Talk:Pasteurization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

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 are different types this article is not just written for school kids

There is no mention of what pasteurization does to the nutritional content.

  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.39.92 (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] "Controversy" section

Multiple users have commented on the inappropriateness of this section, especially in this particular article, which about more than milk. Therefore, I deleted the section from this article and moved it to United States raw milk debate.

Advocates of The Weston A. Price Foundation's Campaign for Real Milk seem to be using wikipedia to futher their agenda. Links to their site and articles (on other matters as well) are all over wikipedia (see my recent edits for some). I don't believe the "debate" page is encyclopedic, but it's a good place to consolidate their unsubstantiated claims about raw milk. Oddly, the WAPF wiki article does not yet mention its raw milk campaign. OccamzRazor 22:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[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)

[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)

Unfortunately, international English is the English recognised by most dictionaries, except in the U.S. (notice recognised, not -ized). The title will be changed accordingly, after research from five very respected dictionaries from both the United Kingdom and my home country Australia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Auroranorth (talk • contribs) 11:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
  • This topic definitely needs further exploration. It's not sensible to use Wiktionary as a source here, partly because it would present a conflict of interest, and partly because the article at Wiktionary is without sources itself. Also, I failed to see "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." at International English. I would like to see some evidence on the Oxford recommending the use of the -ize suffix. Much of the body of the article Louis_Pasteur uses -ise. Perhaps this should be reviewed?

[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)

Retth, I'm not sure how to provide concrete examples of taste across the web, but I can tell my own experience at least. I grew up drinking about 3 quarts of pasteurized milk a day (in my teen years). A few years ago we switched to raw milk from a local cow owner, and the difference was very definite and obvious. At first I couldn't help tasting a slightly grassy flavor, but I either got used to it or it was a feed problem that the owner figured out and corrected. It wasn't unpleasant anyway, just different. Second, it was Jersey milk, and the cream really does rise so thick you can spoon it out. It's almost as thick as sour cream at times, and yet the texture isn't what you're familiar with from storebought cream. You know how if you take a mouthful of storebought cream it leaves a fatty residue on the roof of your mouth and your teeth, like you tried to gargle with cold lard? Never happens with raw cream - it goes down as smooth as milk, just thicker and creamier tasting. If you don't know the residue I'm referring to, think of homemade ice cream made from storebought heavy cream, it often has that same texture. We skimmed most of the cream and made our own butter: whip it in the Kitchenaid mixer covered with a wet dishtowel for 5-15 minutes, depending on what the cow's been eating, sometimes it goes quicker, and then mash out the buttermilk and wash and mash some more until you can only squeeze out clear liquid. A wooden spoon or a large stiff silicone spatula works well. Save the first batch of buttermilk you pour off for making pancakes - none better. After butter-making, there would be about 1/8-cup of cream left in the remaining 3.5 pints of milk, which we shook up to mix back in every time we poured out milk. I figure that made it about 3.5% milk, but storebought 3.5% milk just isn't even close. The farm milk has a much richer flavor, even after removing most of the cream. Look at Realmilk.com to see if there is a source near you if you want a taste. --DavidJField 08:52, 1 May 2007 (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

who r u?? i think it goes both waysCilstr 16:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[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)


[edit] Reverted

The edits of 70.49.220.234 23:51, 29 November 2006 gutted any criticism of raw milk and removed references to the CDC and to illnesses caused by raw milk. It reduced an already poorly written article to down right awful. I've reverted back to the version of 15:05, 29 November 2006 CambridgeBayWeather (and trying to put back some of the minor edits re temps and other technical items). I'm sure I missed stuff but it is better than where we were. --Benjamin Franz 17:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to remove most of the raw milk debate

Having made the reversion yesterday I have continued to think about it more. It is not really appropriate for this article to be 80% about raw milk: The raw milk controversy has its own article. It seems to me this page should be stripped of essentially all the raw milk stuff (perhaps that material should be integrated with the raw milk article) and refocused to solely deal with Pasteurization (as it should) and reference the raw milk controversy by linking back to the raw milk article. Unless I hear some yelps in the next day or so, I'll do that. --Benjamin Franz 15:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrote raw milk debate

I thought the Alternative milk pasteurization standards section read too much like a government pamphlet and didn't fairly present the raw side. Last time I looked at the Raw milk article it needed even more work, so I decided to start here instead. I rewrote this section to focus only on alternative methods of pasteurization instead of including references to raw milk as an alternative _to_ pasteurization. I moved that content to a new section, titled Controversy. I then updated and corrected several parts of that section to be less POV and also include a pro raw citation. --DavidJField 08:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention my source for the definition of double pasteurization: a letter from the IDFA to APHIS/USDA --DavidJField 08:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS to move page, per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Pasteurization → Pasteurisation — * upon consultation with many International English dictionaries (-ization is an Americanism). Please look to move the page as soon as possible, as one person (in favour of all Americanisms, obviously) opposes it for some reason. Pasteurisation is the term used in most English speaking countries. Auroranorth 11:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC) This section added by SigPig |SEND - OVER 12:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Strong Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

