I have to side with Mark on this one, he should be well within his rights to sell raw milk. He should be required by law to do everything possible to prevent contamination of it between milking and delivery and be required to label it that it has not been pasteurized with a blurb about the risks just like menus have about eating undercooked meat and be fine to sell it.

What, they're not taking it seriously?

@darkened: And I have to side with the public health authorities, who are charged with making sure that the public is protected from disease, including known vectors like food that is unsafe. And even if these guys do their best to make sure it's safe while they're in possession of it, who knows what would happen when it leaves their hands?

Your right to eat what you want ends when you start posing a danger to other people. And that's you, unless you're a total hermit who never has contact with anyone else.

@Buran: Raw milk as a vector for a highly communicable disease transmitable between humans?

Which one(s) would that be, doc?

BURAN, that same paranoid thinking is what recently got RAW ALMONDS banned in the united states. 2 outbreaks of salmonella in the LAST 10 YEARS...and BAM! Raw Almonds are no longer. If you want almonds, they are gassed with a chemical that the european union has banned. It has forced local almond farmers to purchase ridiculously expensive equipment to "pasteurize" aka gas the almonds. And if you want organic RAW almonds, those are steam heated to "kill bacteria"

When was the last time ANYONE got sick from RAW almonds?????! It's government meddling at it's worst.

If you want to drink raw milk. fine. Just be aware of it's potential health risks as well as all the documented health benefits.

The raw milk dairies SHOULD be held to high standards to prevent contamination...but lets not get ridiculous!

@Buran: I'm sorry, but who's twisting my arm to make me drink raw milk instead of pasteurized milk? Oh, that's right, nobody is.

The raw milk isn't hurting anyone who isn't drinking it, and there's no law against being stupid, so I say if there's a market for it, have at it! I know I'm not going to be drinking it, but that's my choice, just like it's someone else's choice TO consume that stuff.

How about let's stop eating the infant food of another species all-together?

Well interestingly people who are lactose intolerant can have raw dairy products. See, pasteurization kills off the proteins we need to properly digest dairy products. Not to mention that a study published in two journals (Journal of Allergy & Clinical Immunology 2006 Jun;117(6):1374-81, and Clinical & Experimental Allergy Volume 37 Issue 5 Page 627-630, May 2007) showed that the more raw dairy products consumed, the fewer allergies and asthma reported by participants. Raw milk is very closely inspected as it goes from cow to bottle. Since those bacteria are also often found in pasteurized products, the safety of one versus the other is not really an issue.
[more info can be found through the Weston Price Foundation ("The Foundation is dedicated to restoring nutrient-dense foods to the human diet through education, research and activism," www.westonaprice.org)]

Bluebuilder...I agree...Cow sMilk and milk products (especially homogenized, pasteurized) are one of the most disease causing foods on the planet. Clean or not. There's TONS of research that prove how bad cow's milk is for humans.
All you have to do is google it.

@DeeJayQueue: You may not be having your arm twisted to drink raw milk, but there's a number of parents who give raw milk to their kids, those kids don't get a choice.

This is getting ridiculous. It has created an even more unsafe cottage industry of raw milk sold for "pet consumption only". Since pets can have raw milk thats not inspected AT ALL this means potentially unsafe milk still makes it to people who want it badly enough.

I understand the nanny states need to coddle Joe average moron who thinks milk originates in a plastic jug at 7-11. But much like people who choose to consume fugu (google is your friend Joe average) choosing to consume a raw product like milk or the now unavailable ANYWHERE in CA Raw Almonds should be a choice.

Should my tax dollars pay to heal the person who gets sick from it, nahhh. But if I want raw milk to make some cheese then I shouldn't have to contact the CDC and get a special permission slip...

Raw milk from certain CA herds has been shown to contain Salmonella_dublin_ on an intermittent basis. That's one of the things that pasteurization defends against. But if you *are* going to allow sale of raw milk, which some jurisdictions prohibit, requiring a low coliform count reduces the risk. Most of pathogenic bacteria get there from cow feces, and a lower coliform count indicates a lower amount of fecal contamination.

