Lawmakers Drink Raw Milk to Celebrate Legality, Become Immediately Sick (2016)(modernfarmer.com)
modernfarmer.com
Lawmakers Drink Raw Milk to Celebrate Legality, Become Immediately Sick (2016)
https://modernfarmer.com/2016/03/west-virginia-lawmakers-raw-milk-sick/
270 comments
I drank quite a bit of raw milk in my childhood. But it had to be fresh. I could walk up, glass in hand, to an uncle carrying today's yield to the storage room. I would get the most delicious milk ever. But if I was a couple minutes late, he'd tell me to go get some in the kitchen instead.
I did the same thing several times, no issues as well. At first I was surprised that milk was warm, because I was used to refrigerated one.
AOL, except more than "several". Much more than "several".
The milk has to be stored in clean containers. If you're going to pasteurise the milk anyway, then milking into a tank will do, and you can clean the tank every few days. But if the milk is to be used raw, then you have to milk into a clean container each time.
The milk has to be stored in clean containers. If you're going to pasteurise the milk anyway, then milking into a tank will do, and you can clean the tank every few days. But if the milk is to be used raw, then you have to milk into a clean container each time.
> The first thing my mom (and everyone else) did is to boil the milk to pasteurize it.
Same here, in rural Romania (at least that's what my grandma was doing when me and my brother were kids). To be honest though, we (meaning me and my brother) did use to eat the foam-y thing that was present on top of the milk immediately after our grandma or grandpa had finished milking the cows. It was still worm, as it had just came out of the cows, so to speak. We never had any health-related issue about it.
Same here, in rural Romania (at least that's what my grandma was doing when me and my brother were kids). To be honest though, we (meaning me and my brother) did use to eat the foam-y thing that was present on top of the milk immediately after our grandma or grandpa had finished milking the cows. It was still worm, as it had just came out of the cows, so to speak. We never had any health-related issue about it.
Which seems logical on the face of it. Calves drink fresh milk all the time, and they are mostly fine.
Calves inherit some antibodies by birth (which I also wonder what sort of antibodies one gets from raw animal milk)
Dogs drink from dirty puddles all the time, and they are mostly fine.
I think we are agreeing here. I was pointing out that baby cows don't immediately die after drinking from their mothers teat, so the same would probably hold for humans.
There's a difference between:
1) Drinking raw milk from the same cow every day
2) Drinking raw milk from a different cow every day (e.g. from a small market)
3) Drinking raw milk from hundreds of random farms mixed together (e.g. as might be processed)
If a cow has a 1% chance of carrying a disease, #1 means you have a 1% chance of getting sick. #3 means you have approximately a 100% chance of getting sick. #2 means you have an estimated time of 3-6 months to get sick, depending on the size of the pool of cows.
Personally, I believe these are the sorts of risks people ought to be able to accept, but only with full knowledge and transparency both about where the milk came from, and of associated risks.
1) Drinking raw milk from the same cow every day
2) Drinking raw milk from a different cow every day (e.g. from a small market)
3) Drinking raw milk from hundreds of random farms mixed together (e.g. as might be processed)
If a cow has a 1% chance of carrying a disease, #1 means you have a 1% chance of getting sick. #3 means you have approximately a 100% chance of getting sick. #2 means you have an estimated time of 3-6 months to get sick, depending on the size of the pool of cows.
Personally, I believe these are the sorts of risks people ought to be able to accept, but only with full knowledge and transparency both about where the milk came from, and of associated risks.
I don't think you are. The point being made is that just because some other animal can do some action, does not mean that the same action is ok for humans.
There are animals in the Amazon that can eat poison dart frogs... I doubt you want to try that.
There are animals in the Amazon that can eat poison dart frogs... I doubt you want to try that.
It does hold for humans. I believe something close to 100% of baby humans drink from their mothers's teats.
That doesn't necessarily mean drinking from another species is safe.
That doesn't necessarily mean drinking from another species is safe.
Yes, but that's udder to mouth. When humans milk cows, they use at the very least possibly dirty hands & pails, and if it's a modern dairy there's much more equipment along the way.
I'm aware. I have milked cows before. I would imagine no one is milking by hand in western countries. It, quite literally, gets sucked out of the cows and into a vat. Farmers generally take good care of the milk and clean all the equipment, it is their income after all.
Not that I'm suggesting that raw milk is a good idea. I've drunk milk from the vat, and it is the cream content that gives it the different taste. But we invented civilisation for a reason.
And if someone is milking into a bucket, stay the fuck away from that stone age shit.
Not that I'm suggesting that raw milk is a good idea. I've drunk milk from the vat, and it is the cream content that gives it the different taste. But we invented civilisation for a reason.
And if someone is milking into a bucket, stay the fuck away from that stone age shit.
Farmers generally take good care of the milk and clean all the equipment, it is their income after all.
This is a big assumption w/o any sort of evidence. However, this only applies if farmer are drinking milk themselves. Kinda reminds me of agricultural practice where farmer don't put pesticides on the food they eat, but they add a lot of pesticides that goes into sales for high income.
This is a big assumption w/o any sort of evidence. However, this only applies if farmer are drinking milk themselves. Kinda reminds me of agricultural practice where farmer don't put pesticides on the food they eat, but they add a lot of pesticides that goes into sales for high income.
I can only speak to the NZ dairy industry but, milk is tested... a lot. If if doesn't meet standards set by the dairy company then the farmer doesn't get paid. Even worse, if bad milk causes milk from other farms to get dumped (milk from many farms in one milk tanker) then the dairy company can fine them for that too.
Farms are businesses and the dairy industry is an industry. Food safety is taken seriously, at least where I live.
Farms are businesses and the dairy industry is an industry. Food safety is taken seriously, at least where I live.
[deleted]
I drank raw milk for ages. Our neighbours were farmers and we'd get milk still warm from the cow. We'd drink what we wanted immediately, boil the rest for preservation and then put it in the fridge. It tasted amazing fresh compared to being boiled.
I'm in Ireland and have cousins who are dairy farmers. Whenever we went on holidays there were two types of milk in the fridge, bought pasteurised and homogenised milk and milk straight from the parlour. The milk from the parlour had a thick layer of cream on top and was amazing on cereal. I have also seen my cousin squirt milk straight from the cow like a water pistol into his mouth. We never got sick but the standards for cow welfare and milking parlour hygiene are very high. Milk is chilled immediately after milking in a stainless steel tank and that tank is sterilised every time the milk is collected.
Note that boiling is not the same as pasteurization.
Pasteurization involves heating but doesn't require boiling. You can pasteurize by heating to 73 degrees C for 25 seconds.
Boiling, in the case of milk, is heating it to its boiling point which is around 100.17 degrees C.
Boiling has a higher impact in the nutritional value of milk than pasteurization.
Pasteurization involves heating but doesn't require boiling. You can pasteurize by heating to 73 degrees C for 25 seconds.
Boiling, in the case of milk, is heating it to its boiling point which is around 100.17 degrees C.
Boiling has a higher impact in the nutritional value of milk than pasteurization.
They were using heat to neutralize germs. No need to be pedantic.
Per cup (whole/pasteurized -> whole/boiled)
- Calories: 152 -> 146
- Protein: 8.14 g -> 8 g
- Carbs: 12 g -> 11.4 g
- Calcium: 28% DV -> 23% DV
- Vitamin D: 24% DV -> 13% DV
- Vitamin B12: 18% DV -> 13% DV
- Phosphorus: 22% DV -> 20% DV
- Calories: 152 -> 146
- Protein: 8.14 g -> 8 g
- Carbs: 12 g -> 11.4 g
- Calcium: 28% DV -> 23% DV
- Vitamin D: 24% DV -> 13% DV
- Vitamin B12: 18% DV -> 13% DV
- Phosphorus: 22% DV -> 20% DV
Do you have a source for this? Is this after deskimming the milk? Natural milk has about 3.3% of fat, but commercial milk usually has 3% or less (here you can buy 3%, 2%, 1.5%, 1% and 0% milk, and perhaps other values).
Unless you remove the skim, it's difficult to imagine that some parts just disappear.
> - Calories: 152 -> 146
Dubious: But it's easier to discuss proteins and carbs separately.
> - Protein: 8.14 g -> 8 g
Possible?: Some proteins may denaturalize (like the white of the egg), but they are sill there. Proteins are weird, so I can't say it's impossible.
> - Carbs: 12 g -> 11.4 g
Dubious: Unless you are overheating the milk to make caramel, this is very strange, almost impossible. Carbs are composed of smaller sugar units and with heat they may split or for new bound, but they don't disappear unless it's very hot.
> - Calcium: 28% DV -> 23% DV
Impossible: I don't expect calcium to react with the container or to evaporate, so it's impossible that it goes away. The biological availability may change, but it's difficult to measure.
> - Vitamin D: 24% DV -> 13% DV
Possible: Some vitamins are sensible to heating, and heating them changes the molecular structure to make then unusable, so this is totally possible. I don't remember about vitamin D in particular. Anyway, many commercial milk has additional vitamin A and D.
> - Vitamin B12: 18% DV -> 13% DV
Possible: Idem. Anyway, I but I never heard of milk with additional B12, and other foods are better sources of B12.
- Phosphorus: 22% DV -> 20% DV
Dubious: I don't expect potassium to evaporate. It may react with the container, but I doubt it. The biological availability may change a lot, because phosphorus is used to bind some molecules and they may split and the isolated phosphate may not be as useful.
Unless you remove the skim, it's difficult to imagine that some parts just disappear.
> - Calories: 152 -> 146
Dubious: But it's easier to discuss proteins and carbs separately.
> - Protein: 8.14 g -> 8 g
Possible?: Some proteins may denaturalize (like the white of the egg), but they are sill there. Proteins are weird, so I can't say it's impossible.
> - Carbs: 12 g -> 11.4 g
Dubious: Unless you are overheating the milk to make caramel, this is very strange, almost impossible. Carbs are composed of smaller sugar units and with heat they may split or for new bound, but they don't disappear unless it's very hot.
> - Calcium: 28% DV -> 23% DV
Impossible: I don't expect calcium to react with the container or to evaporate, so it's impossible that it goes away. The biological availability may change, but it's difficult to measure.
> - Vitamin D: 24% DV -> 13% DV
Possible: Some vitamins are sensible to heating, and heating them changes the molecular structure to make then unusable, so this is totally possible. I don't remember about vitamin D in particular. Anyway, many commercial milk has additional vitamin A and D.
> - Vitamin B12: 18% DV -> 13% DV
Possible: Idem. Anyway, I but I never heard of milk with additional B12, and other foods are better sources of B12.
- Phosphorus: 22% DV -> 20% DV
Dubious: I don't expect potassium to evaporate. It may react with the container, but I doubt it. The biological availability may change a lot, because phosphorus is used to bind some molecules and they may split and the isolated phosphate may not be as useful.
So boiling reduces the amount of calories? And carbs, and proteins? How can that be?
In principle boiling could induce a lot of evaporation, so the milk would be more concentrated, and so it would have more calories per cup. But people don’t boil the milk so much as to materially reduce the amount of water in it.
In principle boiling could induce a lot of evaporation, so the milk would be more concentrated, and so it would have more calories per cup. But people don’t boil the milk so much as to materially reduce the amount of water in it.
I would guess that the heat chemically alters or breaks down (denatures might be the right term?) some of those macronutrients into molecules that can no longer provide caloric energy.
“Calories” measures the amount of energy a human can extract from the food. Interestingly, if you cook.a steak (for examples le) it can gain calories, not lose them.
Does it really? I thought it was a simple chemical test where you burn a set amount of it and check how much it heats a given amount of water.
That's the old, less accurate way. By that measure, fiber tends to have quite a lot of calories, as it's a carbohydrate, but that is now known to be wrong - fiber passes through our digestive systems almost completely undigested, and yields almost 0 calories.
Today, calorie counts are usually obtained by checking the protein, fat, sugar and fiber contents, and using known values for calorie/g of each. Those well-known values are ideally obtained either through human calorimetric studies, or through burning protein, fat, sugar directly.
Today, calorie counts are usually obtained by checking the protein, fat, sugar and fiber contents, and using known values for calorie/g of each. Those well-known values are ideally obtained either through human calorimetric studies, or through burning protein, fat, sugar directly.
Citation for the stake numbers?
I can see it being possible, if cooking increases bioavailability
The chemical breakdown of bonds also generates thermal energy, so the milk emits black-body radiation slightly more than input heat alone accounts for.
There's also low temperature pasteurization at 145F/62C for 30 minutes, which conveniently denatures lipase in breastmilk too.
It isn't, but it's better than drinking milk raw.
> Boiling has a higher impact in the nutritional value of milk than pasteurization.
What does that mean?
What does that mean?
[deleted]
I think it's a modern western cultural thing that everything that's more 'natural', 'untreated', 'non-GMO'... is automatically considered more healthy, see also antivaxxers etc.
Without any evidence of course.
Without any evidence of course.
It's like it stems from some sort of self-hatred, as if we have this belief deep down that we are wrong or corrupted and whatever we are not MUST be good.
