An article in the Nov, 12, 2007 Vernon Morning Star, titled: “Think Wise, Pasteurize,” recently caught my attention. It wasn’t because it espoused the safety of pasteurized milk, but because it also cited the supposed evils of the raw variety. The author seems sincere, but she gives no proof of claims made. Considering that she shoots down all nutrition and disease resistance claims of raw milk, this is no small matter.
She paints a picture of raw milk being a vehicle for pathogenic bacteria; something which only pasteurization was said to prevent. Oh really? This information was so one sided and nonsensical, I determined to do some research and get the facts behind pasteurization of milk. Here is what I came up with!
In today’s climate of drugs, overcrowding and sick animals on huge commercial farms, pasteurization may indeed be a wise option for those who drink COMMERCIALLY produced milk. This much I agree on, because we would poison ourselves into an early grave. However, let’s put some reality back in this story. If we are to believe the protagonists of pasteurization, raw milk is as bad as rat poison. This is simply not true. Here are some of the benefits (never mentioned by pro pasteurizationists) associated with raw milk:
- Raw milk contains 60 or so heat sensitive (and therefore easily destroyed), key enzymes (specialized proteins) and enzyme inhibitors, immunoglobulins (antibodies), metal-binding proteins, vitamin binding proteins and several growth factors. The amylase, bacterially-produced lactase, lipase and phosphatase in raw milk break down starch, lactose (milk sugar), fat (triglycerides) and phosphate compounds respectively, making milk more digestible and freeing up key minerals. Other enzymes, like catalase, lysozyme and lactoperoxidase help to protect milk from unwanted bacterial infection, making it safer for us to drink. Lactase, another enzyme, is the reason that many people cannot drink milk – they are lactose intolerant. Without lactase to help break down the milk sugar lactose, the human body cannot assimilate the milk sugar. And phosphotase is instrumental in calcium uptake.
- Raw milk is an outstanding source of healthy, “good” bacteria and micronutrients, including lactobacillus, acidophilus, and vitamins, which promote the growth of healthy bacteria in your intestine. These are virtually eliminated by the pasteurization process of commercial milk.
- Raw milk still contains natural butterfat, which is homogenized or removed in commercial milk. Without butterfat, the body cannot absorb and utilize the vitamins and minerals in the water fraction of the milk. Butterfat is also the best source of preformed vitamin A, and contains re-arranged acids with strong anti-carcinogenic properties.
- Immunoglobulins, a complex class of milk proteins known as antibodies, provide resistance to many viruses, bacteria and bacterial toxins and may help reduce the severity of asthma symptoms. Studies have shown significant loss of these important disease fighters when milk is heated to normal processing temperatures.
· Raw milk contains vitamin D as the natural vitamin D3 (cholicalciferol), wherein vitamin D added to milk is synthetic vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol) which does not have the same health benefits.
Source: mercola.com
Heat alters milk’s amino acids lysine and tyrosine, making the whole complex of proteins less available; it promotes rancidity of unsaturated fatty acids and destruction of vitamins. Vitamin C loss in pasteurization usually exceeds 50 per cent; loss of other water-soluble vitamins can run as high as 80 per cent. In fact, heated milk must have destroyed components added back in- especially the important fat soluble vitamins A and D. After pasteurization, chemicals may be added to suppress odor and restore taste.
With commercial, pasteurized milk, there is also the issue of the antibiotics, pesticides and growth hormones and the fact that nearly all commercial dairy cows are raised on grains, not grass. This will change the composition of the fats in the milk, especially the beneficial Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA), content.
Of particular relevance is the development of acid-resistant strains of bacteria in modern cattle. According to a 1998 Science magazine article, cattle fed mostly grain have a lower intestinal pH (more acidic) and are more likely to harbor pathogenic bacteria than cattle fed mostly grass and hay. The abnormally low pH in which the bacteria develop makes these bacteria acid-resistant. “The ability of bacteria to act as food-borne pathogens de-
depends on their capacity to survive the low pH of the [human] gastric stomach
ach and to colonize the intestinal tract of humans,” the authors write. “Cattle
that were fed grain had one million-fold more acid-resistant E. coli than cattle fed hay.” (www.newtrendspublishing.com)
While experts tell us that raw milk can contain dangerous bacteria (e-coli, salmonella, etc.), this statement should be qualified by saying that this is only true if it is handled un-hygienically as it certainly does not naturally contain these organisms.