BTW, Buran, S. dublin sickened several people in CA, and killed a few, back when I was in public health there. It can also spread TB, typhoid, and other diseases, although I don't recall any recent cases in the US.

@bluebuilder: how about not?

One other thing to consider. Milk is a fixed price commodity, unlike slaughtered beef where the fastest and cheapest to market is the winner leading to huge amounts of e.coli in our beef, milk prices are set. A federal dairy cartel controls the milk prices in all but the peoples republic of California which has its own board. Bottom line is those groups set the minimum a milk farmer is paid for their product, if the need to raise costs to keep the product clean then the retailers have no choice in it. [www.cato.org]

I agree 100% with Buran

Coliform bacteria has long been an indicator of contamination and possible presence of intestinal parasites and pathogens.

@QuirkyRachel: Wouldn't it be a better practice for those who are lactose intolerant to just not drink milk? It's so odd that we continue to suggest that people drink something for which 70% of the adult population is unable to digest.

@Chartrule then don't consume it or purchase it. People have all rights to still make their own decisions. Just as all people still have the rights to choose to not vaccinate their children. If I ever have children I will most likely never give them the MMR vaccine. While I myself was forced to have it, given the facts about it i know now I would not ever consider the risks to outweigh the possible consequences.

@ancientsociety: If you get infected by it and transmit it to someone else when pasteurized milk wouldn't have carried the disease, that's the problem.

@darkened: And that too is wilfully and knowingly putting other people at risk for disease when you could be doing something to mitigate that risk.

I am disabled due to a side effect of prenatal rubella which could have been prevented by a vaccine. It's incurable right now and I will probably have this disability for life. So you'll have to pardon me if I speak from experience here when I take a hard line on people who know they're doing something that increases risk for other people.

Put yourself in others' shoes for a change. Will drinking pasteurized milk hurt you? no. Will it taste different? A bit. Will it help others? Hell yes. But today it's all about me, me, me, screw anyone else no matter how serious the consequences.

@Chris Vee: I'm not a doctor/scientist, but the reason people are lactose intolerant is because the process of pasteurization removes lactase from the milk. Lactase is an enzyme that helps us digest lactose. So, I guess you could say lactose intollerance is a man-made symptom.

I'm consistently amazed at the amount of anti-organic, anti-choice opinions here at Consumerist, most of which seem to originate from the NYC-based editors.

Would I drink raw milk that I didn't raise myself, or from an unknown source? Not likely.

Should I prevent someone who wants to do so from having that option? No.

Part of hullabaloo is the politics of agri-business dairy "cartels" and part of it is a trend towards a nanny state mentality / lack of personal responsibility (except for financial matters, those are your own fault), but the majority of it is simply ignorance.

The raw milk market is infinitesimal compared to the pasteurized milk market. It is similar to the organic movement 40 years ago. While it is highly unlikely it will have the same growth and acceptance as organic (because once it's in a processed food, it's no longer "raw" milk, but organic is still organic), why shouldn't it?

There is a huge difference between harmful pathogens in presumed clean environments (think E. coli in hamburger -- you don't expect your meat to have bacteria in it) and a known "raw" product.

Buran is 100% wrong.

@Buran: Again, infected by WHAT? What can you get "infected" by by drinking raw milk which is then communicable from you to others?

Granted, if you drank raw milk, you could contract something that could harm or kill YOU, but there's nothing you could contract that would then be communicable to others...

@Buran that's unfortunate, after reading more about the risks of contracting rubella while pregnant I would far more likely consider it with a daughter, however after reading more about what effects the virus causes that gives me no reason to risk any male children to an extra chance of autism so they don't have a virus similar to chicken pox

@Chris Vee: Being lactose-intolerant, I can tell you it's extremely difficult to just "not eat dairy".

Dairy and dairy by-products are in nearly every processed food made today. Do what I had to do and and start reading the ingredients on everything you buy next time you go grocery shopping. I can guarantee you at least 50% of the products will have some form of milk, egg yolks, whey, or lactose in them.

