Raw Milk From PA Now Linked To At Least 78 Illnesses

Here is some news that will definitely stoke the debate over the safety of drinking unpasteurized milk. The number of raw milk drinkers that have fallen ill from tainted milk sold by one Pennsylvania farm has now hit at least 78 people in four states.

Earlier this month, that number was reported to be about 35 people, all of whom had consumed milk from the same farm in Chambersburg, PA, some time after January 1, 2012.

That farm temporarily shut down raw milk production in January after the outbreak had been identified. It restarted operations in early February after getting an OK from the PA Dept. of Agriculture. The farm now has an on-site lab to test milk every day before it gets to customers.

The Patriot-News of Harrisburg reports that 68 of those sickened were in Pennsylvania, five in Maryland, two in New Jersey and three in West Virginia. At least nine people were hospitalized.

The owner of one PA store that sells raw milk tells the Patriot-News that people should not be scared off from drinking the unpasteurized stuff.

“The people who know what they are talking about and know what they are buying are not afraid of it. People on the fringe, who don’t know about raw milk, can be terrorized by it,” he explains.

Recent illness outbreak from raw milk is Pennsylvania’s most severe [PennLive.com]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. CTrees says:

    inb4 “conspiracy by big dairy to scare people away from raw milk”

  2. Cat says:

    Trying to prove Louis Pasteur wrong by drinking raw milk… Not a good idea.

    • longfeltwant says:

      To be fair, although there are some ideologues who believe everything is better when it is less processed, I think most raw milk drinkers probably simply prefer the quality of the product. I’ve never had it, so I can’t say, but I can certainly imagine that raw milk is delicious in a way that pasteurized milk is not. Every person makes tradeoffs between safety and enjoyment every day, and some people think that tradeoff is worth it. There is a sliding scale of craziness with that sort of thing — a bit farther down the line is anti-vaccine ideology.

      • elangomatt says:

        I’ve never had it, but I’ve been told that the soft unaged cheeses from Europe (like Brie etc…) are much better and more flavorful when made from raw milk. Here in the US cheese has to be aged at least 60 days I think if it is made from raw milk.

      • ChuckECheese says:

        If you are unaccustomed to drinking raw milk, it sorta goes like this. The cream is floating on top, so you have to shake it or mix it in somehow, each time you drink it. Else you will get a cream-then-skim-milk experience. The feed and barnyard and grassy flavors and aromas are detectable. There is a peculiar enzymatic tang to raw milk that makes your mouth pucker a bit, almost like drinking black tea. The cream can solidify and be difficult to mix in, and stored even a day too long, the milk can turn into something resembling buttermilk or yogurt. It certainly seems more … alive than homogenized pasteurized milk (which I prefer).

    • ChuckECheese says:

      Take THAT, Dr Mercola!

    • Jenny8675309 says:

      Contamination can happen to pasteurized products also. It all depends on how sterile the production process is as well as the health of the animals.

  3. GrammatonCleric says:

    The quote from the owner of the store is right on. This is why I get my raw milk from my own cows. The reason people try to scare you away from raw milk is because the Big Agra companies can’t easily mass produce raw milk because it is too hard to keep clean. But when they give you the slurry that they do its allowed to have all sorts of feces and contaminants. I wouldn’t buy raw milk from a large operation because of things like this, but im a hundred times more disgusted by the milk they sell at other stores.

    • GrammatonCleric says:

      Perhaps I should word this in a way everyone here can understand. I make my own raw milk at home.

    • ethervizion says:

      In Ontario, Canada, there’s a law (might get this slightly wrong, but the gist should be right) that you can only consume raw milk from a cow that you own. This makes sense to me because, as you said, you have complete control over the process. Some farmers have been trying to get around that by allowing people to own shares of a cow and selling the milk to them. This inches it towards a mass distribution mode of operation and the government is fighting it.

      I agree with the law here and with what you said. If it’s your own cow, do what you want (and you likely know what you’re doing). Anything else is going to involve some sort of distribution, which is too risky IMHO.

      • Cor Aquilonis says:

        Indiana has a similar law. You can get around it by “cowshare,” which allows many people to own a cow in partnership. You can own, say, a 25% share, which would entitle the owner to 25% of the costs, but also 25% of the production and eventual meat. Just like a partnership that invests in real estate or other assets.