Illness associated with consuming raw milk have been relatively infrequent. The pasteurization author cites a Canadian study of more than 1000 farms revealing pathogenic E.coli bacteria present in 2 percent of raw milk samples. This is a relatively low incidence rate and should not be used as an excuse to condemn all raw milk.
In Canada, as well as the US, incidents involving raw milk consumption have involved mild symptoms in relatively few people. If all of the reports are accurate, and raw milk were indeed the immediate cause of all of the incidents to which it stands accused, then over the past 25 years or so, a few hundred people have become ill for a few days; a few dozen may have been seriously ill, and another few with serious underlying medical problems may have died in each country.
Open and fair-minded officials need to understand that raw milk from healthy animals, carefully produced and handled, simply does not cause disease and has remarkable health benefits. True protection of the public health would involve officials working to help interested farmers to produce such milk and physicians promoting the healthfulness of this product to their patients and the public.
In contrast, some 200,000 people are sickened each day in the United States due to food-borne illness; about 900 are hospitalized, and about 14 die. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) states that over a quarter of all Americans come down with food poisoning each year. Only a fraction of these cases are ever reported. Studies have shown that many food-borne pathogens can trigger serious chronic diseases, including autoimmune disorders, heart disease, neurological problems, kidney damage and inflammatory bowel disease.” (www.newtrendspublishing.com)
All outbreaks of salmonella from contaminated milk in recent decades—and there have been many—have occurred in pasteurized milk. This includes a 1985 outbreak in Illinois that struck 14,316 people, causing at least one death. The salmonella strain in that batch of pasteurized milk was found to be genetically resistant to both penicillin and tctracycline. (Book: Excerpt Nourishing Traditions, Sally Fallon)
Canada also has a sorry history of food borne illnesses, the scope of which costs the Canadian economy an estimated $1.3 billion dollars per year. We have some of the highest rates of pathogenic food bacteria incidence rates in the world and Health Canada statistics show these rates climbing because we have created the conditions under which this organism can thrive.
Tens of thousands of farm animals spend their entire lives locked in tiny pens or cages, crowded together under heavy stress. Many eat in the same cages where they defecate. These commercial farms are geared to mass production, and animals raised under these conditions become extremely susceptible to diseases.
A November 3, 2007 CNN article stated that a Canadian firm was linked in October to a massive multistate outbreak of E. coli infections, leading to the second largest beef recall in U.S. history. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency also lists store-bought chickens as problematic with Salmonella, with both involved in many illnesses and even death.
Are these companies raided and threatened with legal action as farmers who sell raw milk are? Not a chance. The onus is on the customer to treat many products as if they are potentially contaminated, with a reminder to thoroughly cook with ground beef to reduce the likelihood of E. Coli, or using safe handling practices. It’s as if it’s the fault of the consumer, rather than the originating plant where unsanitary practices flourish, or back further, at the feedlot where the drugged and packed like sardine animals originate. Those are some standards coming from our supposed rigid farm management practices. Now imagine the outcry if raw milk had been the culprit in so many cases.
I am not advocating that everyone go out and find raw milk to drink. I don’t know what individual farm standards are. But according to Sally Fallon, president for the Weston A. Price Foundation, tainted dairy is generally only a problem when the milk comes from typical conventional dairy facilities. “But milk from cows fed on pastures actually has [it's] own antimicrobial components that keep it safe.” (New York Times August 8, 2007)
When health experts write articles of unwarranted fear mongering, it makes me wonder how the human race existed before Pasteur became inventive in his shop. It’s sad that health protection agencies quickly ban foods that carry fairly minor health risks — but lots of health benefits. All this while leaving sick cows, chickens and other animals full of drug and hormone remnants; and fed on grains, plastics, woodchips and even other dead animals, WHILE carrying E.coli bacteria BEFORE getting to the consumer, in the food chain. How can they claim these carry minimal health risk, while yet warning us to cook and scrub well in case the bacteria is present? Is this not hypocrisy? Quite simply, I think they’re counting on an ignorant public.