These naturalistic fallacies are certainly a strange, ilogical thing, but one at the core belief of _many_ people. I wonder if it's a western thing though and if we don't find it in other cultures as well.
These naturalistic fallacies are certainly a strange, ilogical thing, but one at the core belief of _many_ people. I wonder if it's a western thing though and if we don't find it in other cultures as well.
I can understand the logical leap that people took to get there:
Most processed food in western diets are unhealthy for you. Usually because the processing basically means very high in sugar, and relatively low nutritionally. It doesn't take much to go from that data point to a rule of thumb "natural = good".
Especially if you combine it with a mistrust of large corporations that you believe prioritize profits over ethics (not exactly a huge leap) - where you think that the stuff they make is bad, but "natural" things they didn't have a hand in cant be corrupted by them.
Real life is much more complex than that, but i can see the chain of logic people use.
Most processed food in western diets are unhealthy for you. Usually because the processing basically means very high in sugar, and relatively low nutritionally. It doesn't take much to go from that data point to a rule of thumb "natural = good".
Especially if you combine it with a mistrust of large corporations that you believe prioritize profits over ethics (not exactly a huge leap) - where you think that the stuff they make is bad, but "natural" things they didn't have a hand in cant be corrupted by them.
Real life is much more complex than that, but i can see the chain of logic people use.
It's not really a western thing, it's just that "natural" stuff is much more expensive to produce in a modern industrial world, so --- naturally --- it's perceived as higher quality.
Centuries ago sugar was extremely expensive in Korea. Kings would use it as a medicine when they were sick.
Centuries ago sugar was extremely expensive in Korea. Kings would use it as a medicine when they were sick.
You can't base every decision you make on well researched science though. Everyone develops their own heuristics to make decisions. I think naturalness is just one of those. And within a limited set of choices it is probably a pretty good heuristic.
I'm not really sure if it's that. If you look at the ingredient list of most of the products you buy, there's a ton of things in there which can cause allergies or other problems, if you consume too much of them.
It's ok to want something in its most natural form, but you have to make sure that the body is designed to deal with it. Like, don't eat raw potatoes or drink raw milk.
It's ok to want something in its most natural form, but you have to make sure that the body is designed to deal with it. Like, don't eat raw potatoes or drink raw milk.
Naturalism is like Luddism and Conservativism. It is a preference for ideas that have been proven by survival over a long time, over new ideas that have less testing. Of course the principle can be misapplied.
Further: see ‘raw water’. As far as I can tell it’s mostly high income earners who fall for these fads, outside of those stuck in the wilderness without treated water.
It defies logic.
It defies logic.
And if your want to see full crazy, check https://old.reddit.com/r/RawMeat/
> Vomit, diarrhea, coughing, sneezing, sweating, are all ways that the body expels toxins.
> Vomit, diarrhea, coughing, sneezing, sweating, are all ways that the body expels toxins.
That's not even close to full crazy. In Romania there was a somewhat famous lifestly guru who advocates for this type of all natural lifestyle, in an all-vegan variant (Olivia Steer). She was asked by a follower who wanted to get pregnant but was no longer menstruating after following her advice whether she should change her diet or try some medication.
The response was along the lines of "No, no, no! The fact that you're no longer menstruating is proof that you are now rid of toxins! Menses are simply the body eliminating toxins. Just keep trying to conceive, and try some <herbal tea> if you're still having trouble".
To be clear, this is coming from a 30 year old woman with two children of her own...
The response was along the lines of "No, no, no! The fact that you're no longer menstruating is proof that you are now rid of toxins! Menses are simply the body eliminating toxins. Just keep trying to conceive, and try some <herbal tea> if you're still having trouble".
To be clear, this is coming from a 30 year old woman with two children of her own...
It's taken us hundreds of thousands of years to achieve the benefits of civilization and to have people illogically throw all that out. It's mazing.
Technically, at least vomit, really is a self protection mechanism of the body.
But the only 'toxins' it can get rid of are those you recently consumed, not the vague and unspecified toxins that the diet people claim build up in your body and must be purged.
What is wrong with raw meat? Here you can buy raw minced pork for direct consumption (on bread rolls) almost everywhere. Why should ppl get sick from that?
Raw pork meat is not fine, as pork can have many worms, and other things, humans can catch.
Cooking kills these things.
People eat raw eggs in North America, but that's safe because of antibiotics in chicken feed. Salmonella can kill.
Beef is safer, which is why you only need char the outside to be safe.
Cooking kills these things.
People eat raw eggs in North America, but that's safe because of antibiotics in chicken feed. Salmonella can kill.
Beef is safer, which is why you only need char the outside to be safe.
In Germany eating raw minced pork is a specialty called "Mett". There are high safety standards and it is only allowed to be sold on the day of production, with care taken not to interrupt cooling, for example. It is generally considered very safe. Source: am German, eating it often.
Salmonella outbreaks in USA are fairly commonly reported by the CDC. I was able to quickly find three listings for salmonella in eggs.
July 26, 2018 https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/braenderup-04-18/index.html
November 9, 2016 https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/oranienburg-10-16/index.html
December 2, 2010 https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/2010/shell-eggs-12-2-10.html
Regarding ground beef https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/ehsnet/plain_language/restauran...
Grilling various meats https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/communication/bbq-iq.html
Both of these go far beyond just char the outside to be safe.
July 26, 2018 https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/braenderup-04-18/index.html
November 9, 2016 https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/oranienburg-10-16/index.html
December 2, 2010 https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/2010/shell-eggs-12-2-10.html
Regarding ground beef https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/ehsnet/plain_language/restauran...
Grilling various meats https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/communication/bbq-iq.html
Both of these go far beyond just char the outside to be safe.
A few points here.
* people getting samonella from eggs, when those eggs are cooked, has no bearing on my statements about antibiotics in feed, and the safety of raw eggs vs cooked.
If you follow the first link, including going to the FDA, you will see the company responsible for the outbreak was sent a letter, and finally forced closed, as they were not folllowing safe egg handling guidelines.
Samonella can appear in the yolk, which is why antibiotics in chicken feed in North America.
However salmonella can be anywhere, such as in the nest where the hen lays, or 100 other contact surfaces, which is why you should always wash your eggs with soap and water before cracking.
Bets are, the company with the recall and forced close, was not doing so.
So again, to reiterate, cooking or not is not relevant to your link / data.
* You show ground beef in one link, and cooking guidance in another.
Ground beef invalidates "charring the outside", for one has ground up the meat, thus mixing all the bacteria on the outside of a cut of beef, throughout the meat. Always cook ground beef throughout.
If you hunt around, you will find safe guidelines for a cut of beef, which does not require cooking to 75C or what not, all through, to be safe.
One cavaet here...
Some cuts of beef are not as tender, so grocery stores will tenderize them with a mincing tool.
This is basically a tool which creates small slices in the cut, and again, is pushing the bacteria into the interior of te beef. For this reason, one must then cook to safe temps inside.
Lamb and beef do not have parasites we known of, in their flesh, as pork and chicken do. This is why chicken and pork require more stringent cooking instructions....
* people getting samonella from eggs, when those eggs are cooked, has no bearing on my statements about antibiotics in feed, and the safety of raw eggs vs cooked.
If you follow the first link, including going to the FDA, you will see the company responsible for the outbreak was sent a letter, and finally forced closed, as they were not folllowing safe egg handling guidelines.
Samonella can appear in the yolk, which is why antibiotics in chicken feed in North America.
However salmonella can be anywhere, such as in the nest where the hen lays, or 100 other contact surfaces, which is why you should always wash your eggs with soap and water before cracking.
Bets are, the company with the recall and forced close, was not doing so.
So again, to reiterate, cooking or not is not relevant to your link / data.
* You show ground beef in one link, and cooking guidance in another.
Ground beef invalidates "charring the outside", for one has ground up the meat, thus mixing all the bacteria on the outside of a cut of beef, throughout the meat. Always cook ground beef throughout.
If you hunt around, you will find safe guidelines for a cut of beef, which does not require cooking to 75C or what not, all through, to be safe.
One cavaet here...
Some cuts of beef are not as tender, so grocery stores will tenderize them with a mincing tool.
This is basically a tool which creates small slices in the cut, and again, is pushing the bacteria into the interior of te beef. For this reason, one must then cook to safe temps inside.
Lamb and beef do not have parasites we known of, in their flesh, as pork and chicken do. This is why chicken and pork require more stringent cooking instructions....
Every single pig in Germany is checked for trichinosis upon slaughter, and the meat meant for raw consumption can only be sold the same day, with an unbroken cooling chain. This makes Mett completely safe to eat, as a lot of Germans do very regularly (me too!).
But obviously only eating raw meat doesn't sound very appetizing or nutritionally healthy.
But obviously only eating raw meat doesn't sound very appetizing or nutritionally healthy.
If you eat "natural" (I dislike the term) food you have a chance of cutting away additive sugar that the manufacturer add way too much of in most ready made products.
I.e. you get better food for an indirect reason.
Like if you make your own müsli you might not add sugar, which the companies add to increase sales, and have more of the expensive nuts, that they cut down in share to increase margins since noone notices the difference between 2.3% expensive nuts and 2.2% until there is almost no left ...
I.e. you get better food for an indirect reason.
Like if you make your own müsli you might not add sugar, which the companies add to increase sales, and have more of the expensive nuts, that they cut down in share to increase margins since noone notices the difference between 2.3% expensive nuts and 2.2% until there is almost no left ...
Yes, it often also boils down to giving it just a bit more of "care" (time, money) when producing and consuming.
This extends to other related topics as well. For example I had a colleague who went vegan and this meant she actually started to cook and care about the meals. This opened up a whole new dimension to life. I guess much depends also on where you happen the live and/or be brought up, and how strong the food culture is.
This extends to other related topics as well. For example I had a colleague who went vegan and this meant she actually started to cook and care about the meals. This opened up a whole new dimension to life. I guess much depends also on where you happen the live and/or be brought up, and how strong the food culture is.
I would put GMO's in a completely different risk category to all the others, because of the tail risk involved and something to consider thoughtfully before introducing into an environment.
https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf
https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf
[deleted]
> willing to take the risk
Lot of them tout it's heals, rather than causes heaps of issues (including type 1 diabetes)
But at least in NZ they are tested daily or weekly, so the risk at least somewhat being minimised.
I'm still perplexed that seemingly neutral national media prints articles glorifying it without listing risks.
p.s. googling "homogenised milk" in NZ first result lands you to seemingly authoritative but completely fake website filled with claims of it being hazardous and causing cancer https://homogenisation.org/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-h...
Lot of them tout it's heals, rather than causes heaps of issues (including type 1 diabetes)
But at least in NZ they are tested daily or weekly, so the risk at least somewhat being minimised.
I'm still perplexed that seemingly neutral national media prints articles glorifying it without listing risks.
p.s. googling "homogenised milk" in NZ first result lands you to seemingly authoritative but completely fake website filled with claims of it being hazardous and causing cancer https://homogenisation.org/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-h...
Considering the climate in India, I imagine the situation is a bit different there than in western countries. I think raw milk can be safe to drink if it is cooled down immediately during the milking process and kept refrigerated all throughout until it is drunk only a few hours later. Personally though, I think it's natural only for calves and babies to drink milk (in particular of their own mother) and I wouldn't mind a bit if the practice went away.
I drank raw cow and goat milk a lot during my childhood in rural Russia. The most tasteful milk was the freshly milked one which was still warm.
We also never boiled the milk, it was fine to just store it in the refrigerator for a couple of days. TBH the boiled milk tasted unpleasant comparing to the raw one.
We also never boiled the milk, it was fine to just store it in the refrigerator for a couple of days. TBH the boiled milk tasted unpleasant comparing to the raw one.
My Indian coworker swears she drank raw milk in India. To the point she was trying to source it here and only found some place that would sell it for “pets”. Not sure if she actually drank it raw or forgot about the boiling part. She claimed pasteurization was not good but after reading your post I’m almost 99% positive she was pasteurizing it herself.
People in our villages drunk raw milk regularly. I did too. You have to drink it fresh and keep high hygiene, but it is not something extraordinary at all.
It’s a good thing anyway and I think we should encourage more libertarians to do it
I milk my own herd of dairy cows and goats. I drink the milk raw, and it is far superior to pasteurized milk both in taste and purity.
Raw milk is nearly perfectly sterile when it comes out of a freshly cleaned teat. After that, virtually every microorganism wants to grow in it. The equipment must be handled and cleaned with precision and diligence. Any contamination provides a seed that will grow uncontrollably.
I test every batch of milk that I will consume, using both coliform and aerobic plates. This required a non-trivial investment in minor lab equipment, but it is the only way that I feel safe. The tests have caught mistakes that we did not even know we made, but they also give a high degree of confidence that the milk is pure.
In contrast, commercially pasteurized milk assumes that the milk is contaminated. As such, the regulations actually allow the tests that I run to show unsafe levels of pathogenic organisms. Sure, the heat kills them, but it does not remove them from the milk. All of their proteins are still there and will be consumed.
I used to get sick from drinking store bought milk, and I believe it was due to the literal shit that they allow to enter into the process.
