Simple Bounty

Finding Beauty, Grace and Sanity in a Busy World

Raw Milk Consumption = Idiocy (Apparently) February 4, 2008

Filed under: Food,Health,Politics — katieosborne @ 1:02 am
Tags: , , ,

Ben brought an article on to my attention the other day. It’s a response to a recent article by Michael Kinsley of the Washington Post regarding “what’s wrong with libertarianism.” I am primarily interested in one statement Mr. Kinsley makes regarding the governments ban on raw milk:

Libertarians are quick to see hidden costs of ignoring libertarian principles and slow to see such costs in adhering to them. For example, Tucker Carlson reports in the Dec. 31 New Republic that Ron Paul wants to end the federal ban on unpasteurized milk. No one should want to drink unpasteurized milk, and almost no one does. Paul himself doesn’t. But it bothers him that the government tells people they cannot do something they shouldn’t do.Libertarians would say that if most people want pasteurized milk, the market will supply it. Firms will emerge to certify that milk has been pasteurized. These firms will compete, keeping them honest.

So yes, a Rube Goldberg contraption of capitalism could replace a straightforward government regulation. But what if you aren’t interested in turning your grocery shopping into an ideological adventure? All that is lost by letting the government take care of it is the right of a few idiots to be idiots. That right deserves respect. But not much.

Politics aside, this is an embarrassingly uneducated statement. There are many idiots, as he calls them, who inconvenience themselves to purchase unpasteurized milk because, unlike Kinsley, they have educated themselves on the benefits of raw milk and the detriments of pasteurized milk, and believe that it is worth the additional effort required to acquire raw milk.

Kinsley states that “no one should want to drink unpasteurized milk”, and yet my family, and many others, do. Well, we simply must be crazy. The government tells us that unpasteurized milk is unsafe; it’s hazardous to our health. Who wouldn’t believe the government? They’ve always proven themselves to be trustworthy; they never meddle unnecessarily in our lives; they always have our best interests at heart. Isn’t that right?

Umm. Right.

In truth, raw milk possesses many health benefits that are destroyed during the processes of pasteurization and homogenization. The resulting product is far inferior to the original, God designed, one.

Sally Fallon, author of Nourishing Traditions, has this to say of raw milk:

Raw milk contains lactic-acid-producing bacteria that protect against pathogens. Pasteurization destroys these helpful organisms, leaving the finished product devoid of any protective mechanism should undesirable bacteria inadvertently contaminate the supply. Raw milk in time turns pleasantly sour while pasteurized milk, lacking beneficial bacteria, will putrefy.

But that’s not all that pasteurization does to milk. 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%; loss of other water-soluble vitamins can run as high as 80%; the Wulzen or anti-stiffness factor is totally destroyed. Pasteurization alters milk’s mineral components such as calcium, chlorine, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium and sulphur as well as many trace minerals, making them less available. There is some evidence that pasteurization alters lactose, making it more readily absorbable. This, and the fact that pasteurized milk puts an unnecessary strain on the pancreas to produce digestive enzymes, may explain why milk consumption in civilized societies has been linked with diabetes.

Last but not least, pasteurization destroys all the enzymes in milk— in fact, the test for successful pasteurization is absence of enzymes. These enzymes help the body assimilate all bodybuilding factors, including calcium. That is why those who drink pasteurized milk may suffer, nevertheless, from osteoporosis. Lipase in raw milk helps the body digest and utilize butterfat. After pasteurization, chemicals may be added to suppress odor and restore taste. Synthetic vitamin D2 or D3 is added — the former is toxic and has been linked to heart disease while the latter is difficult to absorb. The final indignity is homogenization which has also been linked to heart disease.


Real Milk–full-fat, unprocessed milk from pasture-fed cows–contains vital nutrients like fat-soluble vitamins A and D, calcium, vitamin B6, B12, and CLA (conjugated linoleic acid, a fatty acid naturally occurring in grass-fed beef and milk that reduces body fat and protects against cancer). Real milk is a source of complete protein and is loaded with enzymes. Raw milk contains beneficial bacteria that protect against pathogens and contribute to a healthy flora in the intestines. Culturing milk greatly enhances its probiotic and enzyme content, making it a therapeutic food for our digestive system and overall health.

