Talk:United States raw milk debate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Encyclopedic topic? 2 Page Scope 3 First reference link 4 Scientific Studies

[edit] Encyclopedic topic?

I don't believe this kind of an aticle belongs on wikipedia. There really is no ongoing "debate." The safety and efficacy of pasteurization has been proven worldwide and there is general consensus worldwide that there are potentially serious, even fatal infections that can be caused by pathogens in raw milk. The reason this page is here is that there is a vocal advocacy group attempting to use the popularity of wikipedia to spead its agenda of promoting raw milk through unverified claims of safety and problems with pasteurized milk. Making it look like an active debate, makes their claims look potentially more valid. The debate was over 40 years ago.

Unfortunately, this may be economically driven. An organization that has a number of small dairy farms among its members is advocating "A Campaign for Real Milk." IMO, the way this is being done on this site is an abuse of the purpose of wikipedia. OccamzRazor 00:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been eating raw milk weekly since i was a child, and I'm not Takezo Kensei. Arronax50 (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There absolutely is an ongoing "debate". Pasteurization has been proven to kill off beneficial bacteria and other nutrients in the milk. The worry about pathogens is only in mass produced milk with animals housed in filthy conditions. Healthy, happy cows and goats that are allowed pasture do NOT produce unsafe milk. Pasteurization also kills beneficial nutrients in eggs and honey.

Even if you are correct that the "debate" was resolved 40 years ago, that does not mean pasteurization is beneficial. 40 years ago, margarine was touted as a healthy alternative to butter. 20 years ago, during the low fat fad, trans fats were welcomed as a way to replace saturated fat. Your handle being a twist on Occam's Razor, I am surprised that you would support a complicated thing over a simple, more natural one. 74.160.5.53 (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page Scope

Perhaps this page should be named "Raw milk debate in North America" or even "Raw milk debate".

Some of the content is not part of the debate, but is simply verifiable fact, and should be moved to raw milk.

What do you think? Edit, or comment here.

The following sentence is verifiable fact and should be in raw milk: "The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) cite numerous cases of serious or fatal infections caused by raw milk, with E. coli O157:H7 being the most important because it can cause the hemolytic-uremic syndrome, a life-threatening condition [3]. In a CDC report, numerous cases were traced to raw milk from a cow-share program in Cowlitz County, Washington. After five children were hospitalized, a court order was issued to bring the farm into compliance [4]." The sentence after that links to an excellent review article in a major medical journal, but ends with the author's opinion that pasteurized milk is just as nutritious as raw milk: "A review of infections associated with raw milk contends that pasteurized milk is just as nutritious as raw milk, so that there is neither a scientific nor an aesthetic reason for choosing raw milk products[5]." At this point, it would be nice to include studies, if any have been done, on how laboratory animals do when drinking pasteurized milk vs. raw milk - do they grow as fast or to the same extent? Also, how about a taste test of whole pasteurized milk vs. raw milk - can people tell them apart without a label? However, milk industry experts worrry about standardizing the taste of milk - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3301/is_9_105/ai_n6205068 For example, I've had milk from a small dairy that tasted like scallions, perhaps because the cows grazed in a field with scallions. I'm not sure that Wikipedia can solve all of these questions about this emotionally charged area. Perhaps it would be good to add a section to this topic - and perhaps many other Wikipedia topics - called "Unanswered Questions" or "Topics for Further Study" that reflect the true incomplete nature of much of our knowledge. Rkornbluth 15:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)rkornbluth

[edit] Views of raw milk supporters

I removed the discussion of cow breeds and buying directly from farms for the reasons you give (they are just facts, not part of debate). Otherwise, I made no substantive changes, just clarified the lists and moved some items from one to the other.

Here is an interesting story on activism as it relates to raw milk: http://www.rebuild-from-depression.com/blog/2006/12/milk_is_milk_billboard_tagged.html The "Milk is Milk" Campaign (all milk is the same, whatever you do to it) had a billboard tagged by a raw milk supporter. (It's from my site.)

[edit] First reference link

I'm not sure how notable it is to include the paper written in 1938 as a reference. Especially since it's a Pro-raw milk paper and it's included in the the Pro-pasteurization section. I'm going to remove it. If anyone can come up for a reason to keep it there, you can put the link back. http://www.realmilk.com/rawvpasteur.html Quasispace 03:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific Studies

I am aware of numerous scientific studies on the safety of raw milk, but I have not found any that address what I think is an important issue.

Do the studies that claim high incidence of pathogens in raw milk take into account the environment or the methods of raising the cows at each farm? Supporters of raw milk claim that pasture-fed cows in clean environments have natural resistance to disease causing bacteria.

If a study lumps all raw milk producers together, how can we be certain whether any health risks are not simply explained by poor handling of the cows or the milk? In other words, is it the raw milk itself that carries high risk, or is it only the way it is handled that makes it potentially dangerous?

If anyone can find any info on this (from either side) I think it would be helpful. Dogrun81 (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)