethical. Imagine them wimenz forced to produce milk in an industrial scale, given hormones and such. Also think about the price.

[Anonymous No.5599557]

>>5599550
almonds, fruits and seeds, stones.

[Anonymous No.5599559]

There is some scientific evidence showing it's healthier for you.

But the government should ABSOLUTELY NOT be raiding people's farms and shops with fucking swat teams for selling it like they have done before, fucking bullshit.

[Anonymous No.5599576]

>>5599550
Calcium isn't that hard to get from non animal sources, vitamin A and B12 on the other hand...

[Anonymous No.5599582]

>>5599576
>vit a
what about carrots?

[Anonymous No.5599645]

>>5599461
Pasteurization, as well as removing pathogens, removes the helpful, healthy colon promoting bacteria found in some dairy products. Doesn't really matter. Pasteurized milk is cheaper than unpasteurized because it has a longer shelf life. That's why we drink it. If you have a cow, you can drink its milk. (after filtering it)

[Anonymous No.5599723]

>>5599510
No.
N. European people have have actually changed genetically to allow them to take advantage of animals you can feed off of and still keep.
There are only a few things in nature that are created to be eaten: Milk, Honey, all awesome stuff.
Milk is good, healthy stuff. Unless you are not white it is one of the most perfect foods on Earth.

[Anonymous No.5599876]

>>5599549

This is the most accurate answer. Those plugging for microbe-health need to find that elsewhere, and also please stop misconstruing the body microbiome literature.

All that being said there are multiple WAYS to pasteurize milk that alter it's FLAVOR. Pasteurization requires heat over time, low heat for a long time or high heat and pressure extra fast. In America ultra-pasteurization is used- very high heat and pressure, sometimes coupled with microspray. Shit flavor, month long shelf life.

[Anonymous No.5599911]

>>5599559
It's killed people.

[Anonymous No.5600147]

>>5599911

[Anonymous No.5600166]

>>5599911
No it didn't lefttard, fuck you, the fda murders hundreds of thousands a year

[Anonymous No.5600178]

http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/nonpasteurized-outbreaks.html

You'll discount it because it's the CDC, which makes this all so much fun. So much for science I guess.

[Anonymous No.5600281]

>>5600178
I would like to see how many of those people that fell ill due to unprocessed milk were raw foodist nutjobs that have no idea how to store/prepare meals safely.

Also, like I said earlier, unprocessed milk won’t store long term. It blows my mind that there are states in the US that actually allow the sale of unprocessed dairy. Any commercial operation would have to store products for far longer than is safe if they were to turn a profit.

As for unprocessed milk itself, I grew up drinking it because I lived on a dairy farm. It was usually consumed within 24 hours of being extracted. All our neighbours also drank it, took jugs right from the vat. Whilst this worked it would never have been commercially viable, we would need to have guaranteed everyone within 15mins drive was going to buy 1L per day minimum.

There is nothing wrong with drinking right from the farms vat but no commercial venture would be able to operate this way, you could not sell the required volumes whilst ensuring it is stored for a short enough time period.

[Anonymous No.5600286]

>>5600178

*cough*

Fluid milk (unpasteurized):
46 cases
930 illnesses
71 hospitalizations
0 deaths

Fluid Milk(pasteurized):
10 cases
2098 illnesses
20 hospitalizations
0 deaths

Here's the kicker, this is over a 13 year period (1993-2006).

[Anonymous No.5600303]

>>5600178
>>5600286

So while cases of an unpasteurized outbreak is higher. There are less illnesses reported per outbreak (20 per outbreak vs 200 per outbreak), and less hospitalizations per outbreak (1.5 per outbreak vs 2 per outbreak).

I think it's safe to conclude, based on the study, that raw milk is no more dangerous than pasteurized milk.

[Anonymous No.5600313]

>>5600303
Or that pasteurised milk is processed and sold in much higher volumes and that a contaminated batch would be much larger.

[Anonymous No.5600327]

>>5600313

Yes, that's likely. Doesn't mean pasteurized is safer, in fact your statement implies the opposite.

My question is: what is there in the study that supports banning sale of raw milk? Seems to me the data support liberalization of the food laws in this case (although the tone of the report is oddly against it).

[Anonymous No.5600345]

>>5600327
The number of outbreaks is much higher, though I would put that down partly to the operations that sell unpasteurised milk being smaller less professional operations likely run by raw food hippie types and partly due to unprocessed milk being impossible to store/being left in the fridge at home too long.

The fact is that the sale of un-pasteurised milk should be restricted because the common pleb is bound to store it too long/improperly and end up making themselves sick. Most people expect milk to last a week plus because the most commonly available pasteurised milk does.

People are just too retarded for these ultra-liberal minimal regulation utopia propositions to work.

[Anonymous No.5600360]

>>5600345
who fucking cares?
why do I have to pay for enforcement of these stupid laws
if these hippies want to drink raw milk let them

[Anonymous No.5600587]

>>5600360
Because the medical costs and loss of labor due to illness or death is much higher you ultra-liberal fuckwit.

Complex industrial scocieties function upon standards and regulations, its what stops neo-liberal scumbags from fucking the system till it breaks because hey, fuck everyone else I dont need the system.

Idiot.

[Anonymous No.5602027]

>>5600587

Ultra-liberal minimal regulation utopia. Straw man much? We're talking about making milk legal. Milk. Come on.

A "pleb" could store milk too long. But it would take an idiot beyond measure to drink it. If milk goes bad, you know.

>>5600345

The CDC reported 0 deaths from raw milk over 13 years. You mention death because it invokes fear, not because it's factual.

Why not instead of banning it, slap warning labels on it? Let people decide whether to "take the risk". We do this with many other products, some being arguably more dangerous.

[Anonymous No.5602044]

>>5600587
>you ultra-liberal fuckwit.

Most supporters of drinking raw milk would actually be considered highly conservative, you know. It's a position that's big in libertarian circles. Liberals are the ones who created the milk regulations in the first place.

[Anonymous No.5602060]

>>5602027
>Why not instead of banning it, slap warning labels on it?

Because then it would be harder to connive to ruin people's lives with the court system. The lengths that food regulators will go to to bust people for "selling raw milk" are pretty ridiculous - undercover police have been known to literally force money into the hands of farmers in order to justify an arrest.