Raw milk is nearly perfectly sterile when it comes out of a freshly cleaned teat. After that, virtually every microorganism wants to grow in it. The equipment must be handled and cleaned with precision and diligence. Any contamination provides a seed that will grow uncontrollably.
I test every batch of milk that I will consume, using both coliform and aerobic plates. This required a non-trivial investment in minor lab equipment, but it is the only way that I feel safe. The tests have caught mistakes that we did not even know we made, but they also give a high degree of confidence that the milk is pure.
In contrast, commercially pasteurized milk assumes that the milk is contaminated. As such, the regulations actually allow the tests that I run to show unsafe levels of pathogenic organisms. Sure, the heat kills them, but it does not remove them from the milk. All of their proteins are still there and will be consumed.
I used to get sick from drinking store bought milk, and I believe it was due to the literal shit that they allow to enter into the process.
> far superior to pasteurized milk both in taste and purity.
How does pasteurisation make the milk less pure?
> Sure, the heat kills them, but it does not remove them from the milk. All of their proteins are still there and will be consumed.
So?
> I used to get sick from drinking store bought milk, and I believe it was due to the literal shit that they allow to enter into the process.
Loads of people also believe that MSG gives them headaches. I find your theory equally implausible.
This sort of perception of superiority is very common among people who make a fuss about natural, organic or raw foods. Considering that rest of population does just fine, maybe adjust your priors a bit.
How does pasteurisation make the milk less pure?
> Sure, the heat kills them, but it does not remove them from the milk. All of their proteins are still there and will be consumed.
So?
> I used to get sick from drinking store bought milk, and I believe it was due to the literal shit that they allow to enter into the process.
Loads of people also believe that MSG gives them headaches. I find your theory equally implausible.
This sort of perception of superiority is very common among people who make a fuss about natural, organic or raw foods. Considering that rest of population does just fine, maybe adjust your priors a bit.
I feel that this use of the imperative mood and the brusque, flippant dismissal of OP’s rare and interesting experiences are not just unjustified but do HN a disservice.
If you have enough encounters with the medical system, you quickly learn that human bodies are actually insanely high variance and ridiculously poorly understood. The knowledge frontier is wide but super shallow. Gut bacteria. Epigenetics. Rare mutations. Differences in tolerances and sensitivities. WEIRD. Interactions of multiple conditions.
OP is sharing work that obviously requires a baseline of high intelligence, plus his empirical observations. Writing this off as all just being in his head seems insulting in context.
I also want to point out that of course dead bacteria can harm you! Would you eat pasteurized feces, or month old raw meat? Bacteria excrete waste products which are known to be toxic to humans, e.g. cereulide. Plus heat resistant endospores, e.g. botulism. And FYI there are a ton of known bioactive plus heat sensitive organic compounds in food.
Please adjust your own priors a bit towards open-mindedness and intellectual humility - people here are as smart as you are. Shutting others down like this discourages them from sharing frontier knowledge with us.
If you have enough encounters with the medical system, you quickly learn that human bodies are actually insanely high variance and ridiculously poorly understood. The knowledge frontier is wide but super shallow. Gut bacteria. Epigenetics. Rare mutations. Differences in tolerances and sensitivities. WEIRD. Interactions of multiple conditions.
OP is sharing work that obviously requires a baseline of high intelligence, plus his empirical observations. Writing this off as all just being in his head seems insulting in context.
I also want to point out that of course dead bacteria can harm you! Would you eat pasteurized feces, or month old raw meat? Bacteria excrete waste products which are known to be toxic to humans, e.g. cereulide. Plus heat resistant endospores, e.g. botulism. And FYI there are a ton of known bioactive plus heat sensitive organic compounds in food.
Please adjust your own priors a bit towards open-mindedness and intellectual humility - people here are as smart as you are. Shutting others down like this discourages them from sharing frontier knowledge with us.
Thank you for writing this. I also found some of the OPs claims dubious, but something about the commenters wording really put me off.
This is a community that benefits from the discussion of unique experiences, rather than dismisal of them.
This is a community that benefits from the discussion of unique experiences, rather than dismisal of them.
pasteurisation and heating in general breaks down some molecules in the milk that makes it less "pure" and alters the taste you can feel.
> I drink the milk raw, and it is far superior to pasteurized milk both in taste and purity.
I've grown up with cows, sheeps, goats and my family lived on farming
Pasteurized milk is not in any way less pure or tasty than raw milk.
Actually the opposite is true: pasteurized milk flavour can be taken for granted, raw milk? not at all.
> Raw milk is nearly perfectly sterile when it comes out of a freshly cleaned teat
But the environment is not.
Unless you farm your animals in a sterile environment, which is highly unlikely and probably undesirable too.
I've grown up with cows, sheeps, goats and my family lived on farming
Pasteurized milk is not in any way less pure or tasty than raw milk.
Actually the opposite is true: pasteurized milk flavour can be taken for granted, raw milk? not at all.
> Raw milk is nearly perfectly sterile when it comes out of a freshly cleaned teat
But the environment is not.
Unless you farm your animals in a sterile environment, which is highly unlikely and probably undesirable too.
When I was a kid, we lived in a village in northeastern Slovakia. On the hill above the village there was a farm with a big herd of cows. And every morning at around 5, a tractor would bring a few dozen litres of milk down to a small shack just by our house. People were usually waiting in line already, in a room that stank of rancid milk, to get a liter or two.
When we brought the milk home, we'd pour a cup and let it sit a few minutes, to let the cream to get to the top. You could see the line between milk and cream with your eye an scoop the cream with a spoon. We drank the cream, it could have been 20% by volume, we made cocoa with the milk and no one got sick that I remember. I believe it was because we were usted to it, an "untrained" person would get sick too.
Then one year they put up a sign, saying the milk should only be used as animal feed and a few years back the laws changed again and there was no more selling and drinkig grey market raw milk, because someone decided for all the people that it's dangerous.
I thing my distaste of regulations and prohibitions can be traced back to that time.
Funny thing, I think I would get violenty sick if I tried raw milk again... The law is a self fulfilling prophecy.
When we brought the milk home, we'd pour a cup and let it sit a few minutes, to let the cream to get to the top. You could see the line between milk and cream with your eye an scoop the cream with a spoon. We drank the cream, it could have been 20% by volume, we made cocoa with the milk and no one got sick that I remember. I believe it was because we were usted to it, an "untrained" person would get sick too.
Then one year they put up a sign, saying the milk should only be used as animal feed and a few years back the laws changed again and there was no more selling and drinkig grey market raw milk, because someone decided for all the people that it's dangerous.
I thing my distaste of regulations and prohibitions can be traced back to that time.
Funny thing, I think I would get violenty sick if I tried raw milk again... The law is a self fulfilling prophecy.
I commented about it above, also, we (me and my brother) used to do the same thing when we were kids, in rural Romania (a village near the Carpathians). Immediately after our grandma or our our grandpa had finished milking the cows we (meaning me and my brother) would eat out with a spoon the foam-y thing that was forming on top of the bucket full of milk that had just come out of the cows. We did that my entire childhood (so from when when I was about 5 to my early 20s, so into my early adulthood), never had any health-related issues with it. In fact that is one of my fondest memories when it comes to my grandparents.
If you made cocoa you boiled the milk right? Thats you pasteurizing the milk, right?
I’ll also contend that you probably did get sick but did not put 2 and 2 together at the time (just like how loads of people run around with a cough and a fever and are like “yeah but it’s not COVID”).
The whole “I drink this all the time so it’s fine” is basically the whole point of food sanitation things in general.
High risk stuff is still not going to be a 100% thing, so it’s harder to figure out the correlation without large scale efforts.
I’ll also contend that you probably did get sick but did not put 2 and 2 together at the time (just like how loads of people run around with a cough and a fever and are like “yeah but it’s not COVID”).
The whole “I drink this all the time so it’s fine” is basically the whole point of food sanitation things in general.
High risk stuff is still not going to be a 100% thing, so it’s harder to figure out the correlation without large scale efforts.
> you made cocoa you boiled the milk right? Thats you pasteurizing the milk, right?
No, there is no reason to boil it. But put sugary chocholate powder in it and mix.
> I’ll also contend that you probably did get sick but did not put 2 and 2 together at the time
No, the practice of drinking raw milk was super common in villages in that region. If you drink it fresh, the bakterias has no time to develop yet. If sickness was so sure, people would be sick constantly.
No, there is no reason to boil it. But put sugary chocholate powder in it and mix.
> I’ll also contend that you probably did get sick but did not put 2 and 2 together at the time
No, the practice of drinking raw milk was super common in villages in that region. If you drink it fresh, the bakterias has no time to develop yet. If sickness was so sure, people would be sick constantly.
[deleted]
It’s amazing that in a supposedly science-driven forum, an entire set of comments can imply that pasteurization, one of humanity’s great accomplishments, is a folly.
People die from drinking raw milk. It is genuinely a risky thing to do. Not everyone will die but enough that society should work hard to limit it as much as possible.
People die from drinking raw milk. It is genuinely a risky thing to do. Not everyone will die but enough that society should work hard to limit it as much as possible.
I'm not going to advocate in favor of drinking raw milk. But on the other hand, there are a lot of smug responses here totally discounting the experiences of the rural-dwelling commenters who have apparently been drinking milk raw safely for years. "It's risky." Absolutely. On the other hand, the entire reason many adult humans are lactose tolerant to begin with is that humans have been drinking cows milk for thousands of years. Milk pasteurization has been around for less than 200 of them. Clearly raw milk consumption was safe enough for humans to evolve a mutation permitting us to chug even more of it.
So maybe let's not be so quick to jeer at the people here who report they have been doing it with no ill effects. Especially since most of them don't appear to be proselytizing, just relaying their personal experience. I agree there's no need for anyone to drink milk raw in the 21st century, and that it is always going to have some inherent risk compared with drinking pasteurized milk. The same can be said for many uncooked foodstuffs that we consume, and other enjoyable but non-risk-free activities we undertake.
So maybe let's not be so quick to jeer at the people here who report they have been doing it with no ill effects. Especially since most of them don't appear to be proselytizing, just relaying their personal experience. I agree there's no need for anyone to drink milk raw in the 21st century, and that it is always going to have some inherent risk compared with drinking pasteurized milk. The same can be said for many uncooked foodstuffs that we consume, and other enjoyable but non-risk-free activities we undertake.
You're discounting the stories of all the people in those communities who dies of TB. It's indicative of the similar problem of vaccine hesitance - everyone remembers their grandparents living, and not the 2-3 great uncles/aunts who died before they bore children.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5424a4.htm#:~:te....
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5424a4.htm#:~:te....
Was drinking milk a significant part of human diets or did they consume milk processed in a variety of ways? ie cheese, yoghurt, rancid butter (in North African cuisine), etc.
I don't think people are saying it's a folly, but that it does taste better and have better nutrition, if you can get it at it's absolutely freshest.
Pasteurization is for when you cannot, which is the case for most.
Also pasteurization was invented in the mid 1800s, while mass market electric refrigeration was invented in in the early 1900s. Before that it was a bunch of awkward ice boxes, and not used much.
Pasteurization is for when you cannot, which is the case for most.
Also pasteurization was invented in the mid 1800s, while mass market electric refrigeration was invented in in the early 1900s. Before that it was a bunch of awkward ice boxes, and not used much.
> Pasteurization is for when you cannot, which is the case for most.
Fresh milk from a dirty udder, or from an infected cow, or sitting in a bucket that has traces of yesterday's milk, is not safe to drink. Pasteurization (or boiling or fermentation and other preservation methods before that) are all ways to make pretty sure that the milk is safe to drink, regardless of freshness.
Fresh milk from a dirty udder, or from an infected cow, or sitting in a bucket that has traces of yesterday's milk, is not safe to drink. Pasteurization (or boiling or fermentation and other preservation methods before that) are all ways to make pretty sure that the milk is safe to drink, regardless of freshness.
I think that what you do here is fallacy. And very typical one for HN, where you ignore details and extrapolate original statement to mean something else.
OP did not said pasteurizarion is folly. You do it to preserve milk for longer term. Which something entirely different then drinking milk right after it was taken out of cow.
OP did not said pasteurizarion is folly. You do it to preserve milk for longer term. Which something entirely different then drinking milk right after it was taken out of cow.
Uh, I think you're the uninformed one here. People catch TB from milk that comes from a cow that also has TB, regardless of how 'fresh' the milk is.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5424a4.htm#:~:te....
EDIT: This is exactly the problem that I am trying to point out. You (likely an otherwise very educated person) assume that pasteurization is intended to preserve milk because that is the (unscientific) tone of these comments, when in fact that is very far from the reason (you can preserve unpasteurized milk as yogurt/cheese, we've known how to do that for centuries, but it will still potentially give you TB).
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5424a4.htm#:~:te....
EDIT: This is exactly the problem that I am trying to point out. You (likely an otherwise very educated person) assume that pasteurization is intended to preserve milk because that is the (unscientific) tone of these comments, when in fact that is very far from the reason (you can preserve unpasteurized milk as yogurt/cheese, we've known how to do that for centuries, but it will still potentially give you TB).
