Comments on: Raw Milk a Tasty Treat? http://crispyontheoutside.com/2008/05/21/raw-milk-a-tasty-treat/ The podcast from Crispy on the Outside (dot com), the irreverent food blog for food outlaws. The latest from the culinary underbelly, including news, interviews, and bluster. Mon, 15 Mar 2010 07:33:55 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: JD Burke http://crispyontheoutside.com/2008/05/21/raw-milk-a-tasty-treat/comment-page-1/#comment-511 JD Burke Wed, 21 May 2008 15:39:01 +0000 http://www.crispyontheoutside.com/2008/05/21/raw-milk-a-tasty-treat/#comment-511 reading the Quackwatch article I was struck by the tendency of the pro pasteurization folks (CDC, FDA, etc) to gloss over any real numbers. There were claims of possibility sickness, even one study of 94 families that only really concluded some folks in those families got sick and and stayed sick for awhile, probably through raw milk. More telling was the stat offered by a pro raw supporter that noted "3.6 million human cases of salmonellosis were reported between 1971 and 1982 in California, and that almost half of them were attributed to food service establishments, most of the remainder to meat and poultry, and only 103 to certified raw milk". 103 out of 3.6 million? And that constitutes a health problem? Granted I understand salmonella is not the only risk of raw milk, but unless one of them is far more prevalent than that, I don't see the risk. I don't buy the it'll cure me of X problem angle, and while it may contain more vitamins than pasteurized, I'm not sure milk drinkers are at any danger if they don't drink raw milk. But the fact that no one could show any real numbers on public health harms it seems to me this ought to be a legal option for folks to purchase. Seems to me to easily be more Nanny State BS in terms of food. reading the Quackwatch article I was struck by the tendency of the pro pasteurization folks (CDC, FDA, etc) to gloss over any real numbers. There were claims of possibility sickness, even one study of 94 families that only really concluded some folks in those families got sick and and stayed sick for awhile, probably through raw milk.

More telling was the stat offered by a pro raw supporter that noted “3.6 million human cases of salmonellosis were reported between 1971 and 1982 in California, and that almost half of them were attributed to food service establishments, most of the remainder to meat and poultry, and only 103 to certified raw milk”.

103 out of 3.6 million? And that constitutes a health problem? Granted I understand salmonella is not the only risk of raw milk, but unless one of them is far more prevalent than that, I don’t see the risk.

I don’t buy the it’ll cure me of X problem angle, and while it may contain more vitamins than pasteurized, I’m not sure milk drinkers are at any danger if they don’t drink raw milk.

But the fact that no one could show any real numbers on public health harms it seems to me this ought to be a legal option for folks to purchase.

Seems to me to easily be more Nanny State BS in terms of food.

]]> By: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Raw Milk (or, Further Adventures in the Nanny State) http://crispyontheoutside.com/2008/05/21/raw-milk-a-tasty-treat/comment-page-1/#comment-510 DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Raw Milk (or, Further Adventures in the Nanny State) Wed, 21 May 2008 13:12:58 +0000 http://www.crispyontheoutside.com/2008/05/21/raw-milk-a-tasty-treat/#comment-510 [...] Read it. [...] [...] Read it. [...]

]]>