Raw milk

BroomBurner

I still don't understand the mentality of those calling for a ban on the sale of it though.

Calling for an alcohol ban, I could understand - public drunkenness, spousal abuse, cost to taxpayers for Gardaí time-wasting and hospitals A&E clogged up.

Calling for a cigarette ban, I could also understand - poisonous chemicals emitted in second hand smoke then inhaled by someone who probably doesn't want to.

Calling for a raw milk sale ban - eh.... one tiny sub-section of society get to control and make decisions for another tiny sub-section?

It's just pointless. Surely the FSAI have better things to be worrying about than this. By all means, make the information available. Bring in regulation if they want, but an outright ban is nanny-state madness.

IR

Very heartened to see voices of reason chiming in on this debate.

Really when it boils down to it this is about choice and trust.
Informed consumers are more than capable of making a choice on whether the 'risk' is too high for them. And those who buy raw milk can do so only from farmers that they trust are adhering to very best practise - in herd management, when milking and when bottling.

duploelabs

This debate is very interesting but I think it's down to a freedom of choice vs. a more conservative 'your government knows best' viewpoint. If a E Coli-specific method of pasteurization was found, then I'd be all for it but until then I think there should be a consumer based choice as I believe everyone has the right to live their lifestyle, and related risks, as they see fit?

If the pro-pasturisation poster can give me specific statisitcs of ecoli related incidents during the years of freely available raw milk sales to the consumer vs. the yeasr when it was fully banned and put those figures against, say for instance, deaths attributed to alcohol and then tell me why they're campaining so hard against raw milk when they really should be turning their attention to the lives taken and ruined by booze, the I'll buy them a pint :pac:

I think all this heated debate calls for a bit of related humour, as Billy Connolly said...
Who was the first man to milk a cow and what the f*ck do they think they were doing?

tfak85

Raw Milk Ireland have just launched a twitter page, to be found here: http://twitter.com/RawMilkIreland

tribesman44

amacachi wrote: »

Nature intended us to consume milk from other animals? :pac:

im sure nature didn't intend for us to farm and slaughter animals either

duploelabs

tribesman44 wrote: »

im sure nature didn't intend for us to farm and slaughter animals either

why did we evolve incisors and canines so? They're not present in herbivores

tribesman44

duploelabs wrote: »

why did we evolve incisors and canines so? They're not present in herbivores

just trying to prove a point that whats the difference if you milk something or kill it. raw milk is a complete food and you can live off of it if need be. it's been used as medicine for centuries to cure all types of illness, even cancer. and i am a meat eater. just thought it was silly to say milking an animal is bad.

tribesman44

these people who have a problem with raw milk...have you ever even tried it? have you read about all the amazing benefits of it compared to "dead milk"? it's just another BS law to take away people's liberties. even if you don't drink it, you should be concerned about it. it's legal to go buy a packet of fags or alcohol, which are far more dentrimental on every single level. and nobody is putting a gun to your head to force you to drink it. but if i want it, i should be able to have the option. do you ever look around and wonder why there is an epidemic of illness in western society? it's because of things like this. most peoples diets are atrocious and that leads to illness. food is medicine. this angers me to no end because these people who have a problem with it are never going to drink it anyway. so why do you care?

olaola

What I find a little ironic about this whole thing that so much fuss is being made about this tiny risk to the public. Someone even brought up the situation of 'pink' burgers. The food in question here is actually food. Not the TONNES of processed crap that people are feeding themselves and their children which is causing a world of hurt along the lines of obesity and diabetes in Ireland today. I'd far rather see a population reared on raw milk and rare beef - and I'm sure there would be a hugely dramatic drop in obesity related illnesses and death as a consequence. FSAI/Dept of whomever - the priorities are so skewed!

The fight for raw milk boils (har har) down to a few issues, one of them being that people want to nourish themselves for the benefit of their health! Apologies for the rant, it's probably off topic.

tribesman44

i couldn't agre more olaola. well said

Corsendonk

olaola wrote: »

What I find a little ironic about this whole thing that so much fuss is being made about this tiny risk to the public. Someone even brought up the situation of 'pink' burgers. The food in question here is actually food. Not the TONNES of processed crap that people are feeding themselves and their children which is causing a world of hurt along the lines of obesity and diabetes in Ireland today. I'd far rather see a population reared on raw milk and rare beef - and I'm sure there would be a hugely dramatic drop in obesity related illnesses and death as a consequence. FSAI/Dept of whomever - the priorities are so skewed!