Are you calling hacker news a science-driven forum? It was created by venture capitalists for venture capitalists and their employees.
I don’t mean this in a negative way. HN is what it is and I love it. But don’t confuse it with a scientific journal.
I don’t mean this in a negative way. HN is what it is and I love it. But don’t confuse it with a scientific journal.
HN is a forum for people who are even smarter than scientists. It's the most rational, as seen by how much money users make, or will soon.
Almost none of the comments show awareness of the difference between fresh raw milk and week old rotten raw milk, a distinction that by design does not exist in pasteurized milk.
Also, some commenters ignore the relevant distinction between pasteurization and homogenization and fat separation.
Also, some commenters ignore the relevant distinction between pasteurization and homogenization and fat separation.
Just to make a very important distinction here:
Bacteria like TB do not need a significant time out of the udder to infect a human with TB.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5424a4.htm#:~:te....
Bacteria like TB do not need a significant time out of the udder to infect a human with TB.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5424a4.htm#:~:te....
It's just a forum. People share science AND personal stories.
“I did this and was fine. Therefore I think it is fine” is half of these stories.
It is of course possible to say “I was fine but probably was lucky”, which is at least acknowledging that food science is a thing and probably closer to the truth than your singular personal experience.
GP is pointing out that people take personal stories and turn them into some science-sounding conclusion.
If the internet existed in the 18th century people would talk about how London didn’t have sanitation systems but loads of people survived so all this nonsense about sewage management is silly.
It is of course possible to say “I was fine but probably was lucky”, which is at least acknowledging that food science is a thing and probably closer to the truth than your singular personal experience.
GP is pointing out that people take personal stories and turn them into some science-sounding conclusion.
If the internet existed in the 18th century people would talk about how London didn’t have sanitation systems but loads of people survived so all this nonsense about sewage management is silly.
I'm seeing "it was fine for me", nobody recommending that raw milk is a good and healthy choice...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30809457 Heavy implication that the rules don’t make sense
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30809207 Making some argument that our bodies could handle it if we had more bacteria
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30809218 Literal “I was fine so it’s fine”
Lots of “is this just factory farming being an issue” comments which are at least in good faith and usually questions, though! So people are trying to get more details
It’s not every comment but lots of it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30809207 Making some argument that our bodies could handle it if we had more bacteria
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30809218 Literal “I was fine so it’s fine”
Lots of “is this just factory farming being an issue” comments which are at least in good faith and usually questions, though! So people are trying to get more details
It’s not every comment but lots of it.
I think instead of straight prohibit, raw milk should be purchasable if the buyer understands the dangers, and knows how to treat their own usage so that it's safe - for example, they boil it themselves.
There's plenty of things that are dangerous and can kill you, but we don't and shouldn't prohibit it all. Instead, society should aim to educate, and also put in warning labels etc.
There's plenty of things that are dangerous and can kill you, but we don't and shouldn't prohibit it all. Instead, society should aim to educate, and also put in warning labels etc.
If you understand the danger then is a hospital still required to treat you?
That’s private benefit and socialized risk.
If you’re going to be taking communal resources then you should need to uphold some community standards.
That’s private benefit and socialized risk.
If you’re going to be taking communal resources then you should need to uphold some community standards.
Yes, just like they're required to treat you if you break a leg skiing. Just like they're required to treat you if you're obese.
If you dont want public hospitaps to treat certain things, you're welcome to advocate against public healthcare.
Public healthcare is not a justification for slavery.
Public healthcare is not a justification for slavery.
Genuinely curious: why would you want to pasteurize your own milk? I get the “homemade cake” reasoning for desserts but I see very little benefit to pasteurizing milk yourself.
I don't care if it's pasteurized by me or someone else, I just don't want it homogenized. It's more fun that way.
You can pasteurize it yourself with very little extra effort when making espresso drinks, since you need to heat the milk with a steam wand anyway. The flavor and especially foam of a cappuccino are slightly better when made with self-pasteurized-while steaming raw milk vs equivalent non raw Jersey milk in my at home blind taste tests.
You for practical purposes can't easily immunize yourself to bad milk by exposure. The problem is two fold. In the first place there are over 2500 types of salmonella identified and surely more extant and as a product of metabolism they produce toxins that are deleterious to your health Salmonella being only one culprit as well. You are probably as safe as you ever were.
Your idyllic view of the past may have other challenges in terms of perspective. Firstly we tend to remember the good things and forget the bad especially since food poisoning can have an incubation of 1-2 days we may blame one sort of food stuff instead of another or forget that we were incautious with raw foods in the kitchen the night before and blame a restaurateur without good cause. We also may not differentiate between an illness brought on by food and one from a bug. This rose colored view is especially easy to adopt if we remember pleasant consumption and the costs were borne by another. Even with education and standards we have 48 million cases of food borne illness in the US and 3000 deaths annually.
This brings is to scale. Pasteurization can be trivially adopted at scale and has been shown to be effective. Maybe your dairy was highly sanitary had excellent practices that enabled a very much above average performance. Replicating it all over creation may not be tenable but universal pasteurization is.
If you want to see an interesting account of the real "good old days" before either of us were born you may peruse this.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/19th-century-f...
To maximize profits milk was thinned with water then recolored with dyes, chalk, or plaster dust with formaldehyde added to preserve freshness. Pureed cow brains stood in for rich cream and in addition to all the current maladies like listeria and salmonella consumers had to worry about bovine tuberculosis, undulant fever, scarlet fever, typhoid, and diphtheria.
> Those were the days my friend We thought they'd never end We'd sing and dance forever and a day We'd live the life we choose We'd fight and never lose For we were young and sure to have our way
Your idyllic view of the past may have other challenges in terms of perspective. Firstly we tend to remember the good things and forget the bad especially since food poisoning can have an incubation of 1-2 days we may blame one sort of food stuff instead of another or forget that we were incautious with raw foods in the kitchen the night before and blame a restaurateur without good cause. We also may not differentiate between an illness brought on by food and one from a bug. This rose colored view is especially easy to adopt if we remember pleasant consumption and the costs were borne by another. Even with education and standards we have 48 million cases of food borne illness in the US and 3000 deaths annually.
This brings is to scale. Pasteurization can be trivially adopted at scale and has been shown to be effective. Maybe your dairy was highly sanitary had excellent practices that enabled a very much above average performance. Replicating it all over creation may not be tenable but universal pasteurization is.
If you want to see an interesting account of the real "good old days" before either of us were born you may peruse this.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/19th-century-f...
To maximize profits milk was thinned with water then recolored with dyes, chalk, or plaster dust with formaldehyde added to preserve freshness. Pureed cow brains stood in for rich cream and in addition to all the current maladies like listeria and salmonella consumers had to worry about bovine tuberculosis, undulant fever, scarlet fever, typhoid, and diphtheria.
> Those were the days my friend We thought they'd never end We'd sing and dance forever and a day We'd live the life we choose We'd fight and never lose For we were young and sure to have our way
I have been drinking raw milk from one of these machines[1] and various grey market sources for years, routinely order steak tartare or make it at home, almost always with a raw egg yolk, not to mention raw fish, and never had an issue.
There is a risk to everything but I've noticed online that Americans tend to focus on food safety a lot, keep their eggs in the coolers, freeze, pasteurize, and homogenize everything while eating a diet of reheated garbage and breaking new grounds in obesity. The systemic risk from being overweight, type 2 diabetes, and eating quarter of your calories in HFCS is much higher than acute risk of eating untreated food. And it's usually hard to miss that the milk tastes off anyway.
[1] https://www.tuwroclaw.com/pliki/duze_zdjecia/wiadomosci/mlek...
There is a risk to everything but I've noticed online that Americans tend to focus on food safety a lot, keep their eggs in the coolers, freeze, pasteurize, and homogenize everything while eating a diet of reheated garbage and breaking new grounds in obesity. The systemic risk from being overweight, type 2 diabetes, and eating quarter of your calories in HFCS is much higher than acute risk of eating untreated food. And it's usually hard to miss that the milk tastes off anyway.
[1] https://www.tuwroclaw.com/pliki/duze_zdjecia/wiadomosci/mlek...
> keep their eggs in the coolers
This is down to a very specific thing that happens in the USA and doesn't tend to happen here. If you wash an egg (because it has feathers or looks a little "dirty") you remove a sort of protective membrane[0] on the shell's surface which leaves it open to infection. To prevent this you need to refridgerate the eggs.
That said, we do refridgerate eggs in the EU. Every supermarket I've seen in UK and Czech Republic does this, and everyone I know puts their eggs in the fridge when they take them home. It may not be necessary, but we do it nonetheless.
[0] https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/09/11/336330502/wh...
edit: I am now remembering some shops that do have them outside of the refridgerator :D
This is down to a very specific thing that happens in the USA and doesn't tend to happen here. If you wash an egg (because it has feathers or looks a little "dirty") you remove a sort of protective membrane[0] on the shell's surface which leaves it open to infection. To prevent this you need to refridgerate the eggs.
That said, we do refridgerate eggs in the EU. Every supermarket I've seen in UK and Czech Republic does this, and everyone I know puts their eggs in the fridge when they take them home. It may not be necessary, but we do it nonetheless.
[0] https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/09/11/336330502/wh...
edit: I am now remembering some shops that do have them outside of the refridgerator :D
> Every supermarket I've seen in UK
What? Eggs are not refrigerated in the UK. The tend to sit in the dry goods aisle near the flour and baking products.
https://www.google.com/search?q=uk+egg+supermarket+shelf+-ea...
What? Eggs are not refrigerated in the UK. The tend to sit in the dry goods aisle near the flour and baking products.
https://www.google.com/search?q=uk+egg+supermarket+shelf+-ea...
Where I'm from, eggs are not refrigerated in stores. We do mostly keep them in fridges, except if you get a lot, you put some in the fridge and the rest in the pantry. There is a problem if you store them in the fridge, then put them out, since the condensation may damage the protective membrane.
Reminder that chicks take 21 days to hatch, so a (healthy unfertilized) egg is still safe to eat after 3 weeks in the cupboard.
Reminder that chicks take 21 days to hatch, so a (healthy unfertilized) egg is still safe to eat after 3 weeks in the cupboard.
Eggs are not refrigerated in Switzerland in stores.
I do put my eggs into the fridge but mostly because I don't have much space for them and there is egg store thing int the fridge.
I do put my eggs into the fridge but mostly because I don't have much space for them and there is egg store thing int the fridge.
Are you sure that is raw milk in the machines? In my country "fresh milk" is pasteurized. Note that pasteurized milk tastes better than sterilized milk and still needs to be refrigerated.
A common pattern in the "I get my raw milk from <src> and I'm fine" appears to be that it is a nearby source, it is perhaps only a few hours old (no shelf life requirement) and the source is not at scale (a few cows perhaps). My dad grew up on a homestead where they had a few milk cows and raw milk was just how it was. Their health depended on the quality of care the gave their animals. Pasteurization is a basic requirement for scale and shelf life. Things will go wrong when you have a herd of 80 head, a half dozen hands running the milking machines and the milk ends up on the shelf for a couple of days. (maybe fewer hands now with automation). To bring it back to IT, think of it as cattle vs pets.
Why are small forms less error prone, on a per unit basis?
The biological activities (health of the animals and the diseases they are exposed to) are no different from small to large. It is easier to monitor and manage the health of the family cow than a large herd. Mind you, automation these days goes a long ways to mitigating that complexity. Still, having a large herd in close quarters (twice a day they're all coming in to be milked) means exposure risks go up exponentially.
The same issues come up in meat production. See antibiotics employed to keep large herds healthy - where healthy is a low bar meaning 'not sick'.
The same issues come up in meat production. See antibiotics employed to keep large herds healthy - where healthy is a low bar meaning 'not sick'.
Reading these comments, if the world ended and the people here were left with a cow, half would starve to death and the other half would get sick. It’s just crazy to me that what was common knowledge a few generations ago is just gone.
Yes, milk breeds bacteria like crazy. It’s exponential growth too so it’s bound to go bad and when it does, it happens quickly. But if you had to drink fresh milk that was still warm, you’d be fine. Mostly.
On a related note, have you noticed how every cuisine is based on a) what is available locally and b) the best way to preserve it?
Yes, milk breeds bacteria like crazy. It’s exponential growth too so it’s bound to go bad and when it does, it happens quickly. But if you had to drink fresh milk that was still warm, you’d be fine. Mostly.
On a related note, have you noticed how every cuisine is based on a) what is available locally and b) the best way to preserve it?
> Yes, milk breeds bacteria like crazy. It’s exponential growth too so it’s bound to go bad and when it does, it happens quickly. But if you had to drink fresh milk that was still warm, you’d be fine. Mostly.
Reading the comments here is wild to me. I drank raw, cold milk for well over a decade in my childhood as my father had cows. Although this was in Finland, I would probably not dare drink raw milk elsewhere.
The cows were milked with machines that would immediately transport the milk to a tank that would keep it cold and constantly stir it. Even without constant stirring the milk would last for a day or two in the fridge. You would know from the smell if it had gone bad.