Here is an interesting table comparing the nutritional value of raw and pasteurized milk:

Raw Certified Milk

Pasteurized Milk

D. Nutritional Values
  1. Enzymes, catalase, peroxidase and phosphatase are present.
    1. Phosphates is needed to split and assimilate the mineral salts in foods that are in the form of phytates.
    2. Wulzen Factor (anti-stiffness) available.
    3. X Factor in tissue repair available.
  2. Protein–100% metabolically available; all 22 amino acids, including the 8 that are essential for the complete metabolism and function of protein.
  3. Vitamins–all 100% available
    1. Vitamin A–fat soluble
    2. Vitamin D–fat soluble
    3. Vitamin E–fat soluble
    4. Vitamin K–fat soluble
    5. Vitamin B–Complex:
      Vitamin Bw–Biotin
      Vitamin B –Choline
      Vitamin Bc –Folic Acid
      Vitamin B1 –Thiamine
      Vitamin B2 –Inositol
      Vitamin B2 –Nicotinic Acid
      Vitamin B2 –Riboflavin
      Vitamin B2 –Pantothenic Acid
      Vitamin B3 –Niacin
      Vitamin B6 –Pyridoxine
      Vitamin B12–Cyanocobalamin
    6. Vitamin C
    7. Antineuritic vitamin
  4. Minerals–all 100% metabolically available.
  5. Carbohydrates–easily utilized in metabolism. Still associated naturally with elements (instable).
  6. Fats–all 18 fatty acids metabolically available, both saturated and unsaturated.

  • Pasteurization destroys the enzyme phosphatase.
    1. Absence of phosphatase indicate that milk has been pasteurized.
    2. Wulzen Factor destroyed (anti-stiffness nutrition factor lost).
    3. X Factor–No evidence of alternation by pasteurization.
  • Protein–Digestibility reduced by 4%, biological value reduced by 17%. From the digestibility and metabolic data it is concluded that the heat damage to lysine and possibly to histidine and perhaps other amino acids destroys the identity of these amino acids and partly decreases the absorbability of their nitrogen.
  • Vitamins
    1. Vitamin A–destroyed
    2. Vitamin D–Not altered
    3. Vitamin E–Not altered
    4. Vitamin K–Not altered
    5. Vitamin B complex–pasteurization of milk destroys about 38% of the vitamin B complex.
    6. Vitamin C is weakened or destroyed by pasteurization. Infants fed pasteurized milk exclusively will develop scurvy.
    7. Antineuritic vitamin: Testing of pasteurized milk indicates destruction of this vitamin.
  • Minerals— After pasteurization the total of soluble calcium is very much diminished. The loss of soluble calcium in regards to infants and growing children must be a very important factor in growth and development, not only in the formation of bone and teeth, but also in the calcium content of the blood, the importance of which is now being raised.
  • Carbohydrates —no evidence of change by pasteurization.
  • Fats–Pasteurization harms the fat content of milk.
  • What about safety? Isn’t the government protecting us from illness and possible death?

    The answer is no. In fact, pasteurized milk poses far more health risks than raw milk. Of course one must make sure that the source of their milk is reputable, but if you are consuming clean, raw milk, your risk is lower than those consuming pasteurized milk.  The friendly bacteria found in raw milk inhibits the growth of dangerous organisms. Pasteurization kills these bacteria, and therefore, the milk is more easily contaminated.

    Here is a table used for a vote permitting raw milk in Los Angeles that shows many outbreaks caused by pasteurized milk and none caused by raw milk.

    More information from Fallon:

    PASTEURIZED milk has been the source of many widespread outbreaks. A total for some of the documented outbreaks due to PASTEURIZED milk over the past few decades is 239,884 cases and 620 deaths.

    The nation’s largest recorded outbreak of Salmonella was due to PASTEURIZED milk contaminated with antibiotic-resistant Salmonella typhimurium. The outbreak, which occurred between June 1984 and April 1985 sickened over 200,000 and caused 18 deaths. Disturbingly, the CDC did not issue a specific Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report for this outbreak; information must be gleaned from other reports published in the FDA Consumer and the Journal of the American Medical Association.