The fight for raw milk boils (har har) down to a few issues, one of them being that people want to nourish themselves for the benefit of their health! Apologies for the rant, it's probably off topic.

Pink burgers are a separate issue, if you were ever in a kill plant when they botched the bunging of an animal you would understand the issues with pink burgers. Mince isn't sterile, its mixed ground up meat with whatever bacteria its picked up while getting ground up while steaks are sterile muscle tissue. Totally different risks.

Ok back to raw milk. I assume that a good few of the foodies know of Doug Powell and his BarfBlog. Doug is a professor of Food Safety in Kansas State University. The site monitors food safety issues around the world. Quite a wide variety of NGOs, food companies, consumers and retailers use it as a tool. Just looking at Raw Milk

Doug Powell July 30th, 2011

The Anchorage Daily News reports that an outbreak of a serious gastrointestinal illness connected to consumption of raw milk from an Alaska dairy is ongoing, with seven confirmed cases and 11 more that are suspected, state health officials said in a bulletin published Thursday.
The outbreak connected to unpasteurized milk began in May and has continued into July, the report said.
The same rare strain of the Campylobacter pathogen was found in all seven cases confirmed in laboratory tests. And it also was confirmed in manure samples from the

The lab report, combined with the fact everyone who got sick drank raw milk from the same dairy, "affirms the conclusion that this outbreak is due to consumption of Farm A raw dairy products," the state bulletin said.
But tests didn't find the pathogen in milk from the farm's bulk tanks.
That's not surprising, said state epidemiologist Joe McLaughlin. Campylobacter jejuni "is notoriously difficult to culture from environmental specimens other than raw stool," Thursday's epidemiology bulletin said.

Doug Powell, July 16th, 2011

Raw milk from SC linked to campylobacter outbreak in NC; 3 confirmed, 5 probable sick

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is working with officials in North Carolina and South Carolina to investigate an outbreak of campylobacteriosis in three people who consumed raw milk from Tucker Adkins Dairy in York, S.C.
The three confirmed cases and another five probable cases are from three different households and each case reports that prior to becoming ill they consumed raw milk that was obtained from Tucker Adkins Dairy on June 14, 2011. The onset of illness in these cases occurred in mid June. One person was hospitalized.
Although retail sale of raw milk is legal in South Carolina, it is illegal to distribute raw milk in final package form for direct human consumption in interstate commerce. Retail sale of raw milk for human consumption is also illegal in North Carolina.
From 1998 to 2008, 85 outbreaks of human infections resulting from consumption of raw milk were reported to CDC. These outbreaks included a total of 1,614 reported illnesses, 187 hospitalizations and 2 deaths. Because not all cases of foodborne illness are recognized and reported, the actual number of illnesses associated with raw milk likely is greater.

Raw Milk /7 Raw Milk Products Outbreak Table Present to 1973
http://bites.ksu.edu/sites/default/files/Raw%20Milk%20Outbreak%20Table.pdf

olaola

Corsendonk wrote: »

Pink burgers are a separate issue, if you were ever in a kill plant when they botched the bunging of an animal you would understand the issues with pink burgers. Mince isn't sterile, its mixed ground up meat with whatever bacteria its picked up while getting ground up while steaks are sterile muscle tissue. Totally different risks.

If you're in a restuarant you trust (in-house fresh minced) to serve you your burger pink. Then you should be allowed to order it as such. The issue here is being told what you can/cannot order even if you're aware of the 'risks'.

Corsendonk

olaola wrote: »

If you're in a restuarant you trust (in-house fresh minced) to serve you your burger pink. Then you should be allowed to order it as such. The issue here is being told what you can/cannot order even if you're aware of the 'risks'.

We are aware of the risks of driving without a seatbelt so why should I be forced to wear one if I am prepared to live with the "risks"? Or should food "risks" be treated differently?

Have you ever asked to inspect any of the restaurant kitchens you trust?

Sorry mod about going off topic.

jonnyrudyard

tribesman44 wrote: »

just trying to prove a point that whats the difference if you milk something or kill it. raw milk is a complete food and you can live off of it if need be. it's been used as medicine for centuries to cure all types of illness, even cancer.