Reading the comments here is wild to me. I drank raw, cold milk for well over a decade in my childhood as my father had cows. Although this was in Finland, I would probably not dare drink raw milk elsewhere.
The cows were milked with machines that would immediately transport the milk to a tank that would keep it cold and constantly stir it. Even without constant stirring the milk would last for a day or two in the fridge. You would know from the smell if it had gone bad.
> On a related note, have you noticed how every cuisine is based on a) what is available locally and b) the best way to preserve it?
Checks out: my father grew up on salted pork, pickled onions, fruit preserves, cheese, milk, dried oats, dried peas, jarred/canned food or whatever was in season (potatoes, cabbage, turnip, carrot).
Irish cuisine is the most boring in the world, but it's not our fault. We were colonized and forced to farm the land for absentee landlords, and we're given a tiny scrap of land to keep pigs and grow what we could. Potatoes mostly, because they provided the high calories per area of ground. Until blight wiped them all out in the 1840s. We were forced to continue exporting grain while starving / emigrating / getting evicted from land. This history doesn't do much for our national cuisine! "Want some heavily salted pork with overcooked cabbage and potatoes?" I didn't think so.
Checks out: my father grew up on salted pork, pickled onions, fruit preserves, cheese, milk, dried oats, dried peas, jarred/canned food or whatever was in season (potatoes, cabbage, turnip, carrot).
Irish cuisine is the most boring in the world, but it's not our fault. We were colonized and forced to farm the land for absentee landlords, and we're given a tiny scrap of land to keep pigs and grow what we could. Potatoes mostly, because they provided the high calories per area of ground. Until blight wiped them all out in the 1840s. We were forced to continue exporting grain while starving / emigrating / getting evicted from land. This history doesn't do much for our national cuisine! "Want some heavily salted pork with overcooked cabbage and potatoes?" I didn't think so.
The issue is how trivial it is to make it safe; and how people will avoid this trivial step for the sake of some essentially religious notion about human action upon nature violating its "sacred" condition. The underlying view is very much "the world was made Good, and we are Bad". The world is as much poisonous, grow up.
I agree with your sentiment for the most part. However, I've heard plenty of times from people that lived on dairy farms that that milk straight from the cow tastes noticeably better. As someone who has never had that experience, I don't think it's that out there for me to want to try it, especially if the chances of getting sick are low enough.
Yes, it tastes better. No, it's not worth the risk.
It's ok as a hobby thing when you go visit a farm, it's most likely not ok at industrial production scales.
It's ok as a hobby thing when you go visit a farm, it's most likely not ok at industrial production scales.
[deleted]
[deleted]
People here are confusing pasteurisation with homogenisation. Pasteurised milk can still have the cream on top.
What changes that is that usually the big dairies want to sell the cream separately, so first they skim it off, and then they homogenise the milk by vigorously shaking it until the internal structures all break down and it stays perfectly mixed.
Personally, I'm very happy to drink pasteurised milk. But I'd love it if normal supermarket milk wasn't homogenised. Getting a bit of cream at the beginning of every bottle of milk is such a treat.
What changes that is that usually the big dairies want to sell the cream separately, so first they skim it off, and then they homogenise the milk by vigorously shaking it until the internal structures all break down and it stays perfectly mixed.
Personally, I'm very happy to drink pasteurised milk. But I'd love it if normal supermarket milk wasn't homogenised. Getting a bit of cream at the beginning of every bottle of milk is such a treat.
> a bill that makes it legal to drink (but not sell)
Woah it was illegal to drink! Even if you produced it from your own cow/goat etc?
Personally I have no desired to drink raw milk, but I do hope raw milk cheese becomes more common/legal in the US.
Woah it was illegal to drink! Even if you produced it from your own cow/goat etc?
Personally I have no desired to drink raw milk, but I do hope raw milk cheese becomes more common/legal in the US.
You can't compare raw milk to (properly produced) raw milk cheese.
For cheese fermentation, you inoculate non-pathogenic (and even beneficial) bacterial strains in the milk that overgrow and outcompete pathogenic bacteria. That's actually the reason why cheese (and yogurt for that matter) exists at all, it's an invention that allowed longer storage of milk.
Same for other types of fermentation, such as sausages, kimchi, beer...
For cheese fermentation, you inoculate non-pathogenic (and even beneficial) bacterial strains in the milk that overgrow and outcompete pathogenic bacteria. That's actually the reason why cheese (and yogurt for that matter) exists at all, it's an invention that allowed longer storage of milk.
Same for other types of fermentation, such as sausages, kimchi, beer...
Yup, also raw milk cheese keep these properties afterwards, it's a living product, whereas pasteurized milk cheese is more fragile because pathogenic bacteria have no competition in case of later contamination. In France we joke raw milk cheese is good to eat until it starts moving by itself (and even then it's gross but would probably be safe). But I would never drink raw milk.
I visited a friends parents out in the country once and they served us raw milk. “Isn’t that illegal?” I asked. They said that it’s illegal to sell it but that they pick it up at an unmanned stand where there is free milk and a jar where people can leave “donations”.
>unmanned
And unrefrigerated?
I assume raw milk does not instantly spoil at room temperature, otherwise human history would look very different, but it can't last long in direct sunlight.
And unrefrigerated?
I assume raw milk does not instantly spoil at room temperature, otherwise human history would look very different, but it can't last long in direct sunlight.
People didn't drink raw milk too much - cheese, butter, cream and other milk products that happen to kill commonly dangerous bacteria in the milk exist since antiquity if not earlier. Also, even contaminated milk isn't a guaranteed kill - just like civilization survived cities drinking their own sewage water, it can survive drinking spoiled milk. Many will die, but nowhere near enough to stop humanity in our tracks.
I can't edit it anymore and I'm tired of seeing this stupid comment in my history so I'm replying to myself say that obviously the milk would be in a cooler or icebox. I'm not sure why I thought a refrigerator was the only way to keep food cold.
I thought that's how it is here in CA as well, that's why I was surprised to see the article said otherwise in a state in the south no less. But maybe the article was mistaken.
That’s not surprising considering there are plants that are illegal.
[deleted]
I guess it's the same as mendatory vaccine.
You are not allowed to risk your own sickness because of the cost to the healthcare system otherwise?
Yet... Tobacco and alcohol is no problem... Kind of contradicting, but ok.
Yet... Tobacco and alcohol is no problem... Kind of contradicting, but ok.
The land of the free*!
*please consult our book of rules. You may be charged, caged or neutralized at any time by one of the Peace Enforcers if found to be uncompliant.
*please consult our book of rules. You may be charged, caged or neutralized at any time by one of the Peace Enforcers if found to be uncompliant.
I put raw cream in my coffee daily, but don’t have the balls to drink raw milk. That said, it makes fantastic yogurt.
I don’t really understand the concept of illegal raw milk though. Why can’t people consume raw milk if they want? If anything, make it illegal to feed to children (except of course, raw breast milk!!)
I don’t really understand the concept of illegal raw milk though. Why can’t people consume raw milk if they want? If anything, make it illegal to feed to children (except of course, raw breast milk!!)
Why is it illegal to not wear a seat belt in most societies? Why are there limits on lead content in food stuff? Why are there any regulations at all?
Some of the comments in this thread really left my head scratching. Food borne pathogens were a major burden on humankind for millennia, advances in microbiology and hygiene have massively improved the life span. All of that gets belittled in the comments as some minor stomache ache.
Some of the comments in this thread really left my head scratching. Food borne pathogens were a major burden on humankind for millennia, advances in microbiology and hygiene have massively improved the life span. All of that gets belittled in the comments as some minor stomache ache.
It must be some weird blindness to the privilege of living in a mostly well organized and safe society. The rules were established a long time ago and do their job like a well oiled IT support department. Invisible to the common person when it works well. Unfortunately they then start questioning why it is necessary.
This is such an odd conclusion I’m struggling to wrap my head around the mental gymnastics necessary to make it there. Please see my other response addressing the false equivalencies presented in the previous post.
Btw the rules were not made “a long time ago”, the law restricting the sale of raw milk was passed in 1987 in the US.
Btw the rules were not made “a long time ago”, the law restricting the sale of raw milk was passed in 1987 in the US.
That's the federal ban. Individual states restricted sales of raw milk prior to that.
I just find it weird that we start applying germ theory to combating tubercolosis outbreaks, find out raw milk is a problem, FDA makes recommendations to limit the sale of raw milk and sell only pasteurized milk back in the 1920's.
Now there's this whole rejection of past experience and known dangers because of a belief in the naturalistic fallacy. Not everything "natural" is good for you. Drinking milk as an adult isn't even natural. It's nice sure, but it's not natural.
I just find it weird that we start applying germ theory to combating tubercolosis outbreaks, find out raw milk is a problem, FDA makes recommendations to limit the sale of raw milk and sell only pasteurized milk back in the 1920's.
Now there's this whole rejection of past experience and known dangers because of a belief in the naturalistic fallacy. Not everything "natural" is good for you. Drinking milk as an adult isn't even natural. It's nice sure, but it's not natural.
The discussion isn’t about what’s good for you or what’s natural, it’s about whether the government should be able to impose extreme restrictions on what we consume and how those restrictions are implemented.
43 states allow the sale of raw milk in some form or another, but this sale is largely restricted from grocery stores. Of course the FDA recommends limiting the sale of raw milk, why wouldnt they? On a commercial scale allowing the sale of raw milk in grocery stores could be disastrous. But it’s not consumed on that scale and that’s outside of the context of this discussion - which is about it being legal to drink (not sell) raw milk.
43 states allow the sale of raw milk in some form or another, but this sale is largely restricted from grocery stores. Of course the FDA recommends limiting the sale of raw milk, why wouldnt they? On a commercial scale allowing the sale of raw milk in grocery stores could be disastrous. But it’s not consumed on that scale and that’s outside of the context of this discussion - which is about it being legal to drink (not sell) raw milk.
I think it's the inconsistency that gets me. I can quite legally order at local restaurants: eggs sunny side up, a rare hamburger, raw hamburger with a raw egg on top (steak tartare), a rare steak, raw steak (carpaccio) raw fish (sushi, ceviche), and raw oysters. This is all very legal.
Put up next to those, a ban on buying raw milk seems kinda odd. If we're gonna ban selling raw milk why not ban serving raw fish too? "But it's safe if it's fresh and prepared properly". So is raw milk.
I'm not saying this is good. I won't personally eat raw hamburger or raw seafood. I have no urge to drink raw milk. I think you're playing Russian Roulette with your intestines if you do.
It just reminds me of weed being illegal (still is in a lot of the US) but tobacco and alcohol being legal despite the massive amount of lungs and livers they have ruined (not to mention stuff like drunk driving). Winners don't do drugs of course but it just doesn't make sense to ban this drug but allow that one which is arguably worse in every way.
Put up next to those, a ban on buying raw milk seems kinda odd. If we're gonna ban selling raw milk why not ban serving raw fish too? "But it's safe if it's fresh and prepared properly". So is raw milk.
I'm not saying this is good. I won't personally eat raw hamburger or raw seafood. I have no urge to drink raw milk. I think you're playing Russian Roulette with your intestines if you do.
It just reminds me of weed being illegal (still is in a lot of the US) but tobacco and alcohol being legal despite the massive amount of lungs and livers they have ruined (not to mention stuff like drunk driving). Winners don't do drugs of course but it just doesn't make sense to ban this drug but allow that one which is arguably worse in every way.
>Why is it illegal to not wear a seat belt in most societies? Why are there limits on lead content in food stuff? Why are there any regulations at all?
These are false equivalencies to the question of restricting raw milk consumption. E.g., it’s illegal to not wear a seat belt because i don’t want a stranger splattered on my windshield - that affects me yet i would have had no choice in the matter.
Think about the question of limiting lead content in food stuff; the equivalency would be bacterial testing requirements in raw milk, not the restriction of consumption of raw milk. You can support advances in microbiology and hygiene without legally restricting raw milk consumption. The consumption of tuna isn’t illegal yet undoubtedly if you ate tuna every day for a few months you would likely contract lead poisoning!
These are false equivalencies to the question of restricting raw milk consumption. E.g., it’s illegal to not wear a seat belt because i don’t want a stranger splattered on my windshield - that affects me yet i would have had no choice in the matter.
Think about the question of limiting lead content in food stuff; the equivalency would be bacterial testing requirements in raw milk, not the restriction of consumption of raw milk. You can support advances in microbiology and hygiene without legally restricting raw milk consumption. The consumption of tuna isn’t illegal yet undoubtedly if you ate tuna every day for a few months you would likely contract lead poisoning!
> These are false equivalencies to the question of restricting raw milk consumption. E.g., it’s illegal to not wear a seat belt because i don’t want a stranger splattered on my windshield - that affects me yet i would have had no choice in the matter.
Others can get contagious diseases from milk. That affects you. You didn't make the choice to drink that raw milk.
