Raw milk

I was in Philadelphia this past weekend and I saw some raw milk at the Reading Terminal Market (a large public indoor market in downtown Philadelphia). Having never tried raw milk, but having heard a fair amount of hype about it, I decided to pick some up. They actually had both raw goat and cow milk at that particular booth, but I went with the cow's milk.

I have to say that I was not that impressed. Sure, it was tasty milk, but it was not much better (if at all) than the milk that I drink typically, which is Oberweiss.

Does anyone else have experience with raw milk? Is it even available in Chicago? I know that I haven't seen it here.

By "raw" do mean it wasn't separated, or that it was not pasteurized, or what, exactly?

Raw milk should be unpasteurized milk. There was an article recently in the Chicago Tribune about raw milk in the U.S and another one a few months back about raw milk consumption in Illinois. There are individual state regulations governing the selling and purchase of raw milk. I believe that in Illinois one can only consume raw milk from a cow that one owns. You can do a search on chicagotribune.com or google for more info.

By "raw" do mean it wasn't separated, or that it was not pasteurized, or what, exactly?

The milk I had was neither pasteurized nor homogenized, but I think that the "raw" label is generally reserved for milk that has not been pasteurized

My cousin has an organic farm in Southern Michigan, and last time I was there, I visited a neighbor of hers who had a dairy farm that was 100% Guernsey (Guernsey milk generally has more fat, but most milk comes from Holsteins, who tend to produce more volume). Not sure it was completely legal, but I got several gallons of milk that he'd just gotten from his herd earlier in the day (it was still warm). It made some very nice cheese.

Raw generally means unpasteurized milk.

As my in-laws own dairy cattle, we have had access to raw milk for years. However, we have always purchased milk from the dairy we sold to.

We would not sell the raw milk because those who would pester for the raw milk sales would be the first to hire any attorney if they would get sick from it. FIL wants to keep the farm in the family.

Most of the few remaining dairy farmers we know in Central Ohio share our view and the subject has been discussed at length in milk producer publications.

Raw (unpasteurized) milk sales are illegal in about half the states.

In Illinois, raw milk sales are legal only on farms, and customers must provide their own bottles. Raw cream and raw butter sales are illegal.

That said, some small dairies allow you to purchase raw milk, butter, and cream if you first buy a very small share in the cow, so in essence you're drinking milk from a cow you jointly own. Some raw milk producers make regular drop-offs to health food stores. Orders are placed in advance by phone or e-mail.

Harper's has an excellent article about raw milk in the April issue:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/04/0081992

Contact info for raw milk sellers in IL:

http://www.realmilk.com/where2.html#il

benscanlon wrote:I have to say that I was not that impressed. Sure, it was tasty milk, but it was not much better (if at all) than the milk that I drink typically, which is Oberweiss.

Does anyone else have experience with raw milk? Is it even available in Chicago? I know that I haven't seen it here.

Most people who drink it do so because they believe there are considerable health benefits. You pretty much summed up the taste difference. It is fresher and usually a little better. Although Oberwiess is pretty good milk. Also, the taste can vary quite a bit depending on the cow’s diet.
As for the legality fleurdesel’s post cover’s it.

The texture of raw cream is quite a bit thicker than that of store-bought heavy cream, and it tastes richer. The raw product has the consistency of creme fraiche.

There's a pretty good piece of investigative journalism regarding the regulation and politics of raw milk here. One interesting, but perhaps unsurprising, revelation from the article is that opposition to raw milk (at least in California) comes not just from food safety advocates and regulators, but from "conventional" dairy producers as well.

By taking a practice that they already have in place, or a standard they’ve already managed to meet, and making it mandatory across the board in the name of industry uniformity or public health, established corporations can use their political influence to put their rivals at a competitive disadvantage.

It's worth pointing out that this piece is from a publication put out by a conservative/libertarianish think tank that might be characterized as generally anti-regulation. Any inherent bias aside, however, the piece does raise some interesting questions about the (unholy) alliance between established corporate interests and government regulators in food safety matters that take actions in the name of "consumer protection" that may have the effect of reducing competition and driving smaller players out of the marketplace.