[edit] Survey - in support of the move

  1. Strongly Agree - not that I hate all things American, but Pasteurisation is how the world spells it. People, please give reasons to your opposition, rather than being a 'walk-by voter'. Auroranorth 13:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    All but one person did give reason for their opposition. Voretus 19:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    Plus, your proposition is not supported by established guidelines. 1. American English is just as valid as British or Commonwealth or (insert adjective here) English. 2. When there's a dispute, go with the first major contributor. The article as it currently stands fits both criteria. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 19:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Oppose. Insufficient rationale for move. Please see my comments below. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 12:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strongly oppose. Longstanding Wikipedia rules on national varieties of English, even if it weren't for the fact that "ization" is used quite often outside North America. Gene Nygaard 20:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Vehemently oppose any arbitrary moving of AmE article titles to BrE article titles. Please look through 99999999999999.2 other discussions of this nature elsewhere on Wikipedia. Unless the subject is exclusively American or British, we keep what the article was originally written in. Voretus 20:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. -ization appears to be the original location of the page, therefore it should remain as the current location of the spelling.--Bobblehead 20:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Page move are for cases when the existing title conveys a misconception, or fails to convey some important information. Neither is the case here. To put it more bluntly, why should anyone bother with this instead of spending their time actually improving the encyclopedia? (Incidentally I'm American, but typically use British spelling these days). cab 04:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose WP poilicy says both American and British spellings are acceptable, and guidelines specifically say a page like this should stay at it's original location (which is "iz" for this article). TJ Spyke 04:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose for all the same reasons above. AME vs BE, same story. 205.157.110.11 21:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose as per Wikipedia policy (even though I prefer ~ise) Jimp 06:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. --Serge 08:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - note that "international english" doesn't exist. Also original-spelling policy. --Yath 20:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:
  • Please see the relevant policies/guidelines:
WP:UE: "All national standards of English spelling are acceptable on the English-language Wikipedia, both for titles and content. American spellings need not be respelled to British standards nor vice-versa; for example, both colour and color are acceptable and both spellings are found in article titles."
WP:ENGVAR: "Cultural clashes over grammar, spelling, and capitalisation/capitalization are a common experience on Wikipedia. Remember that millions of people have been taught to use a form of English different from yours, including different spellings, grammatical constructions, and punctuation. For the English Wikipedia, while a nationally predominant form should be used, there is no preference among the major national varieties of English; none is more "correct" than any other. However, there is certain etiquette generally accepted on Wikipedia, as listed here. These guidelines are given roughly in order of importance; those earlier in the list will usually take precedence over later ones:
Articles should use the same spelling system and grammatical conventions throughout. This has been violated by changing the spelling to -ise throughout, today, while the article has been consistently at -ize.
If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect. Does not apply here.
Try to find words that are common to all. Does not apply; this is an AmE vs BrE argument.
Stay with established spelling. "If an article has been in a given dialect for a long time, and there is no clear reason to change it, leave it alone. Editors should not change the spelling used in an article wholesale from one variant to another, unless there is a compelling reason to do so (which will rarely be the case). Other editors are justified in reverting such changes." Which I have done.
Follow the dialect of the first contributor. "If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article." The first major contribution was here: American English.
Policy and guidelines do not support your request; therefore, neither can I. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 12:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Facts Wrong?

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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.42.81.240 (talk • contribs)

[edit] copied

this is another copied article. none of this information is origional. it was all taken from allexperts.com this is the link to the origional article. http://en.allexperts.com/e/p/pa/pasteurization.htm

this is the second time i've noticed this, so i sugest that other articles be checked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.175.230.36 (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Not copied

Actually it was allexperts.com, the commercial enterprise, that did the copying, not the many volunteers at Wikipedia! Read the small print at the bottom of the allexperts page - "This is the "GNU Free Documentation License" reference article from the English Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. See also our Disclaimer." (In which the phrase "reference article from the English Wikipedia" is a link to this article.) --DavidJField 05:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repasteurization Internet rumour

