In the upcoming January issue of the journal, Clinical Infectious Diseases a study called “Unpasteurized Milk: A Continued Public Health Threat” will be found a under Food Safety. It promises to be controversial– and well cited by those vehemently against the healthy, wholesome and natural drink called clean, raw milk.
The propoganda piece also provides psychological diagnosis for those “biased” into thinking that raw milk has curative properties and methods to change these old-fashioned ideas.
The authors then show more of their arrogance by offering legal advice: “physicians, veterinarians, and dairy farmers who promote, or even condone, the human consumption of unpasteurized milk and dairy products may be at risk for subsequent legal action.”
Before I comment on this piece of junk science, I wanted to post it now so the “peer-reviewed study” won’t get buried in my stacks and be lost forever. I must point out that the study is from Ohio State University– Wooster Agricultural Research facility, right up the road from my house.
The large number of raw milk drinkers associated with this institution should be sickened by this report. Personally, the study is like pasteurized milk: it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
To state that there is no health benefits of drinking clean raw milk, when there are tens of thousands who have first-hand experience with its consumption relieving many disorders and diseases, now and the past 100 years must bring up the red flag of flawed science with a preconceived conclusion. In fact, it led David Gumpert to title his article Why a Research Report on Raw Milk Is Really a Political Document Masquerading As a Scientific Paper
According to the authors, “physicians, veterinarians, and dairy farmers who promote, or even condone, the human consumption of unpasteurized milk and dairy products may be at risk for subsequent legal action.” The Weston A. Price Foundation has their superb rebuttal with 50 references posted here: http://www.realmilk.com/documents/ResponsetoInfectiousClinicalDiseaseArticle. pdf
The actual early release study is located here, so you can be prepared for all the buzz when it hits the streets.
Journal of Natural Food and Health 
Sally Fallon, President and Founder of The Weston A. Price Foundation has written a rebuttal to the journal article from the Clinical Infectious Diseases.
This is posted at realmilk.org. ——————————————————————————–
NEW ANTI-RAW MILK ARTICLE
The journal Clinical Infectious Diseases has just published a very unscientific anti-raw milk article that ends with a most inappropriate threat. According to the authors, “physicians, veterinarians, and dairy farmers who promote, or even condone, the human consumption of unpasteurized milk and dairy products may be at risk for subsequent legal action.” The article is a model of industry agenda posing as science. We have posted a detailed response at http://www.realmilk.com/documents/ResponsetoInfectiousClinicalDiseaseArticle. pdf
The credits for this article are most interesting. The authors thank John Sheehan, FDA head of dairy and egg safety “for valuable discussions on the subject during the preparation of the manuscript.” We have effectively stymied Sheehan with our careful rebuttals of his official statements (posted at realmilk.com) . Funding in partial support of the article was provided by state and federal funds allocated to the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, Ohio. (In Ohio, cow share programs are booming after an attempt by the Ohio Department of Agriculture to criminalize them was defeated in court.)
Amy Simon wrote:
We read the raw milk paper by the OSU guys. It left out some obvious facts in their conclusions…like they didn’t have refrigerators, and could only milk into an open bucket by hand back in 1907! They also didn’t make any allowances for “Real Milk” vs. confined, grainfed milk. (There is a radical difference in quality and saftey of the milk as well as the effect on the environment with these two styles of keeping cows.)
Bottom line with this raw milk issue is, Americans want the freedom to choose for themselves.
They left out a study that showed cats drinking pasterurized milk get weird and more prone to health problems, the second generation get worse yet with lower fertility and behavior , and in the third generation many become sterile, sickly and die young.
They left out the study that showed cats fed good clean raw milk thrived and were energetic and their coats were shiny and soft and were much happier. The second generation were even healthier by a good number of measures.
This work was done by Dr. Pottenger in the 1940’s.
They left out that Mayo Clinic and many other sanitariums used diets of raw milk only to cure diseases and disorders, some in advanced stages and with a very high rate of success.
The forgot to conduct a thorough literature review, citing only studies that supported their preplanned conclusions.