        Of course, this sort of ownership will have distribution, so there’s that. I say if someone is willing to jump through those kind of hoops to drink raw cows milk, well, more power to them.

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDave‚Ñ¢ says:

      And the feces comes from where?

      • cspschofield says:

        “And the feces comes from where?”

        1) Bossy’s teats are underneath and towards the rear, near her ‘exit plumbing’.

        2) Bossy’s excreta is semi-liquid, and tends to splash a tad.

        3) In consequence, no matter how clean you make the stall, and Bossy, when you lead her in, you are going to have contamination possibilities unless Bossy holds it until you lead her out. Not too likely.

        4) And that doesn’t even take into account such things as flies.

        I’m not a huge fan of Government buttinskiism, but with Milk I am leaning to the position that they have a point. Especially if, should they say “Go ahead, drink what you please and on your head be it” they are going to be blamed for the consequences. Think they won’t be?

        • GrammatonCleric says:

          I have been drinking milk from my cows for almost 20 years now. I have never been sick. If you think that the government should come and regulate the milk I drink from my own cows then you have a horribly perverted idea of what America’s government is supposed to be. I raised these cows through my own labor the same way that I grow the carrots and food out in my field. People with ideas like this are the reason that in 2011 the Food Safety Act was passed that says the federal government can prohibit me from baking an apple pie with apples grown in my orchard and giving it to my neighbor. John Locke said the very way we make our property our own is by putting our labor into it, and when a government dictates in anyway what I can and can not do with my property then it is a clear form of tyranny and should be resisted to the fullest.

          Now I can’t speak for operations who attempt to provide raw milk for many people, there are dangers associated with these operations that are unavoidable and undeniable. However the milk you end up drinking is a disgusting form of what milk should be. Even if I didn’t have my cows I would take my chances trying to find a small and safe operation to buy my raw milk from, and it is most definitely not the job of the government to dictate what I drink, same way as they have no control over whether or not I smoke things or anything like that. Instead I take that responsibility into my own hands and inform myself, just as every American citizen should do. A nanny state is a gigantic leap toward tyranny, I don’t care how many laws you pass to stop me from being an American, I will disobey and destroy that tyrannical system until I die, and i’ve got a lot of living left to do.

    • sirwired says:

      We don’t have laws against raw milk because of “Big Ag.” Pasteurization does not require particularly expensive, large, or complicated equipment, so your argument that pasteurization is all “Big Ag’s” fault is silly. (Small Amish family farms seem to own and run the equipment just fine.)

      We have laws against selling raw milk not because the evil hand of tyranny wants to pry your raw milk, out of your cold, dead, hands; rather it’s because children are often fed milk, and the govt. has a “compelling state interest” in making sure children are not harmed because their parents have a taste preference for a product difficult to protect from bacterial contamination.

      Nobody is telling you you can’t drink raw milk from your own cows. There are zero laws against doing so.

      • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

        “Nobody is telling you you can’t drink raw milk from your own cows.”

        What about drinking milk from your neighbor’s cows?

      • GrammatonCleric says:

        Are you seriously tryinig to say that we do this for the children?…. The government is inspecting sack lunches that kids pack at home and giving them chicken nuggets instead of a healthy turkey sandwhich and some fruit that they were sent with. Because they know best for my child oh sure. Im sorry that I don’t trust my child to some sick and twisted people who have time and time again proven they have no concept of what is good for us. Until the people recently fought against it in a large county in Florida, they were still putting a type of fluoride in their water that had poison labels on the product. That may be on a county level but it is happening all over the country.

        What a child eats and drinks is most definitely up to the parent. Locke was exceptionally clear about this in his Second Treatise on Civil Government when he discussed the rights of a human until they reach an age of reason. I know the FDA seems so perfect and infallible but they can’t even decide what is in our chicken! Up until recently they wouldn’t even admit that the mass produced chicken we consumed contained any amount of arsenic.

        If they are so focused on keep this dirty, evil milk away from the children then maybe they should be trying to INFORM their citizens(though they probably refer to you as a subject). Instead they’d rather just make laws about it and have CPS come take your kids away just like they do when your daughter draws a gun, or heck they just do it to boost their own numbers because they get money for stealing more children(even NPR reported this and they are pretty terrible).

        So no, this is not for the children. That is the silliest argument against raw milk I have yet heard. Especially considering that studies have proven over and over that kids who drink raw milk have a 40% less chance of developing asthma or allergies. Your government has been parading around using the idea of the ‘public good’ to strip away your rights for years. They are not working for you and they are not working for your kids. This should be reflected in the 9% approval rating congress has recently held. I won’t let me quality of life be degraded by misinformed people who are led around like a herd of sheep, even worse just a dog on a leash.

        Oh that fellow slave is drinking raw milk what if it hurts the children oh noooooo just give them more Gardasil shots and put them under the protective care of our great government because that never ends with them in broken homes and sex rings… I’d love to see how much these weak people wet themselves when they see a citizen carrying a gun, only to fawn over the cool new drones and weapons our police departments are being equipped with.

        • RecordStoreToughGuy_RidesTheWarpOfSpaceIntoTheWombOfNight says:

          What. The. Actual. Fuck.

          • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDave‚Ñ¢ says:

            Alex Joneser. Has to be. Mentioned Fluoride. Surprised they didn’t accuse fruit drinks of making kids gay.

        • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDave‚Ñ¢ says:

          Oh, BTW, that drawing gun thing? That was Canada. Please read the news articles and don’t assume everything happens in the US.

  4. Guppy06 says:

    “Here is some news that will definitely stoke the debate over the safety of drinking unpasteurized milk.”

    There is no debate; don’t. That’s like the “debate” over avoiding childhood vaccinations or not wearing seatbelts.

    We were given fire so that we need never eat raw animal products. Use it!

    • Cat says:

      We weren’t “given” fire.

      We stole it from the Gods!

      • Guppy06 says:

        We didn’t steal fire, a titan stole fire and gave it to us.

      • Mark702 says:

        We’re given Liberty so we can make choices for ourselves, not the government telling us what to do, nanny state style.

        • GrammatonCleric says:

          That’s an excellent point. People are so quick to argue over what is good for everyone else. They think its the righteous and moral thing to do to ensure that everyone else leads a good life. Yet they horribly ruin my life by robbing me of the ability to make my own way through it.

          To put it simply, Don’t tread on me. I’ve gotten as healthy as I am now by making my own choices and educating myself on what I give and do to my body.

        • Guppy06 says:

          You can choose to take up trepanning for all I care. What you don’t get to do is claim that risky behavior is somehow healthier for you and that it’s a “health secret” that “The Man doesn’t want you to know!” and not get called on spreading lies and misinformation, leading the un- and misinformed to imitate your risky behavior.

          Think it tastes better? You’re entitled to your opinion. More “natural?” So is cholera. But a few individuals choosing to don tinfoil hats and going all Time Cube on the “science” of quackery like this does not a “debate” make, at least not this side of Fox News.

          And when it’s continually squirting out of both ends, make sure you pay for that emergency room visit out-of-pocket, lest you render your “nanny state” speech hypocrisy.

        • jenesaisrien says:

          Agreed, just would like to see that the risk taker not blame anyone should it turn out badly

  5. longfeltwant says:

    FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

  6. rpm773 says:

    As one who is on ‘the fringe’, I’m terrorized by raw milk.

  7. ianmac47 says:

    The role of government shouldn’t be to tell you what you can and can’t drink, but to ensure that you know what you are drinking. Instead of barring raw milk distribution, the government should be involved to maximize precautions – like inspecting farm conditions and encouraging on site testing – rather than leaving consumers to operate in a gray market.

    • ethervizion says:

      In summary, your view: don’t try to protect them from themselves; just give them the information to make an educated choice.

      In reality: many people are dumb as door-knobs and can’t make an educated decision no matter how much useful information you give them.

      Practically, it’s an issue of risk management. Somebody (e.g., health scientists, biologists and, yes, legislators) needs to decide whether it’s worth the risk to put that decision in the hands of consumers. At the end of the day, if there’s serious risk that a certain product might contain dangerous pathogens, the responsible thing to do is to simply not allow it.

      • Cat says:

        “In reality: many people are dumb as door-knobs and can’t make an educated decision no matter how much useful information you give them.”

        This is why Darwin should be allowed to win.

      • cspschofield says:

        The problem with the “Let people do what they damn well please” philosophy is not that so many of them are less intelligent than mulch, but that their dumb decisions can affect others when it comes to communicable disease. The government needs to walk a fine line there; outlawing Homosexuality could be justified on Public Health grounds. OTOH, Raw Milk is largely a matter of affectation. Nobody NEEDS to drink Raw Milk. Nobody is biologically programmed to drink Raw Milk.

        • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

          I think that’s exactly why so many of us are uncomfortable with “for your own good” legislation.

          Both sodomy laws and blue laws are intended to protect the public health. Something like pre-marital sex (or at least pre-marital sex w/out a condom) could be banned for the sake of public health but that doesn’t mean that it should be.

    • fs2k2isfun says:

      +1

      I don’t like the government telling me I can’t put something in my body. Especially a natural, non-addictive one like raw milk.

    • ChuckECheese says:

      One of the proper roles of gov’t is to protect people from danger. Before widespread pasteurization, milk was a common source of life-threatening illness, including tuberculosis. Gov’t isn’t regulating what you can put in your body so much as it is regulating commerce to protect the population from mass illness and its concomitant costs to individuals and society. If you want raw milk, make your own. 80 people sickened by one dairy – good jorb!

    • Solkanar512 says:

      That’s easy to say when you completely ignore issues like public health. Halting the spread of diseases is most certainly a role of government.

  8. DA says:

    I think deregulating milk is fine, as long as the farms producing the milk are willing to pay the consequences. The consequences being getting sued by 78 people that got sick from your shoddy product and putting you out of business. Capitalism!

    • longfeltwant says:

      That’s one way to do it, but at the end of all that process you’d have a few dead infants, dozens of sick adults, medical bills, court costs, lawyer fees, and bankruptcy proceedings. I know conservative ideologues prefer all that nonsense to a simple market regulation, but some of us just prefer to have safe products in the first place. I don’t want to die because of a shoddy product and then have my family sue for wrongful death; I’d rather just be alive and deal with a small amount of market regulation.

      • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

        Is there a way to regulate raw milk, so it can be mass produced, transported, distributed, and stored, while being as safe as pasteurized milk?

        If not, should people be allowed to take that risk, as long as they are aware of the risks? Personally, I don’t think I have any right to tell anyone what they should or shouldn’t be allowed to do to their own bodies, whether it be who they marry, whether they get an abortion, how they light their home, when to buy alcohol, or the type of milk they drink.

        • Solkanar512 says:

          Of course there is, but these farms aren’t willing to pay for the proper testing and quality systems to ensure that their product is safe. Screw them for being cheap.

          • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

            That’s interesting, I’ve never heard that before. I’ve always been under the impression that raw milk is one of those things that really doesn’t work at industrial scales.

        • Lt. Coke says:

          As far as I know, it is possible, it’s just not easy. ‘Raw’ milk is primarily defined as milk that hasn’t been pasteurized. Without that process, it’s a lot harder to keep the milk from being contaminated with all-natural deadly illnesses. That’s actually exactly why milk is pasteurized.

  9. dulcinea47 says:

    This is why raw milk should not be a business- if you want to drink raw milk, you need to have your own cow, or get it from someone who operates on a VERY small scale (like, provides milk for his or her family & one or two others) and knows how to keep things clean. Raw milk and large scale production (even 100 customers is too many) don’t go together.

  10. billybob9280 says:

    Even better solution – don’t drink any cow’s milk – raw or pasteurized.

  11. Dr. Ned - This underwear is Sofa King Comfortable! says:

    “We don’t have a cow, we have a bull.”

    “I’ll go brush my teeth.”

    • RecordStoreToughGuy_RidesTheWarpOfSpaceIntoTheWombOfNight says:

      Well played. I would have also accepted “Emo, that’s the bull.”

  12. Yacko says:

    I don’t get the raw milk advocates. Even pasteurized milk has a minimum of 100,000 bacteria per milliliter or at least 100,000,000 per quart. Yes, the assortment and type of bacteria is altered, harmful bacteria seem most killed by heat, but it still is a stew of microbes. Taste? Ruined by the heating? Lowfat stuff is never going to taste great anyway.

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDave‚Ñ¢ says:

      I bet if you said that you couldn’t eat cow feces, there would be a movement that tells you that eating it is fine, and the all vegan diet that natural cows eat means their feces is safe to eat, as their feces contains only plant matter and bacteria, both of which are natural.

    • longfeltwant says:

      I’ve never had raw milk so I can’t compare. Have you tried it? Can you attest that you could not tell the difference?

      • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

        I haven’t had raw milk in several decades but from what I remember, it is incredibly creamy and tastes distinctly different than homogenized and pasteurized milk.

    • neilb says:

      1) The taste of raw is the taste milk should have.
      Have you ever had the chance to taste Folgers vs quality coffee beans that were roasted within the past week? That is close to the difference. There are types of flavors in one that are simply not there in the other–it isn’t just that the flavors are slightly different, they have been removed and replaced with degraded ones.

      2) Pasteurization equates all milk. Raw means that the differences in milk can be passed through to the final product. For efficiency’s sake, this means that pasteurization = sick cows and raw = healthy cows. Creating a beautiful-flavored milk from a vigorously healthy animal only to destroy the flavor is less efficient than feeding the animals the bare minimum needed to get the fungible product.
      I see this not as a fight for food safety, but a fight against the uniformity of food.

      I predict a day when all meat (which is far more dangerous than dairy) has to be gamma-sterilized and only large commercial operations can afford to do so. Our only option will be for WalMart-grade beef (sterilized feces included!). That is (more or less) what we have now with dairy.
      Truly, if you want safe food, don’t eat animal products. All foods carry risk, but fresh dairy and meat are not what you want. The more processed and starchy the better.
      We forget that life and health are NOT about finding the safest things, but, rather, the ones that allow us to live best.
      (And, yes, this reeks of the involvement of big dairy and regulators who don’t have anything else better to do than pick on family dairy producers in order to justify their own jobs.)

  13. thisisit says:

    Pasteurizing milk is a good idea. And most modern methods to it efficiently enough where it does not alter the product. Homogenization is where things start deviating from the original. Non-homogenized milk though only lasts a few days in the fridge. Kind of a bummer.

    I’d much rather have unpasteurized orange juice. There’s just no comparison between fresh squeezed oranges and the tropicana manufactured juice product.

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDave‚Ñ¢ says:

      Do you know that you can find fecal coliform bacteria on citrus skin? And you want us to drink that?!

      • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

        Ideally, nobody would have to drink anything they’re uncomfortable with.

        Homemade orange juice is absolutely amazing.

      • Zowzers says:

        trace amounts of fecal coliform bacteria are going to be found on everything. The actual relevant question you should be asking is if said bacteria is in sufficient quantity to cause illness.

        If you want to read something really entertaining… look up gut flora. Yup, you have an entire bacteria & fungi eco system living with in your gut right now. And the only reason you don’t get sick from it is because your body has this wonderful Y amazing immune system.

        An active immune system is a healthy immune system.

  14. Sarek says:

    Ron Paul believes we should be allowed the freedom to drink raw milk.
    Fine. But does he favor it being at your own risk, i.e.
    1. Health insurance companies should be allowed the freedom to not cover illnesses derived from drinking raw milk.
    2. No lawsuits allowed if you get sick from the raw milk.

    • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

      I can’t imagine there’s much stopping insurers from excluding injuries pertaining to raw milk, if their underwriters determined that it was a significant expense.

      My new insurance specifically excludes injuries that are the result of mountain biking, rock climbing, marathon running, and wont cover anything pertaining to pregnancy or child birth. We agreed to those stipulations when we were offered the policy.

    • IrwinJacobs says:

      This is called “legislation by insurance” and it’s a chilling precedent. Would you be okay with an insurance company refusing to cover you for anything they decided was harmful, no matter how legal it is?

      What if they argue that you were acting recklessly by not following [insert anyone's dietary guidelines here] so they won’t cover a hospitalization bill for any illness they can remotely argue was the result of diet.

      They decide you didn’t exercise enough so you’re heart attack isn’t covered.

      They decide you exercised too much, so your knee injury isn’t covered.

      Once you open the door to insurance companies getting to decide which legal action they’ll allow or not, you pave the way for truly frightening things. It’s already happening enough to be a nauseating intrusion by insurance companies into our private lives. Don’t argue for advancing it.

      • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

        How do you feel about the situation where individuals and insurance companies agree in advanced on what will and will not be covered? Unless you have gold plated, Cadillac insurance, there will always be limitations on what is covered and what the treatment will be.

  15. IrwinJacobs says:

    The role of government is not to protect me from the dangers of raw milk. The role of government is to ensure that if I buy raw milk I’m properly informed that I’m buying raw milk.

    I’ve had enough of the government “protecting” me because when it comes to food, supplements, and medications, the “dangerous” products are always going to be the ones that threaten the financial interests of those who make the largest contributions to those in government power. The FDA’s food safety czar is Monsanto’s former chief lobbyist. That’s certainly an unbiased arbiter of what foods are safe for us, right?

    Raw milk undoubtedly has a higher risk of causing illness (especially among those who are intentionally suppressing 90+% of their stomach acid production because they’ve fallen for the myth of proton pump inhibitors, a multi-billion dollar a year racket).

    Pasteurized milk is less likely to cause acute illness from food-borne pathogens, but it’s 100% certain that the radically altered heat pasteurized proteins and bastardized fat content will cause chronic stresses to the body’s immune system as it deals with what it sees as foreign invaders.

    The government (and most laypeople) are pretty good at reacting to acute food-borne illnesses but are rather obtuse when it comes to long-term damage from foods that have been processed and adulterated.

    I buy from a local farm whom I trust and willingly choose a possible acute reaction from raw milk over guaranteed life-long immune system attack from the pasteurized swill that the government imposes on us.

    • Tegan says:

      Humor me, what’s the “myth” of proton pump inhibitors?

      • IrwinJacobs says:

        The “myth” is that it’s anything more than a treatment for a preventable condition, brought about by reflux-inducing diet. The medical establishment (whose primary source of post-medical school continuing eduction is the drug companies) tell us that GERD has no cure and can only be treated with a lifetime of blocking >90% of our stomach acid production. One of the many myths is that this course of treatment is without harm. Another is that there’s no cure.

        Our wheat-based diet causes reflux. The disruption of the gut flora from the refined flour and other grains further propagates poor digestion and increases reflux. PPI’s ensure that food stays undigested in the digestive system for far far longer than properly digested food, increasing the unhealthy gut flora (which is vital to proper digestion).

        This cycle of processed wheat, horribly skewed gut flora, and PPI’s keeps us dependent on the medication for the rest of our lives.

        Breaking the cycle is tough, but it’s possible. The trouble is, there’s no profit in prevention, only in selling the purple pill by the millions. And as consumers, we’d much rather swallow a pill once a day and eat whatever we want than we would tackle the GERD problem at its source and make difficult, but beneficial lifestyle changes.

        • yabdor says:

          “Our wheat-based diet causes reflux.”

          Wow… that must be why when I drink a club soda I get volcanic heartburn. We all know how much wheat is in club soda.

          • Tegan says:

            Chocolate too, that’s what first triggered my GERD symptoms. So much wheat.

            • IrwinJacobs says:

              So, because wheat isn’t your specific trigger it invalidates the testimony of multiple hundreds of people who solved their gerd without even trying, simply by eliminating wheat for other reasons?

              How long ago did you give up wheat? Are you certain that your intestinal bacteria have reverted to a healthy balance and not one skewed towards unfavorable bacteria that will still exacerbate your gerd? How many times in the last five or ten years have you been on a course of antibiotics that will also disrupt the flora? In place of wheat are you eating other refined products that more likely promotes unfavorable gut health? Many gluten-free products are loaded with potato and rice starches that also make it difficult for the beneficial bacterial to flourish.

              Once the digestive system is damaged there are many foods that can become trigger foods. Chocolate and carbonated beverages are common ones.

