Raw milk is a controversial topic, with some advocating for its health benefits and others warning of potential health risks. While raw milk can be safe if handled correctly, it is potentially more dangerous than pasteurized milk due to the risk of harmful bacteria. The cleanliness of the dairy where the milk was produced is a key factor in assessing the safety of raw milk.
Raw milk began appearing more often in the news in the early 21st century, due to a number of books written about it and advocacy organizations promoting the idea that people were healthier to drink than pasteurized milk . In many areas of the United States, however, the sale of raw milk for human consumption is prohibited, and many health organizations are strongly against its consumption. With these two differing opinions, many consumers are wondering how dangerous raw milk really is. The blunt truth is that it’s potentially more dangerous than pasteurized milk, but when handled correctly, it’s relatively safe, and nutritional analysis suggests it’s best for you.
When milk is not pasteurized or homogenized, it is designated as raw. Pasteurization was invented in the 1800s by Louis Pasteur, who learned that heating a food to 161 degrees Fahrenheit (71 degrees Celsius) for 15 seconds would kill most of the harmful bacteria inside. Demands for milk were realized immediately and safe and healthy milk started to be easily accessible to many more people at reasonable prices. For people concerned about health, the safety of milk has always been a major concern, because it is an ideal breeding ground for many bacteria, especially salmonella, brucellosis, tuberculosis and camplyobacteriosis. By pasteurizing the milk, the risk of contracting one of these diseases is significantly reduced.
When farmers collect raw milk for human consumption, it must be handled very carefully. Perhaps more carefully because it does not undergo the further pasteurization or homogenization process that traditional milk goes through. In the ideal process, cows are first milked in a very clean environment and their udders are cleaned prior to milking to remove any sources of contamination. With a gloved hand, the farmer pulls a small amount of milk to remove any bacteria that may be lurking at the tip of the teat and to make sure the milk is clean and healthy. Then, a milking machine is attached to the cow and the milk is expressed directly into a refrigerated tank. Raw milk must be kept in a cold chain from milking to consumption and the equipment must be spotless.
Proponents of raw milk argue that it is healthier than conventional milk because the pasteurization process that conventional milk goes through also kills friendly bacteria or good bacteria that can help with digestion and the immune system. The pasteurization process can also remove some vitamins that occur in raw milk such as B6. Other enzymes and minerals can also be removed during the pasteurization process. Proponents of unpasteurized milk also argue that it tastes better than pasteurized milk.
Those arguing against raw milk cite the Center for Disease Control (CDC) which reports illnesses resulting from its consumption. Since it does not undergo the process of removing harmful bacteria that pasteurized milk undergoes, it can open its consumers to greater health risks. Proponents of traditional milk cite these potential health dangers along with no significant differences in taste as reasons to stick with pasteurized milk.
Perhaps the real question in assessing the danger associated with raw milk is the cleanliness of the dairy where the milk was produced. Those crude dairies that test their product extensively for the presence of bacteria and contaminants, and make these results available to the public, may be less dangerous to drink. Immunocompromised people, however, should consult a doctor before consuming raw milk.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