> Think about the question of limiting lead content in food stuff; the equivalency would be bacterial testing requirements in raw milk, not the restriction of consumption of raw milk. You can support advances in microbiology and hygiene without legally restricting raw milk consumption. The consumption of tuna isn’t illegal yet undoubtedly if you ate tuna every day for a few months you would likely contract lead poisoning!
The gigantic difference there is that it only takes one bad bottle of milk to kill you or make you seriously ill whereas eating something with slightly elevated lead content won't do much and only becomes a problem with long term exposure. I'm also pretty sure you don't check the lead content of every batch, but instead do sampling. You can't do that with milk because as noted it only takes one.
Others can get contagious diseases from milk. That affects you. You didn't make the choice to drink that raw milk.
> Think about the question of limiting lead content in food stuff; the equivalency would be bacterial testing requirements in raw milk, not the restriction of consumption of raw milk. You can support advances in microbiology and hygiene without legally restricting raw milk consumption. The consumption of tuna isn’t illegal yet undoubtedly if you ate tuna every day for a few months you would likely contract lead poisoning!
The gigantic difference there is that it only takes one bad bottle of milk to kill you or make you seriously ill whereas eating something with slightly elevated lead content won't do much and only becomes a problem with long term exposure. I'm also pretty sure you don't check the lead content of every batch, but instead do sampling. You can't do that with milk because as noted it only takes one.
Embarrassingly, I was not aware that raw milk could carry pathogens such as TB which are spread beyond consumption - I assumed it carried all the localized pathogens as other foods (salmonella, listeria, etc.). I certainly understand your point now and retract that it is a false equivalency.
I’m still not convinced that the answer to local farmers selling raw milk to their friends should be outright jail time - rather than enforcement of testing standards. I’m not familiar enough with the upfront costs of that to know whether it’s economical. You mention it “only takes one” but the reality is contamination in raw milk is rare enough that it is also essentially a long-term risk as well, particularly when consuming from 2-3 cattle.
Again, I dont drink the stuff but i certainly sympathize with rural communities that believe it’s in their rights to do so.
I’m still not convinced that the answer to local farmers selling raw milk to their friends should be outright jail time - rather than enforcement of testing standards. I’m not familiar enough with the upfront costs of that to know whether it’s economical. You mention it “only takes one” but the reality is contamination in raw milk is rare enough that it is also essentially a long-term risk as well, particularly when consuming from 2-3 cattle.
Again, I dont drink the stuff but i certainly sympathize with rural communities that believe it’s in their rights to do so.
I’m just catching up on this, can someone explain to me what happens if you drink raw milk?
Edit: thanks for the answers everyone. My mum’s a dairy farmer and so was I during my high school weekends. My family’s been drinking raw milk for the past 20 or so years.
So it’s interesting to know what scary stuff is out there lurking and that a debate has formed around something I had grown to normalize. Tb is obviously a big one and my family being near a native forest increased that risk.
Honestly though, the only thing about drinking raw milk for me was you needed to shake it to mix the 2 inches of cream on top. So now I live somewhere I can’t even buy fresh milk, every time I get the milk out of the fridge it gets a habitual shake :s
Edit: thanks for the answers everyone. My mum’s a dairy farmer and so was I during my high school weekends. My family’s been drinking raw milk for the past 20 or so years.
So it’s interesting to know what scary stuff is out there lurking and that a debate has formed around something I had grown to normalize. Tb is obviously a big one and my family being near a native forest increased that risk.
Honestly though, the only thing about drinking raw milk for me was you needed to shake it to mix the 2 inches of cream on top. So now I live somewhere I can’t even buy fresh milk, every time I get the milk out of the fridge it gets a habitual shake :s
The wiki on Pasteurization is a real page turner!
> Prior to industrialization, dairy cows were kept in urban areas to limit the time between milk production and consumption, hence the risk of disease transmission via raw milk was reduced. As urban densities increased and supply chains lengthened to the distance from country to city, raw milk (often days old) became recognized as a source of disease. For example, between 1912 and 1937, some 65,000 people died of tuberculosis contracted from consuming milk in England and Wales alone. Because tuberculosis has a long incubation period in humans, it was difficult to link unpasteurized milk consumption with the disease.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteurization#Milk
> Prior to industrialization, dairy cows were kept in urban areas to limit the time between milk production and consumption, hence the risk of disease transmission via raw milk was reduced. As urban densities increased and supply chains lengthened to the distance from country to city, raw milk (often days old) became recognized as a source of disease. For example, between 1912 and 1937, some 65,000 people died of tuberculosis contracted from consuming milk in England and Wales alone. Because tuberculosis has a long incubation period in humans, it was difficult to link unpasteurized milk consumption with the disease.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteurization#Milk
Interestingly, that seems to predate reliable cold chains.
Your question isn’t very clear.
Raw milk itself isn’t bad, it’s just very very easy to get contaminated with pathogenic bacteria.
Proponents of raw milk claim it has health benefits due to the lack of cooking, both on a chemical level and a bacterial level.
Raw milk itself isn’t bad, it’s just very very easy to get contaminated with pathogenic bacteria.
Proponents of raw milk claim it has health benefits due to the lack of cooking, both on a chemical level and a bacterial level.
Raw milk and pasteurized milk should be equally easy to get contaminated with pathogenic bacteria if you do the same things with them. But the pasteurization process does a “reset” after some of the riskiest behavior that happens pre-sale, after which repeating said risky behavior is specifically avoided.
This is such a HN answer.
"It's not bad for you, it just makes it incredibly likely to get contaminated with pathogenic bacteria"
"It's not bad for you, it just makes it incredibly likely to get contaminated with pathogenic bacteria"
I mean I’m not advocating raw milk consumption. I was just trying to give a sober and even handed answer to the question.
Raw milk itself is fine, it’s in fact incredibly nutritious- which is why it’s so difficult to keep it from being contaminated. It’s a great breeding ground for pathogens.
In my mind, anti pasteurization types are like anti vaxx light, they didn’t have to live through times where food borne illnesses ran rampant, and therefore don’t appreciate what our scientific ancestors have blessed us with.
Raw milk itself is fine, it’s in fact incredibly nutritious- which is why it’s so difficult to keep it from being contaminated. It’s a great breeding ground for pathogens.
In my mind, anti pasteurization types are like anti vaxx light, they didn’t have to live through times where food borne illnesses ran rampant, and therefore don’t appreciate what our scientific ancestors have blessed us with.
“tuberculosis, diphtheria, typhoid, Campylobacter, Listeria, Brucella, E. coli, Salmonella, and streptococcal infections” apparently.
Sounds like a bad run through the Oregon Trail
Not without dysentery it isn’t
FTA:
>“Raw milk is not pasteurized, or heated up to a temperature of 140 degrees F for 20 minutes, a process that kills off bacteria that can cause foodborne illness, including Salmonella, listeria, and E. coli.
TL;DR: food poisoning
>“Raw milk is not pasteurized, or heated up to a temperature of 140 degrees F for 20 minutes, a process that kills off bacteria that can cause foodborne illness, including Salmonella, listeria, and E. coli.
TL;DR: food poisoning
People getting food poisoning puts a strain on health systems, and people dying of it impacts communities and the economy.
There are also liability implications if it is served in a commercial setting, which many jurisdictions just don’t want to have to deal with.
There are also liability implications if it is served in a commercial setting, which many jurisdictions just don’t want to have to deal with.
I used to get illegal raw milk delivered in the US. I don't think it should be legal for reasons mentioned in the article (poison risk). There are enough alternatives now that prohibition works.
Counterarguments? Is there a big need for dairy milk if, say, oat milk or something else can provide the calcium and other vital nutrients Americans usually get from milk?
Counterarguments? Is there a big need for dairy milk if, say, oat milk or something else can provide the calcium and other vital nutrients Americans usually get from milk?
Oat milk isn’t milk. People don’t want to drink liquidised, filtered and treated oats with added water. They want milk. If you just want something that has some vague similarity to milk that’s cool. If other people want milk then suggesting that something that doesn’t taste like milk, barely looks like milk and has completely different mouthfeel, behavior when cooked and macronutrient profile isn’t very helpful.
?
The obvious alternative is not oat milk but pasturized milk.
The obvious alternative is not oat milk but pasturized milk.
Oat milk is great as milk, especially if you’re having porridge. The enriched oat milk I get has vitamins but not calcium.
My dad can tell the difference between oat and lactose free dairy milks in tea, so he has both in a day.
My dad can tell the difference between oat and lactose free dairy milks in tea, so he has both in a day.
I will try, generally if you have good diaries keeping their cow healthy happy and clean it is non issue, but interests of corporate mega producers they can't guarantee such thing at scale. So to protect them and people from them these laws are made kind of impossible triangle.
You can't do raw milk at scale - so no one will be allowed to. Raw milk yogurt and cottage cheese is out of this world my mom(Russian) and friends in Lithuania with a farm make this as well at the farm and the difference is night and day. you really should try full fat raw milk cottage cheese with honey and walnuts.
You can't do raw milk at scale - so no one will be allowed to. Raw milk yogurt and cottage cheese is out of this world my mom(Russian) and friends in Lithuania with a farm make this as well at the farm and the difference is night and day. you really should try full fat raw milk cottage cheese with honey and walnuts.
> but interests of corporate mega producers they can't guarantee such thing at scale. So to protect them and people from them these laws are made kind of impossible triangle.
In North America, many of these laws were passed in the early part of the 1900s [1]. I don't think that were very many mega producers at the time, though I'd love to be proven wrong.
Also in my experience it's really hard to avoid contamination. My family farm works hard to keep their cows healthy, happy, and clean, and still has occasional issues with high somatic cell counts in their milk. It doesn't help that cows will (rarely) decide to release their bowels while you're milking them...
[1] https://www.marlerblog.com/lawyer-oped/a-legal-history-of-ra...
In North America, many of these laws were passed in the early part of the 1900s [1]. I don't think that were very many mega producers at the time, though I'd love to be proven wrong.
Also in my experience it's really hard to avoid contamination. My family farm works hard to keep their cows healthy, happy, and clean, and still has occasional issues with high somatic cell counts in their milk. It doesn't help that cows will (rarely) decide to release their bowels while you're milking them...
[1] https://www.marlerblog.com/lawyer-oped/a-legal-history-of-ra...
[deleted]
I sell raw milk directly to consumers from my small farm. Selling pasteurized milk is heavily regulated in Missouri, but selling raw milk is both legal and much easier.
I also only sell to customers willing to sign a waiver, and every jar/bottle of raw milk I sell includes a link to the CDC’s raw milk web page and instructions on how to pasteurize.
I even own a 3-gallon pasteurization and I pasteurize my own milk before I drink it, make cheese/yogurt, or use it other for non-cooking purposes because safety is health. Of course I skip pasteurization when using it for cooking (e.g. biscuits and gravy) because it’ll reach kill pathogen temps as part of that process anyways.
I also only sell to customers willing to sign a waiver, and every jar/bottle of raw milk I sell includes a link to the CDC’s raw milk web page and instructions on how to pasteurize.
I even own a 3-gallon pasteurization and I pasteurize my own milk before I drink it, make cheese/yogurt, or use it other for non-cooking purposes because safety is health. Of course I skip pasteurization when using it for cooking (e.g. biscuits and gravy) because it’ll reach kill pathogen temps as part of that process anyways.
FWIW we have been drinking raw milk for years and have never had any problems. We buy it from the neighboring farm once a week, it holds just fine in the fridge. We make yogurt out of it, eat it with cereals, make milk shakes, and cook with it. Anything left after a week will go to the house animals. It tastes great, has double the fat content (Jersey cows), we also use non pasteurized butter coming from the same farm.
Raw milk is the vinyl (recording format) of milk. Vinyl that can give you salmonella. Still doesn't slow down its proponents from telling you how superior it is.
I'm sure both are as good as medium rare chicken.
Don't forget about brucellosis too.
I wonder if it's something your body has to get used to? Raw milk has been rare in America for quite a while and I doubt these lawmakers grew up on it. Certainly people drank it for thousands of years and if it was something that had a very high chance of making you sick every time then the practice of drinking fresh milk would have been abandoned pretty quickly and drinking milk would be about as common as eating raw chicken.
People aren't dumb: the Inuit knew to leave polar bear liver well alone and the Mesoamericans knew corn had to be nixtamalized. Another example would be how cassava has to be washed and soaked in a particular process. There are many examples I can think of. Even if the actual mechanism behind these things wasn't understood until modern times people across the world still figured out "you must not eat this part" and "you must do X, Y, and Z before you can eat this" for a lot of toxic or potentially toxic foods.
I'm no expert on foodborne pathogens but it just doesn't make sense to me that people would drink something that would almost certainly make them sick. It seems to me it would be more like, say, eating eggs over easy: it's a risk to be sure but you'll probably be fine if they're fresh and the chicken was healthy.
People aren't dumb: the Inuit knew to leave polar bear liver well alone and the Mesoamericans knew corn had to be nixtamalized. Another example would be how cassava has to be washed and soaked in a particular process. There are many examples I can think of. Even if the actual mechanism behind these things wasn't understood until modern times people across the world still figured out "you must not eat this part" and "you must do X, Y, and Z before you can eat this" for a lot of toxic or potentially toxic foods.
