The farm environment contains countless reservoirs for pathogens; it's pretty easy to get a bug from the environment into raw milk.
I know this to be true, but I was just thinking.
You sanitize the udders before milking. Then you attach a milking machine, since nobody does it by hand. The machine is also sanitized. Then the milk is sucked straight into a tank. If the tank is sealed, how can other dirty things on the farm get into the milk? If the milk is going into a bucket, it's easy to understand, but into a sealed tank?
If the tank is sealed, how can other dirty things on the farm get into the milk?
Microbes are tiny, and they're everywhere. Very few sterilization techniques eliminate all of them reliably, and you can't exactly autoclave a cow and expect it to produce milk.
If the milk is going into a bucket, it's easy to understand, but into a sealed tank?
You honestly think there's a perfect seal between the inside of the cow's udder and the milk tank, unbroken until consumption?
No, but it can be a good enough seal to prevent goats pooping into the milk.
You don't need to poop into the milk in order to contaminate it.
Very few sterilization techniques eliminateallof them reliably
"Sterilize" means to destroy all life in or on an object. "Sanitize," which is what we do to udders, means that we reduce the load in or on an object.
Sanitizing does not eliminate a pathogen. However, it reduces the load of bacteria down to a level that is not an immediate risk.
Also, perfect seals just don't exist. Air gets sucked in. Water gets sucked in. Everywhere that there is dirt or water, there may be a pathogen. There are countless tiny variables that go into every step of milk production.
At the end of the day, surely no one on this forum would be in favor of completely blocking people's freedom to endanger themselves, right?
No, if you want to hurt yourself be my guest. The problem with raw milk is that people are putting themselves at risk, but they aren't fully aware of the size of the risk they are taking. They're drinking raw milk thinking that maybe they are risking having the shits once in awhile. They are not realizing that they are actually doing something with a very high risk of straight up death. I have no problem with someone choosing to take a risk, but can they really choose if they do not understand the choice they are making? If they really understood the true risk, would they make the same choice?
If they really understood the true risk, would they make the same choice?
Thus, personal consumption of personally acquired raw milk should be legal (if stupid). However, no one should be able to sell it or make specious claims about it's purported benefits. In the very least, it should be sold only in a controlled manner with reasonable requirements for severe warnings and informed, documented consent. (See the warnings on alcohol and cigarettes, only more prominent).
Also, giving it to a child should be tantamount to child endangerment.
Yeah, considering how dangerous the milk is compared to the tobacco and alcohol, you'd have to put a giant skull on the bottle to really get across the danger.
I've put far more dangerous things in my body before and I continue to live on.
Clearly you don't understand the danger of raw milk. It's not like drugs such as cocaine and heroine where you have to overdose or use for a long time to kill yourself. One glass of raw milk can give you listeria or ecoli infection which can destroy your kidneys or kill you outright, especially if you are young or elderly.
At the end of the day, surely no one on this forum would be in favor of completely blocking people's freedom to endanger themselves, right?
There is another problem with raw milk that I have yet to touch on: Mycobacterium bovis
You're probably familiar with its cousin, Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Y'know, the bastard that causes tuberculosis. That one.
M. bovis causes tuberculosis in cattle. However, it is also capable of infecting humans and producing human tuberculosis, which can then be transmitted from human to human. In fact, there's considerable evidence indicating that M. tuberculosis is just a mutated version of M. bovis; it's suspected that unpasteurized milk consumption is the vehicle from which it first evolved.
So yes, your decision to drink raw milk may very well impact the livelihood of someone else. I mean, it's obvious with children and pregnant women - buy raw milk for your family to drink and you're endangering your children - but it's still possible for an adult to impact another adult.
I happen to be quite youthful, healthy and vigorous. An ecoli infection won't kill me.
I'm sure Pete will tell you the odds of an ecoli infection killing you, they're going to be quite high. Even if they don't kill you, they could destroy your kidneys, and you'll be on dialysis for the rest of your life, which will be greatly shortened. Also, the constant non-stop vomiting for multiple days will be extremely unpleasant.
We're just telling you, that you don't understand the fullness of the risk. What if someone decides to jump off a cliff because they think the risk of dying is 1/1000, but the real risk of dying is 1/2. We want them to have the right to make the decision, but was it a valid decision if they made it based on false information?
Raw milk is really really really dangerous. You could probably only do worse by drinking actual poison, such as liquid plumber or anti-freeze.
Drinking poison has ~100% chance of poisoning you by mere definition of being poisonous. Raw milk has a <100% chance of poisoning you so yes you were being hyperbolic, Scott.
Drinking poison has ~100% chance of poisoning you by mere definition of being poisonous. Raw milk has a <100% chance of poisoning you so yes you were being hyperbolic, Scott.</p>
I said "probably only do worse by drinking actual poison." I didn't say it was the same as actual poison. If you want to win at arguments in this forum, you're going to have to read every single word people type very very carefully.
I said "probably only do worse by drinking actual poison." I didn't say it was the same as actual poison.
Also, actual poison probably comes with a more reasonable and accurate understanding of the risks involved. People rarely underestimate the risk of drinking arsenic.
No, he's not. Really. The stuff is almost as good as genuine poison.
totally overshooting deep into alarmist territory.
Once again, no he's not. We're really not. People died of TB at age 35 back in the day. Pasteurization almost completely eliminated human TB cases from an M. bovis origin. The resurgence of raw milk presents a real threat to public health.
I'm not afraid of dying, but I am aware that the vast majority of humans would rather not die because they drank a glass of milk. I am interested in protecting and securing the public good against things that can kill them without any real warning.
Comments
You sanitize the udders before milking. Then you attach a milking machine, since nobody does it by hand. The machine is also sanitized. Then the milk is sucked straight into a tank. If the tank is sealed, how can other dirty things on the farm get into the milk? If the milk is going into a bucket, it's easy to understand, but into a sealed tank?
Sanitizing does not eliminate a pathogen. However, it reduces the load of bacteria down to a level that is not an immediate risk.
Also, perfect seals just don't exist. Air gets sucked in. Water gets sucked in. Everywhere that there is dirt or water, there may be a pathogen. There are countless tiny variables that go into every step of milk production.
This is why we pasteurize.
Also, giving it to a child should be tantamount to child endangerment.
You're probably familiar with its cousin, Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Y'know, the bastard that causes tuberculosis. That one.
M. bovis causes tuberculosis in cattle. However, it is also capable of infecting humans and producing human tuberculosis, which can then be transmitted from human to human. In fact, there's considerable evidence indicating that M. tuberculosis is just a mutated version of M. bovis; it's suspected that unpasteurized milk consumption is the vehicle from which it first evolved.
So yes, your decision to drink raw milk may very well impact the livelihood of someone else. I mean, it's obvious with children and pregnant women - buy raw milk for your family to drink and you're endangering your children - but it's still possible for an adult to impact another adult.
Raw milk is really really really dangerous. You could probably only do worse by drinking actual poison, such as liquid plumber or anti-freeze.
Watch these videos and read this FAQ before you post in this thread again.
http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-videos.html
http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-questions-and-answers.html
That is all.
I'm not afraid of dying, but I am aware that the vast majority of humans would rather not die because they drank a glass of milk. I am interested in protecting and securing the public good against things that can kill them without any real warning.