Sorry, no. It did does not and cannot cure cancer. In fact the idea is frankly pretty absurd and there is no evidence to support it - only claims which cannot be verified, rendering them meaningless. I very seriously doubt it "cures" anything else either, or has much of any benefit beyond what pasteurized milk does. Again, if this is the claim, I'd love to see some verifiable, scientific evidence to support it. Meanwhile we do have evidence of increased risk (and incidences of) getting ill due to raw milk.

But I do agree that if people want it, go for it, to each their own. But if you get sick from it, IMO you shouldn't be allowed to use any "free" medical care on my dime.

IR

Corsendonk wrote: »

Doug Powell July 30th, 2011 .......


Raw Milk /7 Raw Milk Products Outbreak Table Present to 1973
http://bites.ksu.edu/sites/default/files/Raw%20Milk%20Outbreak%20Table.pdf

As we're on the links - you may be interested also in this one which states that one is 35'000 times more likely to get ill from another type of food-borne illness in the us than from raw milk

http://www.realmilk.com/real-milk-pathogens.html

IR

Corsendonk wrote: »

We are aware of the risks of driving without a seatbelt so why should I be forced to wear one if I am prepared to live with the "risks"? Or should food "risks" be treated differently?

Have you ever asked to inspect any of the restaurant kitchens you trust?

Sorry mod about going off topic.

I also am sorry for OT - but while we are at it - this driving analogy really irks me...
DRIVING is the risk here ( a far bigger risk I might add than consuming raw milk) and the seatbelt is the safety measure.
In raw milk the safety measure is introduction of regulations including herd management, increased testing and increased levels of hygiene in the dairy as well as clear labelling

tribesman44

jonnyrudyard wrote: »

Sorry, no. It did does not and cannot cure cancer. In fact the idea is frankly pretty absurd and there is no evidence to support it - only claims which cannot be verified, rendering them meaningless. I very seriously doubt it "cures" anything else either, or has much of any benefit beyond what pasteurized milk does. Again, if this is the claim, I'd love to see some verifiable, scientific evidence to support it. Meanwhile we do have evidence of increased risk (and incidences of) getting ill due to raw milk.

But I do agree that if people want it, go for it, to each their own. But if you get sick from it, IMO you shouldn't be allowed to use any "free" medical care on my dime.

believe what you will. i trust raw milk more than chemo and radiation. theres plenty of evidence to back up how much more nutritious raw milk is. i suggest doing that research before you pass judgement on it. it seems you have a lot to learn my friend

tribesman44

dude, google how many people get sick per year from raw milk or salmonella from raw eggs. i eat both all the time. and you can get sick from any food which isn't regulated properly. i got food poisoning before from a feckin sausage. and by the way, you can get sick from pasteurized milk and you can get TB from it. you can live off raw milk by itself...you cannot live off pasteurized milk by itself. doesn't that tell you something?

tribesman44

someone should tell doug powell that even spinach will make you sick if its not handled properly. the dairy industry probably bought him out. sadly, these so called "scientists" are the ones who go against this stuff. its either because they are stupid, or they were paid to agree with the majority. just LOOK AROUND at the health of western socities today. god, could it be anymore clear? something is not right. they reckon our generation will actually BRING DOWN the average life expectancy due to our diets and the increase in diabetes and degenerative diseases

IR

tribesman44 wrote: »

someone should tell doug powell that even spinach will make you sick if its not handled properly. the dairy industry probably bought him out. sadly, these so called "scientists" are the ones who go against this stuff. its either because they are stupid, or they were paid to agree with the majority. just LOOK AROUND at the health of western socities today. god, could it be anymore clear? something is not right. they reckon our generation will actually BRING DOWN the average life expectancy due to our diets and the increase in diabetes and degenerative diseases

Yep - it's pretty frustrating all right... have you seen the new website?
www.rawmilkireland.com

The thing is with scientists though I suppose to be fair, is that what they see is a risk, and then they see pasteurisation as a control measure to cancel out that risk. Any grey areas just get disregarded!

tribesman44

IR wrote: »

Yep - it's pretty frustrating all right... have you seen the new website?
www.rawmilkireland.com

The thing is with scientists though I suppose to be fair, is that what they see is a risk, and then they see pasteurisation as a control measure to cancel out that risk. Any grey area just get disregarded!

yes i saw the website. i filled out the petition and i follow them on facebook. at least someone is trying. i was thinking of doing an all raw milk diet for a few weeks and document it to send to the government, lol

yea, its basically like do whatever to protect their own ass. it makes me so angry. if raw milk is controlled and regulated, it is perfectly healthy.

Corsendonk

IR wrote: »

I also am sorry for OT - but while we are at it - this driving analogy really irks me...
DRIVING is the risk here ( a far bigger risk I might add than consuming raw milk) and the seatbelt is the safety measure.
In raw milk the safety measure is introduction of regulations including herd management, increased testing and increased levels of hygiene in the dairy as well as clear labelling

This part interests me, how do you propose to do this? From the arguments here the raw milk will come from small raw milk farms. Will they pack there own or sell to a third party who will bottle it? Will the farm test every batch released? Will they have to have to use I Lab accreditated Labatories for Micro?

Will the farmer have to pay for the extra inspections from the Dept of Agriculture and EHO or should the tax payer subsidise the increased inspections?

These are just some of the questions that will have to be answered to ensure consumer safety. The next argument will be that your only a small artisan Producer and shouldn't have to do all this testing, deal with all these unannounced visits or fill out the paperwork that other food producers have to do to ensure food safety for their consumers from farm to fork.

jonnyrudyard

IR wrote: »

As we're on the links - you may be interested also in this one which states that one is 35'000 times more likely to get ill from another type of food-borne illness in the us than from raw milk
http://www.realmilk.com/real-milk-pathogens.html

Sorry but that link shows nothing of the kind and is quite flawed:

First, they don't even compare similar statistics; they say "average annual illnesses attributed to drinking raw milk," not total # for the same given year as with the other illnesses.

Second, even if we disregad that, note that the stat isn't even verifiable. They just say "from a comprehensive database..." :rolleyes: ie anyone could have made it that stat up out of thin air. It therefore is meaningless.

Third, even if it was true and even if they used it in a way that made sense (comparing like to like), that alleged stat only indicates how few people drink raw milk in the U.S., not how safe it is. It's not like they're comparing illnesses for a given thing per person. That'd be like saying there are fewer cases of illness from drinking molten steel in the U.S. than there are from raw milk; therefore, molten steel is safer.

Finally, note that's from "realmilk.com" - hey no hidden agenda or bias there. The question they pose is ironic: "who's irresponsible?" I think the answer is obvious.

tribesman44 wrote: »

believe what you will. i trust raw milk more than chemo and radiation. theres plenty of evidence to back up how much more nutritious raw milk is.

How much more nutritious raw milk is....compared to what?
Whatever it is, since there's so much evidence, you should have no trouble pointing me to some then.

i suggest doing that research before you pass judgement on it. it seems you have a lot to learn my friend

I already have. As for a lot to learn, I suggest you take a look in the mirror.

tribesman44

jonnyrudyard wrote: »

Sorry but that link shows nothing of the kind and is quite flawed:

First, they don't even compare similar statistics; they say "average annual illnesses attributed to drinking raw milk," not total # for the same given year as with the other illnesses.

Second, even if we disregad that, note that the stat isn't even verifiable. They just say "from a comprehensive database..." :rolleyes: ie anyone could have made it that stat up out of thin air. It therefore is meaningless.

Third, even if it was true and even if they used it in a way that made sense (comparing like to like), that alleged stat only indicates how few people drink raw milk in the U.S., not how safe it is. It's not like they're comparing illnesses for a given thing per person. That'd be like saying there are fewer cases of illness from drinking molten steel in the U.S. than there are from raw milk; therefore, molten steel is safer.

Finally, note that's from "realmilk.com" - hey no hidden agenda or bias there. The question they pose is ironic: "who's irresponsible?" I think the answer is obvious.


How much more nutritious raw milk is....compared to what?
Whatever it is, since there's so much evidence, you should have no trouble pointing me to some then.

I already have. As for a lot to learn, I suggest you take a look in the mirror.

compared to pasteurized milk. you can do your own research. i really don't care what you choose to believe. its not even worth the effort with some people. your wearing blinders man

jonnyrudyard

tribesman44 wrote: »

dude, google how many people get sick per year from raw milk or salmonella from raw eggs. i eat both all the time. and you can get sick from any food which isn't regulated properly. i got food poisoning before from a feckin sausage. and by the way, you can get sick from pasteurized milk and you can get TB from it. you can live off raw milk by itself...you cannot live off pasteurized milk by itself. doesn't that tell you something?

First off, saying something "can" happen is so vague as to be meaningless. I can win the lottery too, but I'm not exactly counting on it.

What this tells me you have even more to learn than I suspected. You cannot live off of milk, raw or not, by itself. That's ridiculous. Try it and let us know how long you last.

IR

Corsendonk wrote: »

This part interests me, how do you propose to do this? From the arguments here the raw milk will come from small raw milk farms. Will they pack there own or sell to a third party who will bottle it? Will the farm test every batch released? Will they have to have to use I Lab accreditated Labatories for Micro?

Will the farmer have to pay for the extra inspections from the Dept of Agriculture and EHO or should the tax payer subsidise the increased inspections?

These are just some of the questions that will have to be answered to ensure consumer safety. The next argument will be that your only a small artisan Producer and shouldn't have to do all this testing, deal with all these unannounced visits or fill out the paperwork that other food producers have to do to ensure food safety for their consumers from farm to fork.

All bottling would be done onsite
Of course they would need to use accredited labs for testing
It would not be feasible to test every batch, but the regularity would have to be based on a thorough risk analysis, I would certainly envision monthly testing.

At present the most likely producers of raw milk are those already selling raw milk for cheese - they are already subject to extra inspections by the department
I would foresee that the burden of extra testing would need to be carried by the producer / farmer.

It is also worth noting though that any new food producer would be subject to extra inspections and would be an extra cost -but I would hope that no-one is saying that we shouldn't encourage any new business as it would cost the government extra to expect!

No more than the drinking of raw milk, no farmer will be forced to do it, so if they decide to produce raw milk for sale then they can make an informed decision as to whether the extra regulations and paperwork as well as costs associated are viable for them...

jonnyrudyard

tribesman44 wrote: »

compared to pasteurized milk. you can do your own research. i really don't care what you choose to believe. its not even worth the effort with some people. your wearing blinders man

Again: I have. You're wrong.

You are right, however, in that it's not even worth the effort with some people and how they wear blinders. I'd suggest you take your own advice and do some research, but I see that would be pointless. If you want to drink raw milk over pasteurized milk despite the increased risk and no added benefit, whatever, enjoy.

IR

jonnyrudyard wrote: »

Sorry but that link shows nothing of the kind and is quite flawed:

First, they don't even compare similar statistics; they say "average annual illnesses attributed to drinking raw milk," not total # for the same given year as with the other illnesses.

Second, even if we disregad that, note that the stat isn't even verifiable. They just say "from a comprehensive database..." :rolleyes: ie anyone could have made it that stat up out of thin air. It therefore is meaningless.

Third, even if it was true and even if they used it in a way that made sense (comparing like to like), that alleged stat only indicates how few people drink raw milk in the U.S., not how safe it is. It's not like they're comparing illnesses for a given thing per person. That'd be like saying there are fewer cases of illness from drinking molten steel in the U.S. than there are from raw milk; therefore, molten steel is safer.

Quote from the article so that everyone else can see that it was in fact not just pulling numbers from thin air!
For comparison for those who insist on published data in peer reviewed journals, another set of data was compiled by Stephen P. Oliver and others entitled "Food Safety Hazards Associated with Consumption of Raw milk, published in Foodborne Pathogens and Disease.3 Oliver looked at illnesses attributed to raw milk over a nine-year period, 2000 to 2008, as shown in Figure 2. The numbers listed are those attributed to drinking fluid milk, and do not include illnesses attributed to other processed dairy products.

If you look at the spreadsheet near the bottom, you will see the calculations have been done in relation to the number of raw milk drinkers in the population, not just based on the 3m drinkers vs approx 300mill pop...

tribesman44

people have lived on raw milk. in fact, doctors used to prescribe it back in the early 1900s. sorry for not wanting to write a term paper for you on here. not worth the time man. your stuck in your belief system. i choose my battles these days, and you are not one of them. no matter what i say, or what proof i give you...you will still tell me i am wrong. have fun drinking and eating your dead dairy. do mother cows pasteurize their milk before giving it to the calf? no...why? because its a perfect food intended to make something grow, thrive and surivive. pasteurization was designed to kill harmful bacteria...it also kills almost all the good in the milk.

it has been documented that an american man lived solely on raw milk for 42 years. in this time, he was NEVER sick. there are modern day stories of people doing the same thing and their health actually got better. by the way, im untrollable

The Hill Billy

OK folks - I'm stepping in here to say that this is descending into tit-for-tat territory with little or nothing new being brought to the table.

By all means contribute if you have something of value to add. But please quit re-hashing the same old stuff.

Thanks,

tHB