The dairy industry doesn't want raw milk to be legal because people will get sick from it and give the industry a bad name. And I guarantee people will get sick. If you've ever been to a dairy farm and seen cows get milked you know why. Cows are covered in cow manure. It is all over the place in a milking parlor. What happens if a cow "manures" while it's being milked....and suppose one of those automatic milking units falls off the teat or the cow kicks one off? Now you have an open vacuum sucking in manure off the floor right into the bulk tank. That sort of thing happens all the time...on all dairy farms.

I great local source for raw dairy products incl cow, sheep & goat:
http://belleslunchbox.com/

It's $25 for a one year membership. Pick-up once a week in various spots around the Chicago area. I've had the milk, it's fabulous. Nothing like drinking the pasteurized, homogenized supermarket stuff.

Judy

Having worked on a dairy farm in my youth, I agree whole heartly with teatpuller. Barns are not very hygienic by their very nature. Even an organic farm's barn still contains cow poop.

Did anyone else notice that every person that has posted, that is/was involved in someway with milk gathering has not recommended drinking raw milk? I wonder why.

jimmya wrote:Having worked on a dairy farm in my youth, I agree whole heartly with teatpuller. Barns are not very hygienic by their very nature. Even an organic farm's barn still contains cow poop.

Did anyone else notice that every person that has posted, that is/was involved in someway with milk gathering has not recommended drinking raw milk? I wonder why.

Couple of points.

I used to milk a herd at least twice a month to give the FIL an extra day off every month. No matter how clean you operate (including using a beta-dyne type teat wipe using a disposable cloth), the cows let loose whenever they want to.

Louis Pasteur was considered to be a great mind of science for his discovery of bad microbes in milk many years ago. The process of pasteurization eliminated a lot of the food borne illnesses that plagued our ancestors. What has changed in modern times that makes pasteurization unnecessary?

Sales of raw milk to consumers is illegal in the state of Ohio (among other states) after the Young's Dairy incident in Yellow Springs. My FIL, who has since quit milking since the death of his partner, made the decision early on that they would not sell any milk directly to consumers (even before the law changed). His theory was that anyone who became ill as a result of the milk would drag him into court. And that is generally what happens.

By the way, if you have a kid who wants to become a major league pitcher, send him to milk cows manually. You will develop muscles in your hands, arms and wrists that you never knew you had.

jlawrence01 wrote: What has changed in modern times that makes pasteurization unnecessary?

I don't know whether pasteurization is - on the whole - good, bad, or neither. However, much relevant scientific understanding has indeed changed since Pasteur's days. Scientists used to believe that the human body was basically a sterile environment, and that we get sick when germs attack that sterile system. Now, most scientists instead believe that the human body is constantly living in a symbiotic state with potentially harmful germs balanced by germs that fight them. Raw milk proponents believe that milk operates basically along that same paradigm. Yes, there are the nasty germs that result from contact with feces, but the harmful property of those germs is neutralized by naturally occurring germs in the milk. All of these germs basically get destroyed in the pasteurization process.

(note, above parapgraph written by a potentially ignorant liberal arts major who, while he got solid A-minuses in high school biology, dropped those too-hard classes in deference to philosophizing, drinking, and generally sleepwalking through post-secondary education)

Kennyz wrote:

jlawrence01 wrote: What has changed in modern times that makes pasteurization unnecessary?

I don't know whether pasteurization is - on the whole - good, bad, or neither. However, much relevant scientific understanding has indeed changed since Pasteur's days. Scientists used to believe that the human body was basically a sterile environment, and that we get sick when germs attack that sterile system. Now, most scientists instead believe that the human body is constantly living in a symbiotic state with potentially harmful germs balanced by germs that fight them. Raw milk proponents believe that milk operates basically along that same paradigm. Yes, there are the nasty germs that result from contact with feces, but the harmful property of those germs is neutralized by naturally occurring germs in the milk. All of these germs basically get destroyed in the pasteurization process.

(note, above parapgraph written by a potentially ignorant liberal arts major who, while he got solid A-minuses in high school biology, dropped those too-hard classes in deference to philosophizing, drinking, and generally sleepwalking through post-secondary education)

Raw milk proponents don't know what they are talking about. They are taking essentially a religious view of microbiology and are hoping it is true.

