Talk:Pasteurization
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think that it has some useful info, and it is a great homework help. Though there can be such a thing as too much info...
There is also such a thing as skimming.
There is no mention of what pasteurization does to the nutritional content.
[edit] !!! There are meny nonsenses in this text
like: "HTST involves holding the milk at a temperature of 720 °C (1610.5 °F) for at least 15 years. UHT involves holding the milk at a temperature of 1038 °C (280 °F) for at least two seconds."
[edit] Pressure Pasteurization
Does pasteurization involve only heat? Or does pressure pastreurization belong under a different category?
- Pasteurisation at a temperature below that which milk boils at does not involve pressure; you can do it in a saucepan. Pressure pasteurisation is the UHT process because you need to pressurise the product to achieve temperatures above its boiling point at ambient pressure. Just to avoid any misconception, high pressure has no sterilising effect by itself.--ChrisJMoor 04:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
There is something weird about the small history it gives of Pasteurization. It says that it was: "first suggested by Franz von Soxhlet in 1886" yet if you go over to the Louis Pasteur article, it says he and Claude Bernard did the first test of pasteurizing milk in 1862, 14 years before this article states Franz "suggested" it. My research shows that Franz was the one to look into Pasteurization of breast milk, not animal milk.
[edit] Cheese?
It would be interesting to discuss pasteurization in cheeses. Many French and European cheeses are not pasteurized and the people there are very proud of this fact, pointing out their cheeses taste better because this American thing hasn't been done to it. (I've known such Europeans, and they are not concerned with health risks in their cheese. Are such risks present, and to what extent?)
There also seems to be opposition to pasteurization from health-food and naturalist organizations. For example, this page -- http://www.thenaturalife.com/ArticleScott.htm -- contains:
- The other sources for enzymes and good bacteria came from (and still comes from) an interesting gastronomic practice common in virtually every long living society: cultured foods. These include pickles, yogurt, kefir, umeboshi plums, kimchee, sauerkraut, unheated cheese, sourdough bread, fermented gruels, miso, kombucha tea, and hundreds of others. From Africa to Europe to the Orient, civilizations developed and used fermented, cultured foods.
- What do all of these fermented foods have in common? They all contain concentrated, massive amounts of enzymes and friendly bacteria.
- We can find foods in the U.S. that appear to be fermented (pickles are one example), but because of our wacky misunderstanding of the microbial world—and our relationship to it—we add one more step to our fermentation process: pasteurization. Pasteurization eliminates virtually all probiotic and enzymatic activity. So, for those running a fast lifestyle (meaning normal American llfe!), use encapsulated enzymes, encapsulated probiotics, and encapsulated blue green algae.
Could pasteurization pose a health *risk* due to elimination of good-bacteria in addition to a health *benefit* by eliminating bad bacteria? Or is it only freaky hippies who talk about "good-bacteria"?
Article should clarify what log reduction or other count of colony forming units/volume is the required standard for the UHT process, if it exists. Or does UHT generally mean 'completely sterile'?--ChrisJMoor 04:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nonsensical Sentence
"Unlike sterilization, pasteurization is not intended to kill all micro-organisms in the food, as compared to appertization, invented by Nicolas François Appert."
One shouldn't say "unlike" and "as compared to" in the same turn of phrase. I'd fix this, but I haven't the slightest what it is trying to say. --DNL 12:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Should it be -ize or -ise?
All the words ending -ize in the article were changed to -ise by the user 0s1r1s with the edit summary Changed from U.S. English to International English. Title needs correcting.
It is incorrect to think that the -ize suffix is an Americanism (see Wiktionary) and it is in fact the recommended spelling by most British dictionaries including Chambers and the Oxford English Dictionary. Wikipedia's article on International English describes three different types of International English: British English with -ize spellings; British English with -ise spellings; and American English - two of the three types of International English use -ize. Should the -ise spellings in the article be changed back to -ize, or should the whole article be moved to Pasteurisation (it would be confusing to leave as it is, with the heading differing from the main body of text). Ukeu 14:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Photo
You could use this PD image. For PD rationale check Image:K.B.Sundarambal.jpeg. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Flash Pasteurization
The article on Flash pasteurization describes the method as using temperatures between 71.5-74ºC and durations between 15 and 30 seconds. But the widley-used HTST method described in this article uses a temperature in that range (72ºC) and a time of 15 seconds. This article also claims the following:
- A newer method called flash pasteurization involves shorter exposure to higher temperatures, and is claimed to be better for preserving color and taste in some products.
I assume the comparison ("shorter") is to HTST, in which case there seems to be inconsistency between the articles.
[edit] "Alternative pasteurization standards and raw milk" : Biased?
This section reads a bit like an anti raw milk pamphlet. Only the third paragraph is dedicated to explaining the benefits of unpasteurized products, and even then, these benefits are referred to as "perceived". The following eight paragraphs detail the dangers of raw milk products and the mere 200-300 people effected every year. Am I imagining the bias? Rachilinie 22:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, what bothered me about that paragraph was its meaningless insertion of '1 in a million'. That is 1 in a million _Americans_ NOT 1 in a million drinkers of raw milk. I'm removing that note because it is actively misleading to give it as a fraction of all Americans (without so noting) rather than as a fraction of raw milk drinkers. --Benjamin Franz 21:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] More referenced in raw milk ?
When I read through the article, I thought the raw-milk part was a little caustic, and somewhat biased because the claims were not cited. One even mentioned a guy's name and the CDC, but shouldn't there be a link we can reference, or a journal or time and place to make this more credible?
Also, I was hoping to learn more about the actual difference in taste with pasteurized milk vs. raw milk. I know this is a little biased in nature, but maybe if someone has some concrete examples, it'd be good info to have. Thanks.
Rhetth 12:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] article is very bad
This article is garbage. It has a very pro raw milk POV. Which is completely wrong since the majority, societal and expert view is that pasteurized milk is best. I have therefore put a totallydisputed tag on it
[edit] POV
I second the problems with the raw milk section. It is far POV, makes unsubstantiated claims, and uses poor language for an encyclopedia. I'm looking at the end of the first Raw Milk section in particular. Some sources that would be useful in fixing the entire article are cdc.gov and fda.gov. I'm not sure who should be quoted as pro-Raw milk; maybe there is a lobby. Any claim made by either group ideally should be met by a counter-claim if it's disputed.
[edit] Raw Milk
This entire section should be deleted. It is heavily biased in favor of raw milk, contains unsubstantiated claims, some of which are irrational, and offers no information of use to the dispassionate reader, only opinion. It is also badly written. The science of Pasteurisation is well documented and has been studied for years. Surely you could find a scientist to write this. As a veterinarian, I came to this page to update my knowledge on Pasteurisation since I last studied Bovine medicine 30 years ago. This page is an embarrassment and lowers my faith in Wikipedia as a valid source of information. Hacoah 18:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