    A 2004 outbreak in Pennsylvania and New Jersey involved multidrug-resistant Salmonella typhimurium infection from milk contaminated after pasteurization.

    Despite numerous outbreaks due to pasteurized milk, neither the FDA nor the CDC has ever issued a warning against consuming pasteurized milk. Pasteurization is not a guarantee; pasteurized milk is not sterile. The FDA permits the presence of up to 20,000 bacteria /ml and 10 E.coli/ml in milk after the pasteurization process has been completed.

    Apparently, Kinsley trusts the government to know best and do his thinking for him. I’m not sure how else he could come to such a conclusion regarding raw milk, as he obviously didn’t do a bit of research on the subject.

    Sadly, Americans are so ignorant on so many issues. They blindly trust a government to tell them what to consume and what to avoid without a second thought. We need to start questioning. We need to start thinking for ourselves. Our health and well being are dependent on it.


    20 Responses to “Raw Milk Consumption = Idiocy (Apparently)”

    1. journeytocrunchville Says:

      Amen. Within the last few years Choline has been identified as an essential b vitamin in pregnant women’s diets in possibly preventing neural tube defects. Choline of course, is found in high quantities in raw milk but low in pasteurized milk. Not shocking is that choline is also found in large quantities in foods like eggs, chicken and beef liver, etc. All foods that are advocated as important (especially for pregnant women) through Weston A. Price.

    2. Laurie Kozaryn Says:

      I started drinking raw milk two months ago. My face cleared up within 30 days. My hair, which was getting really greasy to the point of disgusting (just a few hours after washing it with every available shampoo that one could imagine , it would look as if I hadn’t washed it in days), is now squeaky clean. What a difference! I don’t think that raw milk will every be popular, however, because the dairy lobby has lots of $$ and will continue to do everything in its power to promote pasteurized/homogenized milk while they discredit raw milk. Raw milk has to come from clean healthy cows while the other can come from diseased cows that are treated with antibiotics. Raw milk has a shorter shelf life and would spell reduced profits for the large dairies.I strongly urge you to find out what your state requirements are for raw milk. In Massachusetts, it can be sold but must be sold on the farm from the farmer…cannot be sold in stores. There is a rigorous certification/inspection process as well. We have 28 dairies in Massachusetts that can sell raw milk. I strongly urge you to find out what the rules are in your state.

    3. Laurie Kozaryn Says:

      I made a mistake in my last comment. Sorry. There are 28 states that allow the sale of raw milk in some form. There are several dairies in my state (Massachusetts) which are licensed to sell raw…I am not sure of the exact number. I apologize for the misinformation.

    4. katieosborne Says:


      Thanks for your comments. It is illegal to sell raw milk in my state, Wisconsin. There are a couple farms in the area who get it around it by having their customers by a share of a cow, since it is legal to drink milk from your own cow.

      Pretty ridiculous that we have to go to that length to get nutritious food, huh?

    5. John Mills Says:

      Thanks for posting your research. Most people are not very informed or educated on issues such as raw milk. I’ve been an advocate for many years. I drink raw and make my own raw goats milk kefir. Wonderful stuff.

      Weeding through the deliberate disinformation created by those who have the most to loose (dairy lobbies) can be difficult for the uninitiated.

    6. John Mills Says:

      I fixed some things…

      Thanks for posting your research. Most people are not very informed or educated on issues such as raw milk. I’ve been an advocate for many years. I drink raw cows milk and make my own raw goats milk kefir. Wonderful stuff.

      Weeding through the deliberate disinformation created by those who have the most to loose (dairy lobbies) can be difficult for the uninitiated.

    7. liveforgood Says:

      Brilliant article, simple and to the point. I am ALL about drinking raw milk and agree with you and Ron Paul that it should be available to all who wish to drink it.

      Thanks for posting!

    8. What a wonderful website! The only thing better than raw milk from healthy cows is raw milk from healthy goats, especially the rich milk of Nubians. Dr. Bernard Jensen wrote about these goats (“Goat Milk Magic”) and used their incredibly nutritious milk in helping thousands to heal in even profound cases.