I have found though that I can eat and drink small amounts of organic dairy products from time to time without it hurting me. Infer what you may but personally I think my lactose-intolerance (which happened when I turned 20) is somewhat the result of all the chemicals and antibiotics they put in dairy products nowadays

if I want to buy my milk from a local farmer why is this such a problem? The last major outbreaks of tainted food came from government regulated food sources; spinach and peanut butter anyone?

I'm not sure what the problem is here.. Like most unprocessed foods, raw milk is a niche item these days. You have to go out of your way to get the stuff and the arcane laws states have put in place to get it. I myself wanted to try some as an adult, but didn't want to feel like some prohibition era bootlegger taking back roads at night to procure it.

There are much greater public health risks and I still buy that pastuerized white gold at my local supermarket 99.9% of the time.

The ignorance here is unbelievable. Feeding your kids pasteurized dairy is like giving them liquid formica. Zero enzymes, no usable nutrition, and completely undigestible. Ever wonder why Americans are so fat, unhealthy, and stupid? It's the processed food we eat (exhibit A -- pasteurized dairy). Editors... please read more on the subject before you make silly statements about drinking a glass of bacteria. Some great places to start:

[thedoctorwithin.com]
[www.realmilk.com]

@Antediluvian: Someone gets a serious illness from raw milk, touches their face before washing their hands, you touch their face and eat something without washing your hands, you get sick, and it was some other person's fault. Wouldn't you want the government to prevent a situation like this?

What if parents give raw milk to their kids? Do those people have the right to impose on them a dangerous product just because the government should stay out of our kitchens?

@ancientsociety: Nope. Prolly your genes. Adults are supposed to lose their lactose-digesting abilities as they grow up anyways.

@BrodskyLaw: Pasteurized milk makes people stupid?

...

Wow.

@Antediluvian: So I'm 100% wrong to say that being a selfish jerk who doesn't care about the dangers their choices impose on other people is, well, being a selfish jerk?

It's easy to mouth off when you (likely) haven't personally been literally scarred for life because of someone else's unthinking/uncaring choices.

@asherchang2: Raw milk is not a "dangerous product." I say the pasteurized variety is dangerous. Parents who give it to their kids should be arrested. Keeps your kids fat, dull, lazy, stupid and very unhealthy. Educate yourself.

@asherchang2: Apparently so, judging by most of the comments posted here.

Teat juice that contains protein, sugar, calcium, vitamins and sometimes fat is the worst thing in the world, but if you add salmonella and a slew of other bacteria in addition to enzymes that will be destroyed by your stomach anyways, it turns into this miracle food!?

@BrodskyLaw: So you've never ever ever in your life had pasteurized milk touch your lips? [www.snopes.com]

@Buran: @asherchang2:

From the FDA website:

'Raw milk is milk from cows, sheep, or goats that has not been pasteurized to kill harmful bacteria. This raw, unpasteurized milk can carry dangerous bacteria such as Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria, which are responsible for causing numerous foodborne illnesses."

Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria are NON-COMMUNICABLE from person-to-person. Your arguments about a person who drinks raw milk somehow "infecting" others are baseless.

@asherchang2: "Someone gets a serious illness from raw milk, touches their face before washing their hands, you touch their face and eat something without washing your hands, you get sick, and it was some other person's fault. Wouldn't you want the government to prevent a situation like this?
Ok, that's also how hepatitis is spread, as well as a the common cold, the flu, and myriad other bacterial and viral infections. What, is the government going to tell us that we all have to wash our hands when we go potty?

I can't wait till our children's children have absolutely NO immune system because everything in the world is sterilized, while the diseases that are out there are getting more and more resistant to drugs because helicopter parents and hypochondriacs don't feel like putting up with a little sniffle now and then. It's not going to be bombs that kill us, it's going to be the common freaking cold.

