Pasteurization has re-entered the chat.
LAURA SIMMONS
Editor and Staff Writer
Edited by Holly Large
Yanawut.S/Shutterstock.com
"Farm to table" is all very well, but give it a blast of heat first, whatever you do.
Pasteurization is right up there with hand-washing and vaccines as one of the greatest public health achievements in human history. But just like the other things on that list, it has its detractors. Loud ones.
Fact-checking organization Full Fact recently responded to an Instagram post that has totted up over 70,000 likes at the time of writing, one of many espousing the bullshit disputed idea that unpasteurized “raw” milk is a health food. So, we felt the time was ripe for a reminder of why science tells us that chugging untreated pints of the white stuff is often a very bad idea.
What is pasteurization?
Named for French scientist Louis Pasteur, who demonstrated that applying heat could prevent wine and beer from going bad in the 1860s, pasteurization is the process of heat-treating milk to kill harmful microbes and increase shelf-life.
There are a few different methods, but all involve the milk being heated to specific temperatures and held there for a predetermined period of time, which has been calculated as sufficient to kill the bacteria, like Mycobacterium tuberculosis, that can be hiding inside.
You may also have seen products labeled as “UHT”, which stands for ultra-heat treated. This is a more extreme form of pasteurization involving higher temperatures and sterile packaging, allowing these kinds of products to be stored out of the fridge for months at a time.
Milk is not the only foodstuff that gets pasteurized. Other examples of foods that can be heat-treated include fruit juices, flour, and Pasteur’s original research subject, alcoholic beverages.
Why do some people drink raw milk?
Almost as soon as pasteurization became standard practice, the controversy began. According to the Science History Institute, some local media organizations were asking questions about “cooking” milk as far back as the early 20th century, and the skepticism from some quarters has never really gone away.
Over the decades, many claims have been made about the supposed benefits of unpasteurized dairy products. Here are a few of them.
“It tastes better.”
Some people simply say they prefer the flavor of raw milk. There are also some artisanal cheeses that are traditionally made with raw milk, which connoisseurs may be tempted to sample.
This is one that’s difficult to disprove with scientific research. Suffice it to say, even if you do think it tastes a bit better, most would agree the risks of raw milk (see below) significantly outweigh this.
“It’s easier to digest.”
Some have claimed that treating milk with heat to kill the bad bacteria has a knock-on effect of killing probiotic organisms that secrete lactase, the enzyme that breaks down lactose and that those with lactose intolerance are lacking.
There is no scientific evidence to back up this claim. Raw milk still contains lactose and there’s no indication it contains lactase. The pasteurization process is also not the cause of lactose intolerance, which we know from genetic evidence has been around for thousands of years.
“It’s healthier.”
Some suggest that the pasteurization process negatively affects the nutritional profile of the milk by degrading nutrients like calcium, essential for healthy bone development. There have also been claims about the supposed immune benefits of raw milk.
Much of this is also tied in with wider skepticism around consuming processed foods, or supposedly “unnatural” products.
The evidence suggests that pasteurization does not alter the nutritional content of milk in any significant way. Even where some studies have found decreases in the levels of certain vitamins after heat treatment, these are not vitamins that are found at particularly high levels in milk and thus can be obtained from other, more important dietary sources.
There is some evidence that children raised on farms have a lower incidence of some allergies and autoimmune conditions, and improved immune function, which some have attributed to raw milk consumption. Importantly, though, even these studies agree that there would need to be a better way of mitigating the very real risks from raw milk before more widespread consumption could be recommended.
“It’s fine as long as it’s tested/organic/from a clean farm.”
Some believe that as long as they trust the farm where their raw milk comes from, it is safe to consume.
However, in reality, there is no way to completely remove the risk. Even farms that regularly test for microbes in their milk may miss low levels of contamination that can still get you sick. Organic farming practices can’t prevent contamination either, and even the healthiest animals can harbor bacteria that pose a threat to humans.
What are the risks of drinking raw milk?
As well as citing evidence that largely debunks the claims made by the anti-pasteurization league, health authorities like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have repeatedly warned about the dangers of consuming raw milk.
The most obvious, and the reason pasteurization was adopted in the first place, is the risk of foodborne illness.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) explain that raw milk can carry several different bacteria that pose a risk to human health, including Campylobacter, Brucella, and Listeria. In fact, they say raw milk is “one of the riskiest foods” to consume.
