Not sure on the raw milk, but you're right that it does sound romantic to enjoy the untainted fruit of the land (fruit of the cow doesn't have the same ring to it lol) But that drawing is gorgeous!
Weeeell, I would attribute a whole lot of factors to the human population explosion, but pasteurization of mass produced milk would be one of them, yes. :)
Gotta say I agree with Commenter #3 - as a med student, there are just too many things that could go wrong (Salmonella, E.coli) to make it worth it, since the benefits are anecdotal and not study-based. Salmonella's particularly bad to mess around with, considering the incidence of full organ-system failure - and even with insurance, those kinds of bills tend to top life-time limits. I'm fairly certain there are less risky alternative-medicine ways to try to curb your health problems, if that's what you're looking for.
Even if raw milk does me some good I'm not looking for a cure-all, so yeah I'm aware of that. The reason I was interested is I'm vegetarian (12 years) and I'd been thinking about taking up meat again to supplement my diet. The person I talked to at APE is also vegetarian so the whole thing is sort of in-line with what I've been debating anyway.
From what I gather, both sides of the argument have valid points, and I'm definitely not for depastuerization on a wide scale. But I think a lot of the problems come from the mass production of milk and the subsequent poor sanitation and shoddy cow treatment. I don't think you can ever be 100% sure the milk won't hurt you, but maybe the reason it's a good alternative now is because only small, closely watched, companies can produce it?
Hmmm... I'd say you're right in thinking the smaller dairies have better practices than the major milking "factories," but since the infectious dose of E.coli especially, but also Staph aureus is so small, it'd be very difficult to avoid contaminating the milk even if you were a very careful farmer. I guess it just seems to me that raw milk isn't worth the risk (particularly if you're lacking insurance) even if the risk is smaller than if you were buying from a large maker of raw milk, not the small one you're planning to buy from, and even if there aren't that many cases of raw-milk-borne illnesses per year. The consequences are pretty drastic, even if the chances of reaching them are small
( ... )
Comments 28
Reply
But that drawing is gorgeous!
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
(The comment has been removed)
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
From what I gather, both sides of the argument have valid points, and I'm definitely not for depastuerization on a wide scale. But I think a lot of the problems come from the mass production of milk and the subsequent poor sanitation and shoddy cow treatment. I don't think you can ever be 100% sure the milk won't hurt you, but maybe the reason it's a good alternative now is because only small, closely watched, companies can produce it?
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment