Raw milk 150 times more likely to cause illness than pasteurized

[Puppycow]

Raw milk causes most illnesses from dairy, study finds

Quote:

Unpasteurized milk, touted as the ultimate health food by some, is 150 times more likely to cause food-borne illness outbreaks than pasteurized milk, and such outbreaks had a hospitalization rate 13 times higher than those involving pasteurized dairy products, a study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds.

Quelle surprise.

Will it change any minds?

ETA: That's 1950 times more likely to cause illness requiring hospitalization if I'm not mistaken.

[Brian-M]

What's that in raw numbers?

For example; consumers of raw milk suffer X cases of illness per million persons annually, compared to Y cases of illnesses per million persons annually among consumers of pasteurized milk.

Just saying 150 times more likely is meaningless. 150 times more likely than what?

[rjh01]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

What's that in raw numbers?

For example; consumers of raw milk suffer X cases of illness per million persons annually, compared to Y cases of illnesses per million persons annually among consumers of pasteurized milk.

Just saying 150 times more likely is meaningless. 150 times more likely than what?

Read the link. Then you will know

Quote:

The survey found 121 outbreaks linked to dairy products in which it was known whether the milk was pasteurized or unpasteurized (also called "raw"). Of those, 60% were caused by raw milk and 39% by pasteurized milk.

"When you consider that no more than 1% of the milk consumed in the United States is raw,

[Roger Ramjets]

Quoting x cases per million might make it sound like your chances of getting sick are still quite low, which it probably is. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a problem.

Quote:

Pennsylvania is in the midst of a campylobacter outbreak linked to raw milk from a dairy in Chambersburg, Pa., that had sickened 77 people as of Tuesday.

Currently only 1% of the milk consumed in the United States is raw, but what if there were no restrictions and almost everybody switched to raw milk? Imagine those 77 cases growing to over 7000!

[Information Analyst]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Quoting x cases per million might make it sound like your chances of getting sick are still quite low, which it probably is. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a problem.

Quote:

Pennsylvania is in the midst of a campylobacter outbreak linked to raw milk from a dairy in Chambersburg, Pa., that had sickened 77 people as of Tuesday.

Currently only 1% of the milk consumed in the United States is raw, but what if there were no restrictions and almost everybody switched to raw milk? Imagine those 77 cases growing to over 7000!

Total side-track, but is that a common use of the word "sickened" in American-English? In the UK it is now almost exclusively used to denote disgust ("I was sickened to read that...."). In the same context as this case, we'd be more likely to hear, "... that has made 77 people sick..." or "... that has made 77 people ill..."

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by rjh01

Read the link. Then you will know

I read the link. It mentions the review covers 121 outbreaks over 13 years. No mention of how many people affected, what areas and population covered, no mention of even what constitutes an outbreak.

When talking about the dangers of raw milk, they seem to have left out a very pertinent figure...

If you drink raw milk, what are your actual chances of getting sick from it?

ETA: Not that it directly affects me in any way. I only drink UHT milk, because I can buy half a dozen at once, and it doesn't matter if the carton sits in the fridge for a week or two before I get around to opening it.

Microorganisms can't survive the Ultra-Heat Treament. (Except possibly botulism spores and a few extremophiles, but even then only in very rare circumstances.)

[Puppycow]

It's a less common usage in the US too but I suspect that if you consult a British English dictionary you will find that literal sense of the word in there.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

I read the link. It mentions the review covers 121 outbreaks over 13 years. No mention of how many people affected, what areas and population covered, no mention of even what constitutes an outbreak.

When talking about the dangers of raw milk, they seem to have left out a very pertinent figure...

If you drink raw milk, what are your actual chances of getting sick from it?

ETA: Not that it directly affects me in any way. I only drink UHT milk, because I can buy half a dozen at once, and it doesn't matter if the carton sits in the fridge for a week or two before I get around to opening it.

If you can find the original paper it probably says there.

[Jorghnassen]

How many of those outbreaks are from "Mexican bathtub cheese". I am all for raw milk cheeses but there's no way in hell I'd buy stuff made under unsanitary/unregulated conditions. I have no doubt that there are more risks to raw milk consumption, but the numbers are not quite fair here. I would love to see numbers for, just as an illustration, unpasteurized vs pasteurized "cider" (brown, cloudy apple juice). The former doesn't keep as long, that's for sure.

[JJM 777]

You mean that there actually is a reason why Louis Pasteur invented a bacteria-killing method? I thought it was just for the fun of it.

[Almo]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

You mean that there actually is a reason why Louis Pasteur invented a bacteria-killing method? I thought it was just for the fun of it.

My thoughts were along these lines. Reminds me of a scene in a sci fi book where a group of teens raised in a single small spaceship decide it's a farce and open a panel to get out. The reality of the vacuum changes their minds fast. The problem with the raw milk issue is that the effects are less obvious, so the delusion is more persistent.

[Bikewer]

Pasteurization removes all the healthy.....Stuff from your milk. You gotta drink it right out of the cow!
Funny story on this on NPR some months ago. Guy who had always harbored dreams of becoming a "gentleman farmer" finally bought a small farm. Place came with a couple of dairy cows.
Almost immediately upon buying the farm, he was approached by people who wanted to see if he'd sell "shares" in the cows. It was illegal to sell raw milk in the area. However, the owner of a cow could consume it without problem...
The local farmers were selling shares in some of their cattle so that folks could have the raw milk legally...

[Information Analyst]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

It's a less common usage in the US too but I suspect that if you consult a British English dictionary you will find that literal sense of the word in there.

Yeah, I've seen it used in archaic sources ("he did eat some bad fish, and did sicken in the night, expiring before dawn" etc.!), so it sort of leapt of the screen. I'm aware though, that there are some words/phrases that have fallen from use here, but survive elsewhere in the English-speaking world, and so wondered if this was one of them.

[catsmate1]

No doubt the usual suspects will be along to claim it's all an FDA/whomever conspiracy and raw milk is wonderful.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Raw milk causes most illnesses from dairy, study finds



Quelle surprise.

Will it change any minds?

ETA: That's 1950 times more likely to cause illness requiring hospitalization if I'm not mistaken.

The CDC is controlled by Big Ag. And Big Pharma too. And the Jews.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

You mean that there actually is a reason why Louis Pasteur invented a bacteria-killing method? I thought it was just for the fun of it.

Well, at the time the industry was quite different. As I recall, a LOT of milk being sold in the USA at the time was from cows fed nothing but swill from breweries. The fact that it was greenish in color was cause for concern; what the people did to it to make it look white was even more so. Pasteur may not have designed his process to combat that issue (as I recall, milk quality was a minor byproduct), but the regulations in question certainly were devised to do so.

As long as you're getting milk from healthy cows, and that milk is handled under sanitary conditions, I doubt there's any significant difference in rates of disease caused by milk between pasteurized and non milk today. There's SOME risk--there always is--but the differences in rates of causing diseases will be statistical noise. Tens if not hundreds of millions of people drink milk every day in the USA; it'd be extremely surprising if some DIDN'T get sick (some get sick from driking our water, and we've got the cleanest, healthiest water system in history).

[phunk]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

As long as you're getting milk from healthy cows, and that milk is handled under sanitary conditions, I doubt there's any significant difference in rates of disease caused by milk between pasteurized and non milk today.

As long as you're getting milk from farm animals, it's impossible to be completely sanitary. There will be the occasional bit of poo in the bucket.

[Peacock]

If any of you actually ever milked a cow or worked in a dairy you wouldn't want to drink raw milk. Trust me. So gross.

[Baloney]

Originally Posted by phunk

As long as you're getting milk from farm animals, it's impossible to be completely sanitary. There will be the occasional bit of poo in the bucket.

(highlighting is mine)

I guess when dealing in absolutes, your statement is accurate; but it's an equally valid argument when talking about pasteurized milk, tap water, and beer.

It's very possible to never have fecal contamination when collecting milk from farm animals if proper technique and sanitation are employed habitually.

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by Peacock

If any of you actually ever milked a cow or worked in a dairy you wouldn't want to drink raw milk.

I have done all three and enjoyed each of those experiences.

Quote:

Trust me.

Quote:

So gross.

[Jim_MDP]

Excuse me, but...

Half again as many (60% vs 40%) is not "150 times more likely".

Just sayin'.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Jim_MDP

Excuse me, but...

Half again as many (60% vs 40%) is not "150 times more likely".

Just sayin'.

When 1% of the sample creates half again as many of the problems, then that IS 150 times more likely.

Just sayin.

[rjh01]

Originally Posted by Jim_MDP

Excuse me, but...

Half again as many (60% vs 40%) is not "150 times more likely".

Just sayin'.

It is if 60% of the cases come from 1% of the population.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Peacock

If any of you actually ever milked a cow or worked in a dairy you wouldn't want to drink raw milk. Trust me. So gross.

I have. I'm not a fan of milk in general (Pavlovian conditioning thanks to a faulty refrigerator and bad luck), but I honestly wouldn't have a problem drinking raw milk. Sure, there's some risk of contamination. But I used to eat my grandfather's strawberries right out of the field and I knew he used hog manuer as fertilizer. Spent a lot of time cleaning hog crap out of the barn. And then there's the fact that no granery in the history of farming was free of rats, and we still eat bread. Keep your toothbrush in the bathroom? Ever eat peanut butter?

Attempts to avoid all unhealthy stuff are futile. It's like trying to drain the Atlantic by pouring the water into the Pacific. It's about risk MANAGEMENT, not risk AVOIDANCE.

Originally Posted by phunk

As long as you're getting milk from farm animals, it's impossible to be completely sanitary. There will be the occasional bit of poo in the bucket.

I never said to shut your brain down and guzzle the milk out of any random bucket you find lying around. While I'm not overly concerned about maintaning sterility of my entire environment, if a turd is floating in the milk yeah, I'll cook the batch--or toss it out, or feed it to the dog (not like it'd be the first time my grandfather's dog ate cow byproduct), or most likely just dump it on the compost heap.

I put a number of caveats in my original post for a reason. Under certain conditions raw milk is likely to be perfectly fine. If those conditions are not met, obviously the probability of contamination increases. When that risk gets unacceptably high (and I'm of the opinion that if you're an adult you should be able to figure that out for yourself; there won't be a univeresal answer here), you stop drinking the raw milk and either cook it, or find a different source. Not sure why this is even an issue--it's what we do for quite literally every other product we consume that's not sold in stores.

[Peacock]

I've worked in dairies that were extremely clean and sanitary, but would still never drink their milk raw. Beer and water do not come from an orifice under a cow's butt. One time I was just about to attach the milker when the cow decided to poo. It went everywhere and I just barely kept it from being sucked up into the machinery. Another things cows like to do is kick off their milkers with their filthy feet, thus contaminating the whole batch. Also diseases like mastitis or ulcers may not be showing symptoms and you end up with bacteria in the tanks. I know it seems more natural and wholesome to eat it raw, but there are a zillion ways for it to be contaminated even in the most sanitary conditions.

[Dinwar]

I for one never said anything about "natural and wholesome". It's a matter of taste, far as I'm concerned (remember, not a milk drinker here--I get my dairy from cheese and other processed milk products). If someone's decided that the risk is worth the reward, I'm not going to tell them no--I have no RIGHT to tell them no, as I'm not the one drinking it.

And I understand the issues involved in farming. As I've pointed out, it's inherently less than sterile. That said, while YOU may not like the idea, you simply do not get to decide for other people. It's their bodies--they get to choose whether to risk ulcers, fecal colliform, or not.

My original point was that the laws weren't designed to keep people from making bad choices--they were a response to outright fraud being committed by the dairy industry (then an arm of the brewing industry). There's a huge difference between someone voluntarily doing something fairly stupid, and poisoning orphans and school children. And there's a huge difference between the "natural and wholesome" thing that we talk about today and what it meant back then--which was "no one intentionally put Plaster of Paris into the milk" (another thing that actually happened).

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by Jim_MDP

Excuse me, but...

Half again as many (60% vs 40%) is not "150 times more likely".

Just sayin'.

According to the article...

Quote:

The survey found 121 outbreaks linked to dairy products in which it was known whether the milk was pasteurized or unpasteurized (also called "raw"). Of those, 60% were caused by raw milk and 39% by pasteurized milk.

"When you consider that no more than 1% of the milk consumed in the United States is raw, it's pretty startling to see that more of the outbreaks were caused by raw milk than pasteurized," says Barbara Mahon, senior author on the paper and deputy director of enteric diseases at CDC.

So that's 60% of the cases come from 1% of the population, and 39% comes from 99% of the population. You have to do a bit of multiplication to get the ratio.

60 * 99 = 5940
39 * 1 = 39

5940:39 is approximately 152:1.

(5940/39 = 152.3076923)

[Dinwar]

What's the standard deviation on those numbers?

[casebro]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

What's the standard deviation on those numbers?

There isn't any. They are sans serif on my screen.

[casebro]

So, 152 times (what) = my comparative risk.

Say it's 1 : million, that would give a raw milk drinker about 1: 7,000 chance of getting "sickened".

I bet that is better than the corner taco shop. And as good as the school cafeteria when I was growing up. Or lessee, Mom's cooking, two meals a day, 700 per year, once every ten years? " I'll pass on dinner tonight Mom. Let me have a glass of raw milk instead please".

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

If someone's decided that the risk is worth the reward, I'm not going to tell them no--I have no RIGHT to tell them no, as I'm not the one drinking it.

Strawman? Nobody here has suggested prohibiting the consumption of raw milk.

Quote:

My original point was that the laws weren't designed to keep people from making bad choices--they were a response to outright fraud

Fraud prevention may have been the original intent of the law, but we now have a situation where raw milk is being promoted as being healthier, when in fact it isn't. This belief is probably mostly due to ignorance and wishful thinking, rather than irresponsible marketing or outright fraud, but the result is the same. People are being misled into believing the lie that raw milk is better for you, while not being properly informed of the risks.

I grew up on a farm where we milked a cow the old-fashioned way (for personal consumption only). I was made well aware of the dangers of milk contamination and we cooked it before use. But most people don't have that background, so they may be ignorant of the risks. It's all very well to say that they have the 'right' to decide whether the risk is worth the reward, but what if they don't know the nature of those risks and rewards?

The CDC isn't trying to ban people from consuming raw milk, they are just trying to keep them informed so that they can make better decisions.

[Kuko 4000]

Here's a link to the original study:

http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/ahead-of-pr...fs/11-1370.pdf

Quote:

Although pasteurization eliminates pathogens and consumption of nonpasteurized dairy products is uncommon, dairy-associated disease outbreaks continue to occur. To determine the association of outbreaks caused by nonpasteurized dairy products with state laws regarding sale of these products, we reviewed dairy-associated outbreaks during 1993–2006. We found 121 outbreaks for which the product’s pasteurization status was known; among these, 73 (60%) involved nonpasteurized products and resulted in 1,571 cases, 202 hospitalizations, and 2 deaths. A total of 55 (75%) outbreaks occurred in 21 states that permitted sale of nonpasteurized products; incidence of nonpasteurized product–associated outbreaks was higher in these states. Nonpasteurized products caused a disproportionate number (≈150× greater/unit of product consumed) of outbreaks and outbreak-associated illnesses and also disproportionately affected persons <20 years of age. States that restricted sale of nonpasteurized products had fewer outbreaks and illnesses; stronger restrictions and enforcement should be considered.

And here's the press release:

http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/20..._outbreak.html

[Jim_MDP]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

When 1% of the sample creates half again as many of the problems, then that IS 150 times more likely.

Just sayin.

Originally Posted by rjh01

It is if 60% of the cases come from 1% of the population.

Thanks, didn't read it through.

"Reading comprehension... it's good for you."

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Strawman? Nobody here has suggested prohibiting the consumption of raw milk.

No. A straw-man is attacking a weaker and false version of an opponant's argument because it's easier than attacking the real one, and to make one look good. I'm attempting to emphasize my points, which are 1) the laws against selling raw milk are based on a system which is no longer in place, and 2) even if the risk was much higher, as long as this is all voluntery there's not much to be made of it other than "Huh. Interesting."

Also, the ban on selling raw milk for direct consumption is a de facto attempt to ban the consumption thereof. You can see this in counties that ban selling, but not drinking, alcohol. Sure, you can take extraordinary measures, such as driving 50 miles (like my father once did), to get the stuff, but the majority of people won't even consider the alternative.

Quote:

Fraud prevention may have been the original intent of the law, but we now have a situation where raw milk is being promoted as being healthier, when in fact it isn't.

Anyone guilty of making such claims without proper support is a liar, and should not be trusted. If they're just selling the milk because there's a market and they don't believe it's harmful (ie, they take adequate precautions--I DO believe in due dilligence), it's no different from any other product.

Quote:

It's all very well to say that they have the 'right' to decide whether the risk is worth the reward, but what if they don't know the nature of those risks and rewards?

Than they're stupid and will become ill. I'm not sure what the problem is. Again, this is exactly the same issue with EVERY food product that doesn't go through the CDC, FDA, or other government agencies. You may as well argue that because I can get sick from growing my own tomatoes, and other people get into gardening because they mistakenly think it makes you healthier without knowing the risks, we should outlaw gardening, or selling/trading garden produce.

Quote:

The CDC isn't trying to ban people from consuming raw milk, they are just trying to keep them informed so that they can make better decisions.

It's my responsibility to be informed. If I abdicate it, no government program will help me. If I don't (and they're based on legitimate concerns), they're irrelevant.

ETA: I'd be curious to know of any government ban (and a ban on selling raw milk is still a ban) has ever raised the public's awareness of any risk. Doesn't seem to work on drugs--Whitney Huston demonstrates that pretty well, as did the entire Prohibition Era. People keep telling me that Roe v. Wade was decided in part because the government ban would LOWER the public's awarness of the risks of abortion (though they put it in terms like "If we don't allow abortions people will get them in back alleys"). (I should mention, I'm not against abortions--I'm merely saying that the subject has come up, and that one of the arguments used contradicts the idea that a ban facilitates public education.) And studies have shown time and again that government-mandated safety equipment realy doesn't do much for improving safety after a certain point, as people will act even stupider than usual, in proportion to the added safety. In some cases safety measures make things worse, as in the case of boxing gloves (higher concussion rate compared with bare-knuckle boxing, because in bare-knuckle boxing your hands hurt before you damage your opponent's brain). I'm willing to be proven wrong, but the idea of banning the sale of raw milk in order to make the public aware of the risks seems silly to me, both because it removes the category entirely for most people (thus entirely removing any awareness of hte risks), and because such measures so frequently have the opposite effect that they were intended to have.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Kuko 4000

Here's a link to the original study:

http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/ahead-of-pr...fs/11-1370.pdf



And here's the press release:

http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/20..._outbreak.html

OK, this is a little rough but from numbers given in the study the absolute risk seems to be something less than one illness for every 16 million pounds of unpasteurized dairy product consumed.

[epepke]

Originally Posted by Information Analyst

Total side-track,

One more interesting to me than the OP. Far more people die from driving to the store to pick up some milk.

Quote:

but is that a common use of the word "sickened" in American-English?

It's unusual but understandable. Probably regional.

Note also that "sick" in the US is generally used for all illness and not nausea specifically. I speculate that it's due to Dutch immigrants.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

OK, this is a little rough but from numbers given in the study the absolute risk seems to be something less than one illness for every 16 million pounds of unpasteurized dairy product consumed.

I'm going to round it off to one illness per 17 million pounds of unpasteurized dairy product consumed.

According to this site, Americans consume 253.8 kg of dairy products per year (wow!). That's 558 pounds. So the odds of getting an illness become about 1 in 30,000 per year or 1 in 400 over a lifetime.

ETA: The corresponding risk for pasteurized milk would be 1 in 4.5 million over a year and 1 in 60,000 over a lifetime.

[fuelair]

sicken /0ˈsɪk(ə)n/ verb. ME.
[ORIGIN from sick adjective + -en⁵.]

1 verb intrans. Become affected with illness; fall ill or sick (with). ME. ▸ b Begin to pine or yearn; long eagerly to do. E19. ▸ c Of a thing: grow pale or weak; fade. M19. ▸ d Foll. by for: show or feel symptoms of a particular illness. L19.

E. Waugh Laura sickened with 'flu. C. Harman William the chow began to sicken and fail. (c) P. Wylie His brilliant eyes had sickened. (d) F. Montgomery I was sickening for the mumps.


2 verb trans. Affect with illness; make ill or sick; transf. weaken. E17.

J. Buchan His fetid breath sickened me.


3 ▸ a verb intrans. Foll. by at, with: feel nausea, loathing, or disgust. E17. ▸ b verb trans. Affect with nausea, loathing, or disgust. E19.

(a) E. Johnson He sickens at the cruelty of mass murder. (b) A. S. Neill The brick squalor that stretches for miles sickened me.


4 verb intrans. & trans. (Cause to) grow weary or tired of a person or thing. L18.

Sir W. Scott I…learned enough…to give Jekyl a hint that sickened him of his commission. O. W. Holmes Men sicken of their houses until at last they quit them.



sickener noun a nauseating or disgusting thing or experience E19. sickening adjective (a) falling ill or sick; (b) causing or liable to cause sickness or nausea; loathsome, disgusting; (c) colloq. very annoying: E18. sickeningly adverb M19.

[Roger Ramjets]

Quote:

the ban on selling raw milk for direct consumption is a de facto attempt to ban the consumption thereof. You can see this in counties that ban selling, but not drinking, alcohol.

So if growing pot for personal use was made legal, but you weren't allow to sell it, that would be an attempt to ban its consumption?

No. Regulation is not the same as prohibition.

Quote:

Anyone guilty of making [raw milk health claims] without proper support is a liar, and should not be trusted. If they're just selling the milk because there's a market and they don't believe it's harmful (ie, they take adequate precautions--I DO believe in due dilligence), it's no different from any other product.

It doesn't take much due diligence to ascertain that raw milk is dangerous. So you agree that anybody selling raw milk is either incompetent, irresponsible or a liar?

Quote:

You may as well argue that because I can get sick from growing my own tomatoes, and other people get into gardening because they mistakenly think it makes you healthier without knowing the risks, we should outlaw gardening

Again, nobody is stopping people getting milk from their own cows. The Federal government only regulates interstate commerce, and leaves it up to individual states to decide whether they should permit the sale of raw milk (28 states allow it).

Quote:

I'd be curious to know of any government ban (and a ban on selling raw milk is still a ban) has ever raised the public's awareness of any risk.

I think you have cause and effect backwards. It was public awareness which led to bans in the first place.

And let's be clear. There is no ban on selling milk, only on disease-ridden un-pasteurized milk. Pasteurization is a simple process which dramatically reduces the incidence of milk-related sickness, but some producers would rather put the health of their customers at risk. That is why governments around the world are keeping a close eye on the situation - we do not want to go back to the bad old days of no regulation and a sick populace.

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by Jorghnassen

How many of those outbreaks are from "Mexican bathtub cheese". I am all for raw milk cheeses but there's no way in hell I'd buy stuff made under unsanitary/unregulated conditions. I have no doubt that there are more risks to raw milk consumption, but the numbers are not quite fair here. I would love to see numbers for, just as an illustration, unpasteurized vs pasteurized "cider" (brown, cloudy apple juice). The former doesn't keep as long, that's for sure.

Actually, unfiltered and unpasteurised cider should last much longer before going off than the pasteurised stuff. The living yeast left in an unpasteurised bottle is a great stabiliser, without which volatile components in beer and cider break down and produce off tastes much quicker.