@darkened: you statements about the MMR vaccine are almost comical. its clear you only read one side of the study about autism because the wakefield study has been disproven and deemed false. In fact, every major world health organization has stated there is no link between MMR vaccine and autism. the fact that you would subject your children to a disease with a known vaccine because of a single propaganda study appalls me.

about the raw milk. if people want to buy raw milk then let them. the risks should be made clear on the product packaging to discourage novice consumers who haven't done their research from buying it. all of this nonsense about pasteurized milk being poison is just stupid. people have been drinking milk forever and we all turned out just fine....well most of us anyway.

and yes, the since the diseases you can get from raw milk are all BACTERIA, it can be transmitted to other people.

@babaki: while the infections are indeed bacteria, they're all bacteria that originate and live in the intestine. This means that in order to transmit the disease you have to play in your own poo, then not wash your hands and go play tag in the office. Not only is this a great way to transmit E. Coli, Salmonella and Listeria, but a host of other diseases as well, none of which are found in or caused by drinking raw milk.

Toxoplasmosis causes brain and eye damage, and is caused by eating cat shit. So, should we get the government involved to tell us not to eat cat shit? Or should we just say, Hey, that's not a good idea to be eating cat shit.

If you get a bacterial infection from someone else, it's because they didn't wash their hands, not because they drank raw milk.

@Buran:
@Antediluvian: So I'm 100% wrong to say that being a selfish jerk who doesn't care about the dangers their choices impose on other people is, well, being a selfish jerk?

It's easy to mouth off when you (likely) haven't personally been literally scarred for life because of someone else's unthinking/uncaring choices.

Yeah, Buran, that's exactly what I said. You got me, I said that.

And I stand by it.

Well, not your personal spin on it, but the statements I made (including the one about you being wrong). But unlike you, I didn't bring personalities into it. I said your statements were wrong. And as many others have pointed out, your statements ARE wrong.

You can look here for the latest regarding the raw milk "scandal" in California. Yes, it originates from that diabolical baby-poisoner Mark McAfee himself. Pay special attention to point 2.

And babaki, people have been drinking milk "forever" of course, but for most of that forever, the milk wasn't pasteurized.

To all those who are saying the government needs to protect people from consuming raw milk:

Are you also all against legal alcohol sales? Alcohol causes far, far more problems than raw milk EVER will, and has some amount of government regulation, yet is still legal to possess and consume, and even sell. Consuming too much is not in and of itself a crime (only if you're doing it in public). Doing things while impaired is a crime, but the government does nothing more to prevent that from happening than telling people "don't do that or we'll fine and jail you," not banning the substance completely.

I'm confused about the double-standard. And yes, I know it's an annoying straw-man type argument, but the basis of the question is legitimate and valid: if you're opposed to a product you claim can cause health issues among users, why not ban alcohol too?

To those arguing about parents feeding children raw milk, do you support the government banning alcohol use by pregnant women? It is not currently illegal to drink alcohol (or smoke, or use caffeine) while pregnant (there are cases where women have been prosecuted but they're under different laws and extreme circumstances).

Why does this substance (raw milk) cause such uproar while alcohol does not?

I see the nutty granola crunchers are out in force today. Charming.

@humorbot: its pasteurized for about 100 years. id say thats a pretty good amount time to see adverse effects.

@DeeJayQueue: if i was drinking cat milk, i would expect there to measures in place to make sure there was no shit in it, yes.

@darkened: You must be kidding. In the unfortunate case you aren't, you shouldn't have children. AUTISM IS NOT CAUSED BY VACCINES. Read the literature. When will people pull their heads out of their ***es and look at the actual data.

Are you one of those people who believes only nature's remedies are best and take advice from "scienticians", too? In that case I've got some magnets to sell you...

@ancientsociety: Fine. You want me to do the search you're too damn lazy to do? 5 lousy minutes?

Here's the answers your high horse is too high for you to look down and see.

FDA and CDC Remind Consumers of the Dangers of Drinking Raw Milk

Most people are seriously confused about milk.

Pasteurization has little to do with health and everything to do with practical matters. Without pasteurization, the transport, distribution, and sale of industrial milk and cheese as we know it would be impossible.