Infection with any of these species could see you saddled with days of diarrheal misery, but there are some potentially serious consequences too, particularly for those who may be more vulnerable such as children and pregnant people. It’s not unheard of for humans to contract bovine tuberculosis from raw milk, and some of these other infections can cause complications including kidney failure.
It's because of these risks that raw milk is illegal to purchase in several US states, and cannot be sold in high street stores in the UK.
The verdict? Pasteurized milk is much safer and no less healthy
In a world where some people genuinely debate the utility of good hand hygiene, it’s probably not surprising that raw milk has so many staunch supporters. But all the evidence suggests that consuming unpasteurized dairy is, at best, no better for you and, at worst, a one-way ticket to the ER.
If only there were an easy way to drastically reduce all the risks…
All “explainer” articles are confirmed by fact checkers to be correct at time of publishing. Text, images, and links may be edited, removed, or added to at a later date to keep information current.
The content of this article is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of qualified health providers with questions you may have regarding medical conditions.
Amish Farmer Turned Republican Hero Sparks Protest Over Raw Milk
Amish Farmer Turned Republican Hero Becomes Flash Point In Culture WarSenior Writer
Published Feb 29, 2024
Supporters of Amos Miller descended onto the Lancaster County Courthouse to rally behind the Amish farmer in his fight against the state of Pennsylvania.
Crowds of protesters on Thursday were seen gathered outside the building on North Duke Street as the hearing in the case against Miller's farm unfolded inside the courthouse. Miller, whose cause has become a rallying call for conservatives, is being sued by the state to stop him from selling raw milk and other unregulated products.
The lawsuit, announced last month, arrived weeks after Amos Miller Organic Farm was raided by state troopers who seized edible products as part of a search warrant obtained after the Pennsylvania Agriculture Department learned Miller's products had been linked to E. coli outbreaks in two other states. It is not the first time that foodborne illness outbreaks had been tied to Miller's farm, and Attorney General Michelle Henry argued that the latest legal action is the result of Miller's history of noncompliance with food safety regulations.
Amid the January 4 farm raid and subsequent lawsuit, Miller has garnered support from Republicans across the country, including prominent figures like Donald Trump Jr. and Representative Thomas Massie. Conservatives have argued that the actions against Miller represent government overreach and some have criticized law enforcement for cracking down on Miller rather than dangerous criminals.
Miller's supporters were seen carrying signs outside the courthouse that read phrases like, "Stand Against Tyranny," "I'll decide what I eat" and "Food Freedom."
"Amos Miller represents the tip of the spear when it comes to food freedom," Chris Hume, host of The Lancaster Patriot Podcast, told rally participants. "The state wants to shut him down. They want to punish him for serving neighbors. Amos Miller is providing a service to his neighbors."
"We don't need the state to be our nanny. We don't need the state to look over our shoulder. We don't need the state to tell us what we can and can't eat. We don't need the state to tell us what to teach our children," he said.
During his speech, Hume blamed state law enforcement and agriculture officials for carrying out the raid, arguing that those officers should have defied their orders and refused to seize Miller's products or require him to comply with state regulations. He also said Miller's dilemma is among many facing Amish farmers.
"The ordinary people are the ones who propagate tyranny," he said. "Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, they didn't kill millions of people. You know who killed millions of people? The people who are following their orders and that's what's happening here."
Lancaster County, where the raw-milk fight is unfolding, has long been a Republican stronghold. The county has voted for a Democratic presidential candidate only once since 1880, and that was for Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. Trump carried the county by more than 56 percent of the vote in both 2016 and 2020.
'Identifiable victim' helps incite Republican base
Susanne Schwarz, assistant professor of political science at Swarthmore College in Swarthmore, Pennsylvania, previously told Newsweek that Miller's story has helped give conservatives angry with the federal government an "identifiable victim."
"Miller, an otherwise law-abiding small-business owner from a politically and socially conservative community, is being targeted by government authorities for selling homemade products," Schwarz said. "His story leaves conservative voters wondering, 'If this happened to him, could it happen to me?'—thus reinforcing their notion that government harms rather than serves its constituents."
No comments:
Post a Comment