They forgot to ask the huge number of raw milk drinkings around Wooster and actually affiliated and work for the Wooster Ag Research Center, the health benefits they get when begin drinking raw milk and what happens to their health when they quit drinking natural, health drink.
The report is a sloppy one, but they did do something good. They showed the very insignificant risk in the numbers of outbreaks, some which were later disproven and others blown way out of proportion effect very small numbers. I have not calculated it, but I would bet getting out of bed in the morning is far riskier by stepping into the bathtub!
I am lucky in that I raise goats and hence have access to my own raw milk. I know from first hand experience that drinking raw benefits me.
If the government banned the sales of every food item that has caused harm or illness, the shelves would be bare.
If the government wants to warn the public of what it peceives as a danger, fine. But to ban the product as they have, is unconstitutional.
I am very fortunate to raise goats and have my own supply of fresh, raw milk. People should have the choice of fresh, raw milk in their diets.
I sincerely believe that raw milk has helped with my health issues.
Sally McDonnell wrote:
I fed my sons raw milk from our family cow. They were scholar athletes, not succumbing to the various diseases* going around in the public HS they attended. (*like whooping cough that went through a sport team one was on.)
They not only were on the sports teams but they were elected CAPTIANS of the Football, Track, Cross-country, and Wrestling teams, and earned divisional championships. They had beautiful skin, eyes, lungs and teeth.
Milking a family cow was the best thing I could do for my family as raw milk was not available any other way. It is time for the laws to change and for “Big Dairy” to realize that the needs of the people are more important than profits or market share or propaganda. Let the people have access to wholesome foods of choice.
I fed my sons raw milk from our family cow. They were scholar athletes, not succumbing to the various diseases* going around in the public HS they attended. (*like whooping cough that went through a sport team one was on.)
They not only were on the sports teams but they were elected CAPTIANS of the Football, Track, Cross-country, and Wrestling teams, and earned divisional championships. They had beautiful skin, eyes, lungs and teeth.
Milking a family cow was the best thing I could do for my family as raw milk was not available any other way. It is time for the laws to change and for “Big Dairy” to realize that the needs of the people are more important than profits or market share or propaganda. Let the people have access to wholesome foods of choice.
sallymcdonnel@aol.com
Sally McDonnell
The study did not compare the number of people who have become ill drinking pastuerized milk vs the number who have become ill drinking raw milk. I would guess that more people have become ill from outbreaks from pastuerized milk over the past 20 years. Also, as an intelligent person, I can see for myself that raw milk is a better product. If it starts to sour, it is still readily usable for cooking, or to turn into yogurt or other sour milk products. But pastuerized milk that starts to sour is putrid and unusable. So, by experience, I can see the enzymes in pastuerized milk are dead and the product is dead. Furthermore homogenized milk is even worse. To fake the feel of fat, they have broken up the natural fat into “shards” that can penetrate the intestinal walls, and get into places in the body that they just don’t belong contibuting to illness. Also, cows who are fed a natural diet without the antibiotics necessary in a factory farm, kill the bacteria in their own systems and produce virtually sterile feces, while factory cows produce feces with ecoli,etc. So, unless the study used milk that was INTENDED to be sold raw, vs, raw milk from a factory farm heading for pastuerization (which none of us would drink), then the whole study should be discarded, due to the fact that they did not study the actual products we consume.
Re: the comments on “Ohio State University– Wooster Agricultural Research facility. The large number of raw milk drinkers associated with this institution should be sickened by this report and they should be creating a lot of noise over it. Personally, the study is like pasteurized milk: it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.”
The fraud first began with the Flexner Report; designed to accomplish the eradication of millennium of acquired knowledge of human health and food safety – Favoring instead the censorship of information and the enslavement of society to the will of the highest bidders – my own health in ruins, by the deceit that those lovely pre-prepared meals were healthy, and many other current myths about food and health today; buttressed by “scientific research” freely available by paying adequate “pieces of silver” to un-ethical and morally challenged individuals, groups or organizations.
To state that there is no health benefits of drinking clean raw milk, when there are tens of thousands who have first-hand experience with its consumption relieving many disorders and diseases, now and the past 100 years must bring up the red flag of flawed science with a preconceived conclusion.