      Sylvia W. Zook, MS, PhD
      Author of “Eatin’ After Eden”

    9. Jennifer Downey Says:

      I really like the article – I have a question, though. Does anyone out there know for sure how much vitamin d is in raw milk? I have been told that I should give my nursing baby vit d since it is not in breastmilk and I never did. Now I am worried that since he is on raw milk, if it does not have vit d in a strong amount, that I might need to supplement him with some vitamin d drops or something. Any thoughts or advice ? Thanks!

      • katieosborne Says:

        I am not sure of the exact amount in raw milk, but I don’t believe it is too high. There are not many foods in the world (to my knowledge anyway) that do contain high levels. I do know that most people are deficient in vitamin D. Studies have been done with nursing mothers. When they supplement with vitamin D, their baby’s get it in the milk. My toddler is on a D supplement. I just by gel caps that he can chew up. So, if your babe isn’t nursing anymore, you may want to look into it. The brand we use is Carlon Solar D Gems. They’re lemon flavored and he likes them.

      • Cindy Says:

        Fermented cod liver oil is an excellent source of both vitamin D and vitamin A. There is only one brand being produced currently that has natural (not synthetic) vitamins, from the lacto-fermentation process, and that is Blue Ice fermented cod liver oil.

        You can read more info about vit D, vit A, and FCLO at the Weston A Price foundation site.


    10. Johnny B Says:

      Perhaps if the normally erudite Mr. Kinsley drank raw milk regularly, he would be more healthy.

    11. “I am not sure of the exact amount in raw milk, but I don’t believe it is too high”

      You are right. While the article is correct that 100% of the vitamin D is available in raw milk, it is a very low amount. That is why drinking milk didn’t keep kids from developing rickets way back in the days before vitamin D fortification of milk.

      Vitamin D isn’t added to pasteurized milk because the pasteurization process destroys or lowers the vitamin D levels, but rather because this has always been a good way to get people a good amount of vitamin D.

      Also, another idea from this article that has been updated by new research – A CDC report that will be published in the March issue of Emerging Infectious Diseases, “Nonpasteurized Dairy Products, Disease Outbreaks, and State Laws–United States, 1993-2006,” found that outbreaks caused by raw milk or unpasteurized milk and products made with raw milk are 150 times greater than outbreaks linked to pasteurized milk. The study also found 13% of patients in raw milk outbreaks were hospitalized compared to 1% in pasteurized milk outbreaks.

      • katieosborne Says:

        The Weston A Price Foundation responded to the new CDC study, finding it to be quite misleading for a variety of reasons. Here is a link to their response:

        And here is an excerpt from the article discussing some of the problems with the study:

        Because the incidence of illness from dairy products is so low, the authors’ choice of the time period for the study affected the results significantly, yet their decision to stop the analysis with the year 2006 was not explained. The CDC’s data shows that there were significant outbreaks of foodborne illness linked to pasteurized dairy products the very next year, in 2007: 135 people became ill from pasteurized cheese contaminated with e. coli, and three people died from pasteurized milk contaminated with listeria (
        Outbreaks from pasteurized dairy were also a significant problem in the 1980s. In 1985, there were over 16,000 confirmed cases of Salmonella infection that were traced back to pasteurized milk from a single dairy. Surveys estimated that the actual number of people who became ill in that outbreak were over 168,000, “making this the largest outbreak of salmonellosis ever identified in the United States” at that time, according to an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

        According to Fallon Morell “In the context of the very low numbers of illnesses attributed to dairy in general, the authors’ decision to cut the time frame short, as compared to the available CDC data, is troubling and adds to questions about the bias in this publication.”

        According to Fallon Morell, the CDC’s authors continue to obscure their study by failing to document the actual information they are using. They rely on reports, many of which are preliminary. Of the references related to dairy outbreaks, five are from outbreaks in other countries, several did not involve any illness, seven are about cheese-related incidents, and of the forty-six outbreaks they count, only five describe any investigations.
        Perhaps most troubling is the authors’ decision to focus on outbreaks rather than illnesses. An “outbreak” of foodborne illness can consist of two people with minor stomachaches to thousands of people with bloody diarrhea. In addressing the risk posed for individuals who consume a food, the logical data to examine is the number of illnesses, not the number of outbreaks.
        “The authors acknowledge that the number of foodborne illnesses from raw dairy products (as opposed to outbreaks) were not significantly different in states where raw milk is legal to sell compared with states where it is illegal to sell,” notes Judith McGeary of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance. “In other words, had the authors looked at actual risk of illness, instead of the artificially defined “outbreaks,” there would have been no significant results to report.”