              Solving gerd is more than just stopping the foods that caused it in the first place. Rebuilding one’s gut health is key and it requires a fair amount of work, including fasting, probiotics, and likely a substantial diet change. Or, you can dismiss everything I’m saying because some of the specifics I’m offering don’t apply exactly to you and continue believing that your only salvation is medication for the rest of your life.

              After 15 years on a PPI I finally solved my gerd problem and I’m thrilled. From a generic perspective, I love the thought that others can dig in and figure out how to modify their diets to get off the stuff, too. At personal level, however, I’m disinclined to continue trying to convince specific individuals that there’s a better way.

              As for the milk thing, there are two schools out there: those that believe pasteurization is harmless, that pasteurized proteins are handled effortlessly by the body and those who argue that pasteurization damages proteins causes them to invoke a harmful response by the body’s immune system. And your citation only proves my point that we’re far more responsive and concerned as a society about acute outbreaks (which I’ve always admitted are more likely with raw milk) than with progressive, degenerative damage that takes decades to manifest and is more difficult to prove (which many contend is the case with pasteurized milk).

              My only request is that the government let those from each camp choose which milk they want to drink and ensure that products are properly labeled so that we can make an informed decision about what we’re buying.

    • yabdor says:

      “especially among those who are intentionally suppressing 90+% of their stomach acid production because they’ve fallen for the myth of proton pump inhibitors, a multi-billion dollar a year racket”

      You , quite simply, do not know what you’re talking about. It’s great that you don’t have gerd/reflux problems. But for those of us who do… PPI’s are a gift from the gods. And never once have any “home remedies” (or lesser OTC acid reducers for that matter) been able to silence the volcano that lies within. I will take the small risk that is associated with PPI’s over the virtually guaranteed onset of esophageal cancer that lies ahead without PPI’s.

      “Pasteurized milk is less likely to cause acute illness from food-borne pathogens, but it’s 100% certain that the radically altered heat pasteurized proteins and bastardized fat content will cause chronic stresses to the body’s immune system as it deals with what it sees as foreign invaders.”

      Foreign invaders generally cause sickness. Why isn’t everyone who drinks pasteurized milk in a perpetual state of sickness? So, I’m going to have to call bullshit on this. Citation please.

      • IrwinJacobs says:

        I took PPI’s for 15 years and I quite certainly know exactly what I’m talking about. I do not argue that PPI’s do not bring relief from GERD symptoms. I argue that the incredible profit from the PPI market obscures the real fact: that it’s much healthier to avoid the GERD in the first place than to treat the symptom with damaging PPI’s for the rest of one’s life.

        Nobody talks about PREVENTING GERD, only about treating it with a lifelong course of medication.

        If you want to effectively treat your GERD symptoms forever, keep taking a PPI and live with the long-term effects on your bone health, the risks associated with decreased stomach acid production (increased susceptibility to food borne illness, for one), the disruption to the healthy gut flora, and who knows what else that’s your business. If, on the other hand, you want to eliminate GERD altogether, you need to stop looking at PPI’s as a salvation.

        The single biggest culprit in GERD is wheat. I challenge you to give up all wheat products for 90 days and see what happens to your GERD symptoms. (The cardiologist William Davis, MD wrote a book entitled “Wheat Belly” in which he discusses hundreds upon hundreds of patients who eliminated their GERD symptoms by eliminating wheat. This was a complete surprise, as his research and intention for advocating a wheat-free diet had nothing to do with GERD.)

        As for the damage from pasteurized proteins (which survive digestion and invoke an immune system response) there are numerous citations to be found. Here’s one of many:

        http://www.afpafitness.com/articles/articles-and-newletters/research-articles-index/nutrition-wellness/does-milk-really-do-the-body-good-calcium-and-protein-a-mixture-for-disaster/

        If you roll up your sleeves and spend a little bit of time researching the effects of heat-damaged proteins on immune system response I think you’ll find cause for concern.

        And seriously consider attacking the GERD problem rather than treating its symptom for the rest of your life.