This idea of "balance" comes straight from the goofy New Age religious point of view where there is no good and evil, just different sides of the same coin. Our bodies are filled with a vast, poorly understood flora of microorganisms. They do many things for us. But the "good" bugs do not balance the "bad" bugs.

Bottom line: No animal (including humans) should eat any food that has the waste product of another animal in it. It is very hard to keep the waste from a cow out of the milk it produces. Milk, when expressed, does not have the products of the gut of a cow in it. It is reckless in the extreme not to take a simple precaution (Pastuerization) to prevent sickness from the contamination of gut bacteria.

On a philosophical note, science and the scientific method is one of the few things that makes modern life possible. Almost all of us would not be here, typing on computers and living in houses with indoor plumbing without it. Most people do not understand it and quite frankly fear science. Science is by definition not perfect and imperfectible - but we try and sometimes we get it right. Pasteurization is one of the all-time greatest examples of science getting something right. To see what we know in the food safety (or any other field) thrown away for unproven and unproveable benefits because of quasi-religious belief makes me dismayed, and if I may, a little angry.

AngrySarah wrote:
This idea of "balance" comes straight from the goofy New Age religious point of view where there is no good and evil, just different sides of the same coin.

Perhaps instead of "balance" I should have used "equilibrium" or "homeostasis," both core tenets of modern science - having nothing to do with the religion. The roots of "homeostasis" mean, approximately, "staying the same." What that means is that in many cases, even when you add and subtract things from the body, other processes counteract those things to make the net effect virtually zero. For example, exposing the body to extreme heat does not raise the body's temperature to extremes, because other processes like sweating counteract it. Insulin regulation works the same way in keeping blood sugar within relatively narrow ranges even when sugar intake rises and falls dramatically. Similarly, raw milk proponents might tell you that when you add cow dung to milk, there are naturally occurring substances and processes in the milk itself that keep harmful microbes in acceptable ranges. Right or wrong, this is not a religious argument.

AngrySarah wrote:To see what we know in the food safety (or any other field) thrown away ... makes me dismayed, and if I may, a little angry

I don't think I've seen any suggestion to throw away the science, but I think you'll agree that even the best of science should continue to get tested and questioned over time. At one point scientists "knew" that the world was flat and that trans fats were the answer to all our health problems.

Dearest KennyZ, we have to agree to disagree. There is no evidence that there are special anti-microbial elements present in raw milk that are not present in safe milk. And how does heating milk destroy these magical properties of raw milk? That is unsaid by raw milk promoters since those special powers don't exist.

AngrySarah wrote:To see what we know in the food safety (or any other field) thrown away ... makes me dismayed, and if I may, a little angry

I don't think I've seen any suggestion to throw away the science, but I think you'll agree that even the best of science should continue to get tested and questioned over time. At one point scientists "knew" that the world was flat and that trans fats were the answer to all our health problems.[/quote]

At no time did I say the science in this field, or any other, should not be tested and questioned. It is the very essence of science to be tested repeatedly forever. However, in light of everythig we know now, it is still crazy to drink milk you know could have poo in it without taking simple precautions.

jimmya wrote:Did anyone else notice that every person that has posted, that is/was involved in someway with milk gathering has not recommended drinking raw milk? I wonder why.

Allow me to be the first to break that trend. I milk my own animals and drink the milk raw. Proponents of raw milk don't know what they're talking about?? They taking a religious view? AngrySarah..could you possibly paint with a broader brush??

I’d bet the average raw milk drinker has done more research then John Q Public walking into Jewel and placing his “faith” in the FDA. Speaking of “safe” milk, it can make you sick as well….and remember, Jesus loves you.

The romance of raw milk from The Kansas City Star.

As a college students in Iowa, my friends and I bought raw milk from a local dairy farmer. The process involved supplying our own containers and leaving money in a coffee can. We enjoyed this milk until one roommate insisted we stop buying it because, I kid you not, she said "It tastes too much like cow."

Haven't drunk it since.