There is a rumour going around the internet (at least in emailing lists I'm in...) that if milk cartons are not sold at supermarkets within their expiry dates, they are taken back to the factory/dairy farm and repasteurized. According to the email this is allowed by law to happen up to five times (after that the taste of the milk has changed from the desirable), hence the number (1-5) that can be found printed/pressed at the bottom of the carton. Industry people however say that the number at the bottom signifies the number of the machine that was used to put milk in the carton (so that in the extremely rare case of carton recall they can find the machine that has the problem, plus inform the public by using the number). So my question is: Can you repasteurize milk? My logic dictates to me that if milk has passed its expiry date it can not be saved. If anyone knows for sure I think this info could be added to the article (as trivia or something like that I suppose). Thanx. Kalambaki2 20:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This rumor is obviously false. Firstly, it would not be at all profitable to have the expired milk shipped back to the plant, and then somehow screened to tell which milk was still good and which was not. Even if it was economical, theres no way that milk companies could get away with that without everyone knowing about it. It's common knowledge that milk usually still tastes fine after the expiry date. This is especially true if the milk has not been opened or removed from refrigeration. No matter how bad the milk has gone it would still be possible to repasteurize it, since pasteurization is simply a process for killing off micro-organisms. Of course any souring that had already occurred before the pasteurization would not be reversed, since the souring of milk is caused by chemical changes ,brought on by the presence of too many of the wrong kinds of micro-organisms. I would be more specific but I really dont have that knowledge. Suffice to say it probably has something to do with bacteria, yeasts, or molds feeding on the milk and excreting nasty bi-products. Matt Munson Oct 13 2007

[edit] Temperature Conversion Error

"UHT processing holds the milk at a temperature of 138 °C (250 °F) for a fraction of a second."

These temps make sense if 100 °C = 212 °F and each unit is the same quantity, but they're not. So 138 °C = 280 °F (or 250 °F = 120 °C). It would be best to go back to the source...

Jpvinall 02:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crab

I added the crab bit because Dirty Jobs had someone (a worker) at a crab... place saying they pasteurize crab. Like first it's put through a, not really a blender but a crusher thing and made into a mush stuff, then pasteurized for crab soup, cakes, whatever they want to fill things with. And sorry I wasn't signed in. This thing signs me out even if I click to leave me signed in. .-. -Babylon pride 23:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article lacks basic info. Too much info about milk.

Pasteurization is a process that finds applications in not only food preparation, but also mushroom cultivation, Horticulture, and biology (and possibly elsewhere.) Pasteurization is often applied because some beneficial micro-organisms can survive this process, as opposed to sterilization which basically kills everything. Of course it is also used to sanitize substances that cannot be heated beyond certain temperatures, cannot be autoclaved, or cannot be treated with chemicals.I believe, though I am not sure, that pasteurization can be used on dry solids. Never the less, pasteurization IS used on wet solids, for example wet soil, wet grains, wet vermiculite etc. -Matt Munson Oct 13 2007

[edit] Raw Vs Pasteurized: Not that big of a difference?

I think this whole debate about raw vs pasteurized is being debated by people from two extremes, whereas a well informed person would probably be somewhere in the middle. On the one hand science acknowledges the existence of beneficial bacteria. Everyone has them growing in their stomach, even before they are born. In fact, humans are a construct of many different organisms including fungi and bacteria. Science also acknowledges the fact that by eating certain foods that contain these beneficial bacteria, we can improve our over all health. However, I do not know how much of these bacteria we miss out on, if any, due to the pasteurization of milk. Other foods, such as yogurt are already known to contain high concentrations of these beneficial bacteria.On the other hand, the only two purposes I know of for the pasteurization of milk are to preserve it as long as possible and to make sure that no harmful organisms are present. Clearly preserving milk is a benefit to society, as it decreases waste, thereby increasing the efficiency of our production. Eliminating pathogenic bacteria would at first seem like only a good thing. However, there is scientific evidence, that being exposed to more pathogens in your life, especialy during developmental stages, will increase the strength of your immune system. In other words, someone who is almost never exposed to pathogens will have almost no defense against them. Clearly, individuals with depressed immune systems (babies, AIDS patients etc.) should only drink pasteurized milk. For the rest of us, there is no reason why we cant make an informed decision about what we put in our bodies. Although if raw milk where to be made available from major distributors, it would surely cost much more than pasteurized milk, due to the shorter expiry time, little consumer demand (less people buy so it would have to cost more to get a profit) and high tech facilities that would probably be needed to keep the milk from being exposed to too many pathogens... Just some food for though, for anybody that can actually write well enough and has the time enough to research this well enough, to actualy edit the entry. - Matt Munson oct 13 2007

[edit] Merge to UHT section

I oppose: pasteurization seems to be a process which REQUIRES refrigeration afterwards, UHT milk can be put in tetra-paks and kept for quite a while longer and without refrigeration. This kind of milk is not that common in the US because marketers found Americans didn't want to buy unrefrigerated milk, but in Europe, it's not hard to find, on shelves and also in the refrigerated section.

I could be wrong about this, but I've never seen simply pasteurized milk in a tetra-pak on a shelf, I don't think it would keep. These two are different things. Semodisesamo (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

NOt wrong, it shouldn't be merged, these are 2 very separate processes, and not the same thing. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pschemp (talk • contribs) 14:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose merge - As previously mentioned, these are two separate processes. Further, the editor who placed the tag two months ago never provided a rational for merging. It would have been helpful to know their opinion. Two months, unanimous opposition and no interest in the merge... I'm pulling the tag. AlphaEta 04:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)