I must state that I know personally from using raw milk and natural un-processed foods, can help undo some of the harm caused by modern food and medicines, the facts remain it takes time to become ill and therefore will also take time to effect a cure, your food is the correct way to health, as a once wise doctor stated; besides “Do no harm” he mentioned “let food be thy medicine” – contrary to current law defining the opposite as being true!
I have been a raw milk drinker since June of last year. Prior to that I did not drink milk for a couple of years for various reasons. My raw milk co-op took a two week break for the holidays and I am used to using milk now so I bought some organic milk – still pasturized and homogonized of course. First of all, I couldn’t get past the fact that I didn’t have to shake it first to remix the fat and milk! I shook it ever time! Secondly, it tastes different. Third, it made me congested. And Fourth, I just felt like it was wrong…like not even food. Like not safe to drink!
So here’s my position – if people distrust raw milk, they don’t have to buy it or drink it. To make it illegal is absurd! I personally distrust P&H milk. I believe we should have the option to drink what we want…raw or processed. Laws keeping us away from perfectly good food are indeed political and have nothing to do with healthfullness!
I’ve been drinking raw milk for almost three years now and never once had a problem. In fact I’m spoiled and would hate to have to go back to dead milk. Why don’t they take some rats and feed one group only raw milk from grass-fed pastured heritage cows and another group only store-bought pasteurized/homogenized factory farm milk and carry on for several generations – if the dead milk group makes it that far. Maybe this was already done back in the 1930’s and forgotten? Pasteurization is just a sorry excuse to sell low quality milk from filthy factory farms.
My two kids and I had problems with exema off and on before we started drinking raw milk. My son went through 3 different prescriptions, none that cleared up his rash. Since raw milk we have yet to have exema come back and its been 4 solid years now. My son was only 2 when he had his exema, the same time I intoduced pasteurized milk into his diet. I started suffering from seasonal allergies in my early 20’s. Like clockwork, every spring I’d have irritated eyes, ect. When my daughter was only 2 months old, she had the same signs & symptoms. Doc said its hereditary. However, neither one of us have experienced ANY symptoms of allergies since. Nothing but the raw milk has changed in our diets or lifestyles to make the extremely itchy, red eyes and sneezing for weeks on end just simply disappear. That’s good enough for me! But bottom line is, its our constitutional right!!
They want to “understand the science” to “reduce the incidence of infections associated with the consumption of unpasteurized milk” – well, they should try a REAL study, and unbiased. I’ve read about a LOT more infections associated with pasteurized products vs. raw. If you read this study you wonder who’s paying them. The problems started when they wanted to increase milk production so fed cows grain. The result was milk full of pathogens, so instead of fixing the problem by feeding the cows what they were designed to eat to be healthy, they had to heat up the milk to kill the pathogens. Hence more problems resulted. It’s all about making money with no concern for the health of the animals or humans involved.
The bottom line of all of this hype of “dangerous” food is to scare the public into eating only what the government says is “safe”.
After researching the processing and sanitation methods of various commercially produced food I would rather take my chances on raw milk, farm raised chicken eggs, and anything else unadulterated that I can get! Getting laws and regulations removed that restrict our freedoms and liberties to make our own choices about what we eat should be the obvious. It is unconstitutional for a government to deprive the people of their rights to persue their own individual health and well-being!
Just wanted to let you know. About 5:40 am Friday, January 16,2009, on WKLM radio, Millersburg, Retired OSU Educator Dean Slates, formerly working out of the Holmes Co. Extension office, and now giving out tips and tidbits as a respected agricultural expert on his morning radio program, talked about this report.
He went on to say how this report was put together by his good friend ,Dr LeJeune(sp?), and it shows how raw milk us just not worth the risk!
Dean truly bleeds OSU red, and he sincerely believes this report . It’s sad.
The state of Connecticut as we speak, is dealing with the threat of becoming a “dry” state. The Department of Agriculture has put together legislation that is now before the Environmental Committee that could quite possibly put our raw milk dairy farmers out of business and thus eliminating the sources of raw milk in our state. Please visit http://www.chooserawmilk.blogspot.com for details.
Thanks, Wonderwoman, for the report from CT.