I'm no expert on foodborne pathogens but it just doesn't make sense to me that people would drink something that would almost certainly make them sick. It seems to me it would be more like, say, eating eggs over easy: it's a risk to be sure but you'll probably be fine if they're fresh and the chicken was healthy.
I've been drinking raw milk for a little more than a year now. Before then, I had never had a lick of it. In fact, I hadn't drank any milk before that point for years. I haven't experienced any issues. I feel very fortunate that I'm close enough to the Pennsylvania (USA) state line to buy it. I use a lot of it to make fermented milk kefir, which I then add to store-bought heavy cream to make crème fraîche.
Prior to introducing raw milk (and the downstream products) into my diet, I was eating a lot of avocados. But, I wanted to move toward eating more seasonal, local, and ancestral foods. My ancestry is Polish/German. I think this may partly explain why it works well for my system.
When I told a buddy of mine about this change, he asked me why all milk isn't raw. I said "Well, according to the CDC, drinking it will kill you."
Prior to introducing raw milk (and the downstream products) into my diet, I was eating a lot of avocados. But, I wanted to move toward eating more seasonal, local, and ancestral foods. My ancestry is Polish/German. I think this may partly explain why it works well for my system.
When I told a buddy of mine about this change, he asked me why all milk isn't raw. I said "Well, according to the CDC, drinking it will kill you."
Are baby calves coming down with Salmonella or E Coli poisoning all the time? It seems reasonable that the risk is not in consumption, but letting the raw milk sit around for any length of time.
If anyone knows why, I would be curious to hear.
If anyone knows why, I would be curious to hear.
> Are baby calves coming down with Salmonella or E Coli poisoning all the time?
Yes, calves get neonatal salmonella infections.
Cows also have a ruminant digestive system, which handles things a little differently than a human's.
Yes, calves get neonatal salmonella infections.
Cows also have a ruminant digestive system, which handles things a little differently than a human's.
Have you seen the conditions that cattle are kept in on modern farms in the US? They're pumped full of antibiotics and some still die from the terrible conditions.
Milk is an ideal growth medium, every bacteria floating in the air loves to breed in the stuff, not least of which tuberculosis. A few hours old, maybe the concentrations are low. After a few days it becomes deadly.
Milk is not necessarily sterile upon lactation only to be contaminated later. Pathogens such as Brucella and TB are shed in the milk itself.
That's probably why. People don't generally nurse cows to drink milk, it is put into containers where they will be exposed to the elements somewhat.
I like drinking raw milk. It has a sweet grassy taste compared to store-bought milk. My wife grew up on a farm and it was common to drink the fresh milk while still warm.
One thing that was eye-opening to me about unhomogenized milk is that you can skim the fat and make butter. I’m sure everyone knows that, but what might be less well known is how much butter you can get. A gallon of milk makes one, maybe two tablespoons. That’s it! I’m sure industrial butter making is more efficient, but I always think about how much milk goes into a stick of butter now.
One thing that was eye-opening to me about unhomogenized milk is that you can skim the fat and make butter. I’m sure everyone knows that, but what might be less well known is how much butter you can get. A gallon of milk makes one, maybe two tablespoons. That’s it! I’m sure industrial butter making is more efficient, but I always think about how much milk goes into a stick of butter now.
I've drunk fresh raw milk.
In my singular, ancedotal experience, nothing happened.
Onviously that means everything is fine, and we should all be drinking it, all day every day.
In my singular, ancedotal experience, nothing happened.
Onviously that means everything is fine, and we should all be drinking it, all day every day.
When I was a kid, we had got our milk direct from the farmer (early 80s, Switzerland). It was our kids job, to go to there and get 2 or 3 liter milk several times a week. I'm not sure, if my mom cooked allways all the milk, I guess I have to ask her. But sometimes I drank, still warm, fresh milk on the way home. I don't think I ever had trouble because of it.
Raw milk was an issue in California in the 1990s. AltaDena Dairy wanted to sell raw milk. With enough testing, and no cheating, it can work. Usually. But the state finally mandated pasteurization.
The "all natural" crowd supported them.
The "all natural" crowd supported them.
The Enduring Chill by Flannery O'Connor immortalized this error.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Enduring_Chill
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Enduring_Chill
We make Kefir out of raw organic milk since years and never had any problem.
Fermentation such as in kefir, yogurt, cheese and so on is another way of getting rid of the harmful bacteria in milk. It is not as direct or safe as pasteurization or boiling, but it is more than safe enough.
It works by colonizing the milk with harmless bacteria/moulds which oucompete the harmful ones.
It works by colonizing the milk with harmless bacteria/moulds which oucompete the harmful ones.
Everyone should be free to drink raw milk if they please. Although selling it in supermarkets might be questionable, simply because not everyone knows raw milk can stomach issues.
I think this makes sense in countries without a public healthcare system but not in countries with one because everyone is paying for your illness. I feel the same about motorcycle helmets and seat belts.
What kind of agenda is being pushed for this SIX year old low quality stub news article about milk to be pushed to the front page? Drink raw milk, or don't.
I drink raw milk whenever I can get it and have been doing so for decades. Have not gotten sick once.
I believe most, if not all, dairy farmers selling raw milk are very careful.
I believe most, if not all, dairy farmers selling raw milk are very careful.
Same. In the Netherlands it's not uncommon to find a raw milk dispensing machine at your local cow farm. You bring your own bottle, put one euro in the machine and out goes one litre of raw milk.
Definitely not all, as the small, but regularly occurring incidences of sickness from raw milk.
I've met multiple times with state legislators in Michigan about an open data bill a group of us are trying to get passed. The irony is hackers or state residents wouldn't be the biggest beneficiary's. It would be legislators and their staffs.
It is simply astounding how often bad decisions by legislators aren't a reflection of their poor judgement but simply poor data. Lobbyists can often times lie without being called out on it. If legislators or their staffs can easily look something up in the browser it would be earth shattering.
Sadly a majority of the legislators do not understand the value it would bring. It's the source of much frustration for us.
It is simply astounding how often bad decisions by legislators aren't a reflection of their poor judgement but simply poor data. Lobbyists can often times lie without being called out on it. If legislators or their staffs can easily look something up in the browser it would be earth shattering.
Sadly a majority of the legislators do not understand the value it would bring. It's the source of much frustration for us.
That's a great tactic you just implied.
"If data were portable, you wouldn't have been manipulated into that embarassing mess last year."
"If data were portable, you wouldn't have been manipulated into that embarassing mess last year."
You suggest a level of potential embarrassment that I don’t think would happen. Being wrong is hand waved away in an instant. I don’t think they share your motivations even if they understood. Good luck, I’d like to see it happen.
[deleted]
In the UK, we have vending machine at a local farm that sells raw, unpasteurised milk.
They need to meet various common sense hygiene standards and conduct regular testing of their herd to continue doing so, along with an explicit health warning on each bottle.
It’s delicious.
A good rule of thumb is, if you’re going to drink raw milk at all regularly, ‘know the cow’ it’s coming from.
Mad cow disease more or less wiped out the selling of raw milk for decades. But it is slowly gaining traction in this past 10 years or so, albeit in a very niche way.
They need to meet various common sense hygiene standards and conduct regular testing of their herd to continue doing so, along with an explicit health warning on each bottle.
It’s delicious.
A good rule of thumb is, if you’re going to drink raw milk at all regularly, ‘know the cow’ it’s coming from.
Mad cow disease more or less wiped out the selling of raw milk for decades. But it is slowly gaining traction in this past 10 years or so, albeit in a very niche way.
Mad cow disease, if it can be transmitted from milk (not sure, though I assume it probably can), will be transmitted at the exact same rate through raw, pasteurized, boiled, and even burnt milk. Destroying prions requires much higher temperatures than can be achieved through boiling.
Off-topic, but the article looks so much like an Onion piece. Especially the photo at the top which has a similar quality.
Why is this normal in Europe, but considered risky in the US?
It's not normal. In Germany you can get raw milk sometimes in organic shops under the name "Vorzugsmilch". This means the distributor or producer needs a special permit and has to observe stricter hygienic standards. This milk is specifically produced and controlled for raw consumption.
You can get raw milk directly from a farmer sometimes but they are obliged to put up a note to cook the milk before consumption.
You can get raw milk directly from a farmer sometimes but they are obliged to put up a note to cook the milk before consumption.
In Italy there are now "specially licensed" farmers that can legally sell raw milk (though they are very few), it is relatively recent, till until a few years ago it was prohibited (I believe starting from the late 1980's or 1990's).
On the other hand I remember as a kid how we got fresh milk daily in a country village:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22223564
On the other hand I remember as a kid how we got fresh milk daily in a country village:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22223564
In which part of Europe is this normal? The last time I tried raw milk was probably 25-30 years ago and that was minutes after it got extracted from a cow. An average European doesn't even see a single cow for months, unless they live in rural areas.
Milk in Europe is pasteurised. The main difference is actually with cheese: making some types of cheese with pasteurised milk is impossible because the cultures in the milk confer flavour etc.
It's getting less common in Europe as well.
Some of the tastiest soft cheeses are made from raw milk, but they also kill a number of people each year. It's the French answer to Fugu, if you will.
Some of the tastiest soft cheeses are made from raw milk, but they also kill a number of people each year. It's the French answer to Fugu, if you will.
Mostly because the FDA and USDA are overly cautious. Not a bad thing in most cases, IMO.
Not sure. Maybe tighter quality standards for milk production?
CryptoPunk(2)
> “There definitely shouldn’t be a law against allowing people to do what they want within the framework of the rule of law,” McGeehan told WSAZ.
Well, technically true. Making operating within the law illegal would certainly be problematic.
Well, technically true. Making operating within the law illegal would certainly be problematic.
[deleted]
> Raw milk is not pasteurized, or heated up to a temperature of 140 degrees F for 20 minutes, a process that kills off bacteria that can cause foodborne illness, including Salmonella, listeria, and E. coli.
This paragraph is worthy of an ambiguity contest.
1. "not pasteurized" might mean "heated up to a ..."
2. the process can cause foodborne illness
This paragraph is worthy of an ambiguity contest.
1. "not pasteurized" might mean "heated up to a ..."
2. the process can cause foodborne illness
Honestly, I suspect this kind of thing happens as a result of a diet devoid of microbial life and non-denatured proteins.
I used to get not full on sick, but pretty sick after eating raw or partially raw meat. You may think it's crazy, but I just continued doing it and eventually stopped getting diarrhea and cramps.
David Blaine (I think) talked about a similar effect from when he practiced swallowing live frogs. He got sick initially (not gag reflex but something akin to food poisoning) but quickly built up a tolerance.
Maybe these guys did get sick in some way that is beyond a reasonable risk tolerance. I don't know. I just think Americans in particular are weird about their food and simultaneously germophobic so they end up eating a certain kind of diet. Getting sick when eating food that isn't totally cooked may not necessarily mean danger but that the body isn't acclimated to the particular food.
I used to get not full on sick, but pretty sick after eating raw or partially raw meat. You may think it's crazy, but I just continued doing it and eventually stopped getting diarrhea and cramps.
David Blaine (I think) talked about a similar effect from when he practiced swallowing live frogs. He got sick initially (not gag reflex but something akin to food poisoning) but quickly built up a tolerance.
Maybe these guys did get sick in some way that is beyond a reasonable risk tolerance. I don't know. I just think Americans in particular are weird about their food and simultaneously germophobic so they end up eating a certain kind of diet. Getting sick when eating food that isn't totally cooked may not necessarily mean danger but that the body isn't acclimated to the particular food.
Do you want shorter average lifespans? This is how you get them. By ignoring advances in things like food safety.
> I used to get not full on sick, but pretty sick after eating raw or partially raw meat. You may think it's crazy, but I just continued doing it and eventually stopped getting diarrhea and cramps.
This kills some people.
Health advice isn't about you, it's about everyone. See also: wearing a mask during a pandemic.
> I used to get not full on sick, but pretty sick after eating raw or partially raw meat. You may think it's crazy, but I just continued doing it and eventually stopped getting diarrhea and cramps.
This kills some people.
Health advice isn't about you, it's about everyone. See also: wearing a mask during a pandemic.
> Health advice isn't about you, it's about everyone. See also: wearing a mask during a pandemic.
That's not even remotely comparable.
If someone else could die from drinking raw milk, what business is it of theirs that I choose to drink gallons of it and live to tell the tale?
The whole point of the legalization is to legalize the consumption. Did you read the article?
That's not even remotely comparable.
If someone else could die from drinking raw milk, what business is it of theirs that I choose to drink gallons of it and live to tell the tale?
The whole point of the legalization is to legalize the consumption. Did you read the article?
> If someone else could die from drinking raw milk, what business is it of theirs that I choose to drink gallons of it and live to tell the tale?
It’s because we don’t know who will die from it
It’s like seat belts or motorcycle helmets - millions of people will never have a need for them, but they save lives
It’s because we don’t know who will die from it
It’s like seat belts or motorcycle helmets - millions of people will never have a need for them, but they save lives
On the contrary; it's comparable, it's just not identical. The point is that public health recommendations are made to serve the greater good, not serve the preferences of an individual. Please wash your hands.
Regarding the policy aspects: when a substance is potentially harmful then we already have frameworks to regulate sale and possession, as used for things like radioactives and poisons. If an activity is harmful but only to the individual, then education and normalization of behaviour offers the best possible public health outcome, such as the wearing of bicycle helmets (everyone should wear a helmet, but criminalising noncompliance is the worst possible means to achieve it). Only when an activity is harmful to others (such as smoking, or not wearing a facemask during a pandemic) should criminalisation be considered, in my view. In general, exposing younger citizens to hazardous substances (like people feeding their kids raw milk) shouldn't need specific treatment since it's already covered by child endangerment laws and duty of care towards minors, although I suppose carve-outs can be considered when some echobubble loses their collective minds.
By such a policy position, the legislature in the original story did half the job, in my opinion; the sale and possession of raw milk should be regulated like a poison, and the consumption of it strongly deterred through education of the risks. The stunt of drinking it was the height of idiocy, but stupidity is hardly in short supply amongst legislators.
Regarding the policy aspects: when a substance is potentially harmful then we already have frameworks to regulate sale and possession, as used for things like radioactives and poisons. If an activity is harmful but only to the individual, then education and normalization of behaviour offers the best possible public health outcome, such as the wearing of bicycle helmets (everyone should wear a helmet, but criminalising noncompliance is the worst possible means to achieve it). Only when an activity is harmful to others (such as smoking, or not wearing a facemask during a pandemic) should criminalisation be considered, in my view. In general, exposing younger citizens to hazardous substances (like people feeding their kids raw milk) shouldn't need specific treatment since it's already covered by child endangerment laws and duty of care towards minors, although I suppose carve-outs can be considered when some echobubble loses their collective minds.
By such a policy position, the legislature in the original story did half the job, in my opinion; the sale and possession of raw milk should be regulated like a poison, and the consumption of it strongly deterred through education of the risks. The stunt of drinking it was the height of idiocy, but stupidity is hardly in short supply amongst legislators.
What a first-world take. And not just a first-world take, but a city-slicker first-world take.
Auto-immune diseases and allergies are killing people and ruining lives. A little bit of bacteria doesn't hurt.
Auto-immune diseases and allergies are killing people and ruining lives. A little bit of bacteria doesn't hurt.
As someone who grew up on a dairy farm, who worked on a farm, and who has friends and family operating their own farms, I'd like to point out that this is backwards. Farmers know that bacteria can make them sick or even kill them. It's the city-slickers who have never been truly ill who think that they're harmless.
Auto-immune diseases and allergies are nowhere even slightly near as big a problem as dysentery and other food borne illnesses used to be. There are far more people who died of TB from contaminated milk alone than people dieing of allergies.
It's true that other aspects of improved care have also reduced the risk from food borne illnesses - antibiotics, clean water, IV rehydration and others.
It's true that other aspects of improved care have also reduced the risk from food borne illnesses - antibiotics, clean water, IV rehydration and others.
Current, modern day humans live longer, healthier lives than any who have ever lived before.
Sensitivities do not always decrease with exposure, so I’m not sure if I’d advocate getting ill frequently with the expectation of improvement.
That’s definitely true for me at least for chili peppers. In fact I think my reaction has worsened over time even after decreasing exposure to them. Such a pity—makes food taste so good.
Another example is Fijian 'kava' (a root that is crushed and dried into a powder, then filtered into water and consumed as a drink). It has a reverse tolerance: those who consume it more frequently typically get more affected by it, and those who've had little before may not feel any effect.
Always a delight to see kava being discussed in unexpected places.
Say bula at r/kava!
Sometimes they get worse, too, like with cat allergies.
No one is talking about alergies, just life. Relax. Get dirty.
Similarly, I grew up spending most of the year in California but summers in southern Mexico, and the first week or two of every summer was an acclimation period of intestinal distress. (This is despite never drinking unboiled tap water. There are just different microbes floating around in the environment.)
On the other hand, some of the pathogens you can get from raw milk (or insufficiently treated water) can be extremely unpleasant/dangerous and there’s no sure guarantee you’ll get used to them.
On the other hand, some of the pathogens you can get from raw milk (or insufficiently treated water) can be extremely unpleasant/dangerous and there’s no sure guarantee you’ll get used to them.
Delhi belly.
"sure you might get pretty sick, but if you power through the diarrhea and cramps you can enjoy the benefits of getting some serious food poisoning"
I can't believe you're giving away this advice for free
I can't believe you're giving away this advice for free
100% agreed. If I have been eating junk food for a week or so and even have so much as a kombucha I’ll have major stomach issues. We certainly adapt to high pro-biotic diets, and it would be interesting to learn about the mechanism for such a phenomenon.
yet there is huge difference. Milk is still easy to digest than meat. You can't compare both.
https://www.rawmilkinstitute.org/updates/letter-to-medical-p...
https://www.rawmilkinstitute.org/updates/letter-to-medical-p...
Why were you eating raw meat, may I ask?
Steak tartare and carpaccio are two raw beef dishes that I love that are common in France and Italy, respectively. There are many others.
But American food practices are so awful that it is impossible to eat raw meat here, mostly: some places are careful. That's why cows are pumped full of antibacterials: because they are given growth hormones until their udders rip, and are constantly infected.
This doesn't happen in parts of the world where animals are raised and slaughtered in non-high-density, full-speed-ahead industrial production.
The main reason America needs so many food laws is because they try to scale everything up so that people can eat steaks every day for pennies. I'm exaggerating, but only a little. Americans gotta have it all, and you can raise animals ethically, safely, and without drugs with that kind of entitlement. That's why food tastes so much better in provincial parts of Europe, it's not a myth.
But American food practices are so awful that it is impossible to eat raw meat here, mostly: some places are careful. That's why cows are pumped full of antibacterials: because they are given growth hormones until their udders rip, and are constantly infected.
This doesn't happen in parts of the world where animals are raised and slaughtered in non-high-density, full-speed-ahead industrial production.
The main reason America needs so many food laws is because they try to scale everything up so that people can eat steaks every day for pennies. I'm exaggerating, but only a little. Americans gotta have it all, and you can raise animals ethically, safely, and without drugs with that kind of entitlement. That's why food tastes so much better in provincial parts of Europe, it's not a myth.
(Disclaimer: I roll the dice on steak tartar every once in a while)
While American food standards are definitely worse, it’s a mistake to say that in Europe raw meat is safe. Even in the most rustic of environments there are loads of ways for your raw meat to get messed up. So you’re needing to trust a lot of stuff and are rolling the dice a bit each time.
Of course everything is a dice roll, but turns out cooking meat solves a lot of problems.
Factory farming did not create food poisoning!
While American food standards are definitely worse, it’s a mistake to say that in Europe raw meat is safe. Even in the most rustic of environments there are loads of ways for your raw meat to get messed up. So you’re needing to trust a lot of stuff and are rolling the dice a bit each time.
Of course everything is a dice roll, but turns out cooking meat solves a lot of problems.
Factory farming did not create food poisoning!
> Factory farming did not create food poisoning!
No one said it did.
But it exacerbates it by orders of magnitude.
Also odd to hear someone defending factory farming.
No one said it did.
But it exacerbates it by orders of magnitude.
Also odd to hear someone defending factory farming.
I was just reading the wiki on steak tartare b/c of this thread and was surprised to find its original name was steak à l'Americaine
I kept under-cooking burger patties to the point where they were still raw in the middle and thought "f** it" and ate them anyway. Then I moved on to eating straight raw meat for the novelty of it. I'm not sure that I'd eat raw pork, but supposedly today's regulations have mostly eliminated the possibility of trichinosis. Otherwise, I've found raw meat to be way less hazardous than I was lead to believe. I don't advocate for it, and I at least like a good sear on my steak. My risk tolerance is much less than that of many people, for better or for worse.
Rare burgers are really risky.
Steaks are OK because there’s not usually bacteria within a cut of meat (at least not a rotten one). Ground beef is all surface area.
Steaks are OK because there’s not usually bacteria within a cut of meat (at least not a rotten one). Ground beef is all surface area.
> Rare burgers are really risky.
How risky? Compare it to other risks we are commonly undertake, like driving. If you can't quantify risk, you're not providing a useful comment.
How risky? Compare it to other risks we are commonly undertake, like driving. If you can't quantify risk, you're not providing a useful comment.
The CDC recommends ground beef cooked to 160F, which is well above “rare” temperature (around 130F). So, you’re going against the food safety guidelines. I’d say that introduces risk (though hard to quantify exactly).
https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/communication/bbq-iq.html
https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/communication/bbq-iq.html
That same page says steaks should go to 145F which is pretty far into medium and will get you looked at funny in most reputable steakhouses.
So let's go back to: If you don't quantify risk, you're not providing a useful comment. That applies to the CDC too.
So let's go back to: If you don't quantify risk, you're not providing a useful comment. That applies to the CDC too.
Good luck quantifying real world risks. What’s the risk of getting sick from a rare burger? Well, it’s the probability of a bad bacteria being present, then it not being killed by the cooking, and then actually taking root in your body.. good luck getting a number
Depends on how long the ground beef is left out. If you grind the steak right before you eat it there's not much time for bacteria to multiply.
That’s correct! Most of us don’t do that, but for those who do it’s a much safer option.
> My risk tolerance is much less than that of many people
If you mean you can tolerate more risk than others, that would be a higher risk tolerance.
If you mean you can tolerate more risk than others, that would be a higher risk tolerance.
Not that person, but...
In Germany, eating Mettbrötchen is rather popular in certain regions, and somewhat popular in the rest. As far as I know, that also applies to some neighboring nations.
A Mettbrötchen is basically minced raw pork with some salt, pepper and other spices, with onions on top or worked inside the meat. You put that on a baked roll (or sometimes other bread). There is also Mettwurst (sausage), although that's often at least smoked. Rarely the mett you'd eat raw is a mix of raw pork and raw beef. Mett may only be sold on the same day it was prepared, but it's rather popular so you will find it in basically every supermarket (especially the ones with in-house butchers), or you can buy ready to eat Mettbrötchen/Mettbrote (rolls/bread) in basically every full service bakery and some self-service ones.
I am not really fond of that to the point I would prepare that for myself, but have occasionally indulged when offered.
Bonus picture: Mettigel (mett hedgehog), which is for various popculture reasons a popular way to decorate the mett (before you put some of it on a roll/bread)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Mettigel...
In Germany, eating Mettbrötchen is rather popular in certain regions, and somewhat popular in the rest. As far as I know, that also applies to some neighboring nations.
A Mettbrötchen is basically minced raw pork with some salt, pepper and other spices, with onions on top or worked inside the meat. You put that on a baked roll (or sometimes other bread). There is also Mettwurst (sausage), although that's often at least smoked. Rarely the mett you'd eat raw is a mix of raw pork and raw beef. Mett may only be sold on the same day it was prepared, but it's rather popular so you will find it in basically every supermarket (especially the ones with in-house butchers), or you can buy ready to eat Mettbrötchen/Mettbrote (rolls/bread) in basically every full service bakery and some self-service ones.
I am not really fond of that to the point I would prepare that for myself, but have occasionally indulged when offered.
Bonus picture: Mettigel (mett hedgehog), which is for various popculture reasons a popular way to decorate the mett (before you put some of it on a roll/bread)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Mettigel...
One could still freeze it like sushi fish to get rid of at least some of the pathogens.
One would think so, but it turns out, not really — the big concern in sushi fish is usually parasitic worms (like anisakiasis), which are live multicellular organisms that don’t survive freezing.
In chicken, beef, and pork, the concern is typically bacteria (like salmonella, and e. coli) or parasite cysts (like trichinosis), which are not killed by freezing.
In chicken, beef, and pork, the concern is typically bacteria (like salmonella, and e. coli) or parasite cysts (like trichinosis), which are not killed by freezing.
Steak is the classic option in American cuisine, but in Germany (and some other countries), raw mince is a sandwich topping that you can buy from the butcher (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett). Obviously you've got to eat it fresh, but it's not all that bad.
You were quicker with your response than I was (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30809570), I concede defeat :D
But in my defense, I got sidetracked googling pictures of Mettigel.
But in my defense, I got sidetracked googling pictures of Mettigel.
A completely understandable defence! ;)
Steak is most often prepared rare or medium-rare. Rare means raw in the middle, as that portion has not been altered by heat, hence the disclaimer on restaurant menus about undercooked foods.
Not even counting sushi which is wonderful, I don't know about most meats but raw beef at least is perfectly nice.
Raw fish can be delicious. Fijian kokoda is chef's kiss.
And this is where the similarity ends.
The first thing my mom (and everyone else) did is to boil the milk to pasteurize it. Once boiled, it is allowed to cool down till a layer of fat forms on top. That is removed to make butter and ghee out of. Milk is then used and refrigerated.
No one ever drank (or drinks) raw milk - not the farmers, not their workers, not the buyers. It boggles my mind that people are willing to take the risk by drinking raw milk.