        • yabdor says:

          You totally gotta be kidding me. For starters you yourself don’t say what causes gerd and then make the stellar observation that preventing gerd is better than treating gerd. Thank you SO much capt obvious. I’m sure the AMA is waiting with baited breath to quote you on that. 2nd, I already have a wheat allergy and eat no wheat and still have gerd. So much for that hypothesis. 3rd, you cited an article from a fitness blog that was written by someone who isn’t even a Doctor(MD). The article you referenced even said that the medical community says drinking milk is good for you(although the author disagrees) and then goes on to say the LEADING CAUSE of degenerative diseases is dairy products which is not supported by ANY study I can find. And none of the articles cited in the biblography are mainstream journals and are, as far as I can tell, nothing but fringe “science” that isn’t supported by the bulk of medical literature. So …believe what you like. You’ve offered no evidence that anything you’ve said is true other than a reference to a fitness article that cites highly questionable sources. You’re one of these guys that thinks HIV doesn’t cause AIDS or that facing north with a pyramid on your head will cure cancer aren’t you?

        • yabdor says:

          Here… this should help you out. Info (indirectly) from the CDC… unless, of course, you’re going to argue that they’re not an authoritative source.

          http://www.wisconsinagconnection.com/story-national.php?Id=445&yr=2012

          “States that allow raw milk sales have more than twice as many dairy-related disease outbreaks as states with prohibitions…”

          This should be clear even to you.

  16. CarlS says:

    Review the WND story at http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/cdc-accused-of-skewing-its-stats .

    “. . .the results were skewed because of the way federal report authors ‚Äúcherry picked‚Äù data.”

    Sally Fallon Morell, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, said the new government study listed an average of 315 illnesses a year “from all dairy products for which the pasteurization status was known.”

    “Of those, there was an average of 112 illnesses each year attributed to all raw dairy products and 203 associated with pasteurized dairy products,” she said.

    Citing the nearly 24,000 “foodborne illnesses reported each year on average,” she noted that “dairy products are simply not a high risk product.”

    • neilb says:

      I read and sent this article out too. It is sad that it is not being picked up by the large companies that pick up the cherry-picked version that gives no relative stats, but only exact figures of causalities from raw milk and a connotation that there is an unreasonable risk from it but not from alternatives.

  17. yabdor says:

    Why not just zap it with some uv?

  18. EBounding says:

    Raw milk is Earth’s greatest danger. Government regulated products have never harmed anyone.

  19. ash says:

    the food co-op advocates for better regulation against contaminations of food productswhere I shop yethas a “legalize raw milk” advocacy group. SIGH

  20. neilb says:

    I love raw cow and goat milk, but I fear the government because these laws are so actively enforced and the consequences are so out-of-line severe. They would get less flack for selling marijuana than for selling the same milk they give their kids and grandkids.
    I hate having to feel like I am endangering our friends who have extra milk and want to share it with us. We both agree on the milk and the milk is awesome. We do, however, fear the government will swoop in and declare this arrangement to be a public danger.
    All for what: About 112 illnesses a year (from raw dairy) out of 24,000 total foodborne illnesses (.4% of the total)! Those numbers are liberal (on the side of raw dairy being high) too.
    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/242162.php

  21. Miss Dev (The Beer Sherpa) says:

    Here’s an idea: maybe if this farm had been doing bacterial and contaminent testing on their raw milk in the first place, this wouldn’t have happened?

    I have several friends who get raw milk from a farm in Colorado and that farm has never had a single illness or even suspected illness due to consumption of their product. Why? Because they exercise more stringent safety and testing standards than any other dairy in the state and most dairies in the country. Because it’s called being responsible.

    The single most important thing in any sort of food production is sanitation. And you can’t be 100% certain that you have superior sanitation unless you also have superior testing.

  22. McRib wants to know if you've been saved by the Holy Clown says:

    An extremely high quality, pasteurized, but non-homogenized milk is very comparable to raw milk in flavor. If you can get it, it’s a nice meeting point.

  23. giax says:

    Since everyone’s so grossed out by raw milk, how come most women don’t pasteurize their own milk before breastfeeding it to their own infant?

    • Press1forDialTone says:

      Giax,

      Breast milk that is fed directly to the baby is safe because the woman’s body makes it
      so, unless -she- has lost the ability to make it so. Breast milk properly refrigerated and
      not left unused too long is also safe.

      No recess for you.

  24. Press1forDialTone says:

    Anyone who drinks unpasteurized milk today is a moron.