Search Site   
News Stories at a Glance
Deere 4440 cab tractor racked up $18,000 at farm retirement auction
Indiana legislature passes bills for ag land purchases, broadband grants
Make spring planting safety plans early to avoid injuries
Michigan soybean grower visits Dubai to showcase U.S. products
Scientists are interested in eclipse effects on crops and livestock
U.S. retail meat demand for pork and beef both decreased in 2023
Iowa one of the few states to see farms increase in 2022 Ag Census
Trade, E15, GREET, tax credits the talk at Commodity Classic
Ohioan travels to Malta as part of US Grains Council trade mission
FFA members learn about Australian culture, agriculture during trip
Timing of Dicamba ruling may cause issues for 2024 planting
   
Archive
Search Archive  
   
Heated debate over raw milk benefits rages on

By DOUG GRAVES
Ohio Correspondent

COLUMBUS, Ohio — The debate between pasteurized and raw, or unpasteurized, milk has created an organic marketing frenzy. Those in favor of raw milk say there are health benefits for those seeking this “natural food product.”

But some experts say when using raw milk the key words instead should be “buyer beware.” Valente B. Alvarez, professor in food science and technology at the Ohio State University College of Food, Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, said the health threats outweigh the alleged benefits.

“Unprocessed in this case is not a valid claim for better, and there is overwhelming scientific evidence that anecdotal claims of health benefits do not outweigh the risks,” Alvarez said. Alvarez adds that each individual is a case study of one and that there is varying immunity, depending on age and health status.

“While raw milk coming directly from the udder of the cow does have beneficial microbes, once it leaves the bovine body the chance of contamination is very high,” Alvarez said. “Even in state-of-the-art milking parlors, there is a significant difference between sanitizing and sterilizing the milking equipment. In no more than a few minutes, as milk leaves the udder, it may come into contact with bacteria from the animal’s teat or with miniscule amounts of clean but not sterilized equipment.”

And other experts in this area are speaking out. Jeff LeJeune, Ohio State University food safety expert, studied the dangers of drinking raw milk over a four-year period and argues that there is no scientific evidence supporting the notion that raw milk cures or prevents diseases.

LeJeune’s article (Unpasteurized Milk: A continued Public Health Threat) was published in the Jan. 1 issue of the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases.

“Although milk and dairy products are important components of a healthy diet, if consumed unpasteurized they can present a health hazard due to possible contamination with pathogenic bacteria,” LeJeune said.

LeJeune is also a microbiologist and veterinary researcher with the university’s Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center in Wooster.

“These bacteria can originate even from clinically healthy dairy cows or from environmental contamination occurring during collection and storage of milk,” LeJeune added.

In LeJeune’s study he cited an increasing number of cases of food-borne illnesses related to unpasteurized milk consumption, including outbreaks of salmonellosis and E. coli infection.
And then there are those who believe there is nothing wrong with raw milk. Renown biologist and northern California nutrition consultant Randolph Jonsson says there shouldn’t be any war waged against raw milk.

“Pasteurization came about as a result of improper feeding of dairy animals, period,” Jonsson said. “Two hundred years ago the introduction of heavy amounts of grain, especially waste grain from breweries and distilleries, changed the perception of milk by turning it into a disease vector. Infant mortality soared. Today, the Food and Drug Administration would have everyone believe that raw milk, all raw milk, is just as dangerous.”

Jonsson blames the media for the storm against raw milk.
“The battle is being waged in the media,” Jonsson said. “The unedited Internet has a lot of wheat woven among the chaff. So what argument is there, really, against a food which nourished humanity for a millennia, and nearly all that time before modern germ theory was developed? People know they’re being fed a load of malarkey by the media, the agencies and the large mega-dairies. The web is leveling the playing field for information, and that is why I feel the raw milk effort is gaining strength.”

Jonsson agrees that some milk must be pasteurized.

“More and more consumers who seek the best foods are learning that the problem is not with raw milk, it’s with the people who are feeding the hapless animals cardboard scraps, bakery waste, spent brewery grain, stale candy bars, blood meal, urea and who knows what else,” he said. “Milk like that simply cannot protect itself from pathogenic contamination, and so must be heat treated.”

It is illegal to sell unpasteurized milk in 24 states and Puerto Rico. Still, many states do permit the sale of raw milk to the public through the selling of “Shares” in a dairy cow, at the farm where it is produced, or in retail outlets. In some cases the milk is labeled as “animal” or “pet food” across state lines. But slowly the illegality of the practice is growing and Jonsson realizes that he and others face an uphill battle.

“If Prohibition was any indicator, I feel it’s safe to say that wherever there’s a demand, Americans will find a way to satisfy it,” he said. “Raw milk may never come out the champ, but it’ll always be a contender.”

Anyone wanting more information on Jonsson’s findings can do so at www.raw-milk-facts.com

1/29/2009