        This does not end the list of flaws with the study, however. The link between the outbreaks and the legal status of raw dairy mixed an entire category of diverse products. Illnesses from suitcase style raw cheese or queso fresco were lumped together with illnesses attributed to fluid raw milk, a much less risky product. In the majority of states where the sale of raw fluid milk is allowed, the sale of queso fresco is still illegal. The authors had all of the data on which products were legal and which products allegedly caused the illnesses, yet chose not to use that data.
        Similarly, to create the claimed numbers for how much riskier raw dairy products are, the authors relied on old data on raw milk consumption rates, rather than using the CDC’s own food survey from 2006-2007. The newer data showed that about 3 percent of the population consumes raw milk—over nine million people–yet the authors chose instead to make conclusions based on the assumption that only 1 percent of the dairy products in the country are consumed raw.
        The authors also ignored relevant data on the populations of each state. For example, the three most populous states in the country (California, Texas, and New York) all allow for legal sales of raw milk; the larger number of people in these states would logically lead to larger numbers of illnesses than in low-population states such as Montana and Wyoming and has nothing to do with the fact that raw milk is illegal in those states.

        And another interesting comment regarding an outbreak that was categorized as raw and should not have been (and this changes the numbers to show that more people in numbers and percentages become sick from pasteurized dairy products):

        “Another way I believe they’re misrepresenting the data is in the way they categorize the outbreak as being from pasteurized vs. unpasteurized products. Take the Jalisco Listeriosis outbreak from 1985, which sickened 86 people. CDC’s database categorizes this as an unpasteurized milk outbreak. But I disagree with this categorizatoin because Jalisco products are all sold as pasteurized products. It just so happens that in this case, some of the milk didn’t get adequately pasteurized. In my mind, this is an example of a PASTEURIZED product contamination because that’s how the product is sold. Additionally, milk that is produced with the intent of being pasteurized is produced with much lower standards than milk that is intended to be consumed raw, and therefore MUST be pasteurized. So in my opinion, this categorization is totally misleading.”

    12. Johnny B Says:

      Instead of cooking their own numbers to support their bias, the CDC should focus on methods to prevent the pathogens from getting into the milk in the first place, whether it is pasteurized or not. Raw milk is just like raw meat, which the last time I checked was legal in every state. The consumer can choose whether to cook it or not. Perhaps the CDC, FDA, et al should force the meat producers to cook all the red meat to well done before it is sold to the naive American consumers. Or perhaps the government should make sure all fresh foods are farmed and packaged safely.

    13. Dor Says:

      I need to know of raw milk (goats or cows) will repair receded gum tissue?? Does anyone know? And would it have to be consumed indefinately? (I’m not even sure how often or IF I can even still get raw milk in my area- they used to have it at the health food store but only if you requested it & the labels specified for pet’s only!)

      • katieosborne Says:

        Sorry I didn’t see your post sooner. I have not been keeping up with this blog. I hope you have found an answer by now. I am not sure about milk, but I know that cod liver oil works well in healing gums and teeth.

    14. Tony Says:

      For the first time in my life, I just drank a half-gallon of raw milk this evening. If that milk had been pasteurized, I would have had horrible gas pains making me absolutely miserable, my legs would feel like lead, I’d feel totally zonked and would be unable to read, and I’d be super-drowsy and on the verge of near-comatose sleep. Instead, I feel fantastic, with zero side-effects and actually feel my legs are less stiff than before I drank this milk.

      Of course, the FDA and CDC probably would say that it’s all just the “placebo effect.” LOL! I thank God that raw milk drinkers don’t have ABSOLUTE ZERO integrity like them!

    15. debbee52 Says:

      Reblogged this on debbee52.

    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