Pasteurization is the worst thing you can do to milk and organic pasteurized milk is just as bad as non-organic milk. Nearly ALL commercial pasteurized dairy is very unhealthy and should be avoided. Pasturization destroys all enzymes and nutrients in milk.

When one reaches raw milk you truly have a healthy product but even then one can have different grades. Better yet would be from cows that were nearly exclusively grass-fed.

Nobody can deny raw milk consumption is growing in America, as it is one of the healthiest foods anyone could consume. It simply has more nutrients. Raw milk is also less allergenic, it tastes better, and it is not associated with any of the health problems surrounding pasteurized milk such as rheumatoid arthritis, skin rashes, diarrhea and cramps. Even people who have been allergic to pasteurized milk for many years can typically tolerate and even thrive on raw milk.

Raw milk is an outstanding source of nutrients including beneficial bacteria such as lactobacillus acidolphilus, vitamins and enzmes, and it is, in my estimation, the finest source of calcium available.

The pasteurization process, which entails heating the milk to a temperature of 145 degrees to 150 degrees F and keeping it there for at least half an hour and then reducing the temperature to not more than 55 degrees F, completely changes the structure of the milk proteins (denaturization) into something far less than healthy. While the process certainly destroys germs and bad bacteria, it also destroys the milk뭩 beneficial bacteria along with many of its nutritious components.

Pasteurizing milk destroys enzymes, diminishes vitamin, denatures fragile milk proteins, destroys vitamin B12, and vitamin B6, kills beneficial bacteria and promotes pathogens. You may notice that raw milk left out will sour naturally but pasteurized milk will rot. This is because the beneficial bacteria in the raw milk helps to keep putrefactive bacteria under control. Pasteurized milk, however, does not have any of the beneficial bacteria left to keep it from rotting.

Pasteurized cow's milk is the number one allergic food in this country. It has been associated with a number of symptoms and illnesses including:

Diarrhea
Cramps
Bloating
Gas
Gastrointestinal bleeding
Iron-deficiency anemia
Skin rashes
Allergies
Colic in infants
Osteoporosis
Increased tooth decay
Arthritis
Increased tooth decay
Growth problems in children
Heart disease
Cancer
Atherosclerosis
Acne
Recurrent ear infections in children
Type 1 diabetes
Rheumatoid arthritis
Infertility
Leukemia
Autism

There is also a problem with a protein enzyme called xanthine oxidase which is in cow's milk. Normally, proteins are broken down once you digest them. However, when milk is homogenized, small fat globules surround the xanthine oxidase and it is absorbed intact into your blood stream. There is some very compelling research demonstrating clear associations with this absorbed enzyme and increased risks of heart disease.

Most people have been so conditioned to believe that the healthy growth of their children's bones is dependent upon receiving calcium from processed cow's milk that they view milk commercials as more of a public service announcement than an attempt by businessmen to sell a product.

As with any food, fresher is always better and this applies to milk as well. Fresh raw milk is creamier and better tasting than pasteurized milk that has a shelf-life of several weeks. Ultra-high-temperature milk can be stored without refrigeration for about six months.

Obtaining raw milk can be a challenge but it is well worth the effort to seek out. I would suggest contacting a dairy farmer and asking him or her to buy the raw milk directly.

It is technically illegal to sell in many states but many people tell them they are using the milk for their pets. Alternatively, another strategy that has stood nearly every legal test is the cow-share program. One merely purchases a small ownership of a cow for $10 or $20 and then the farmer is able to sell you the milk from the cow as you are part owner and it is perfectly legal to drink raw milk from your own cow.

@Buran: Are you blind? I just to a quote FROM THE EXACT SAME SITE. And anyway, that doesn't prove your point (and I'll say this once more) about communicable diseases considering it talks about bacterial infections which are NON-COMMUNICABLE. So the only way your specious logic about people becoming vectors for pandemics by drinking raw milk is if that person had a bunch of people consume his or her bodily waste.