The Raw Milk Controversy

The raw milk controversy has been raging on for more than 100 years. The reason that this has occurred is that some people feel that the health benefits of drinking raw mild outweigh the health risks. On the other hand, others believe that there are no health benefits to drinking raw milk or any of the health benefits are not worth the health risks. This debate shows no sign of easing up anytime soon.

Anecdotes and testimonials regarding the health benefits of raw milk are all over the Internet. The supporters of raw milk claim that pasteurization kills vital nutrients, enzymes and beneficial bacteria that can help ills ranging from asthma and allergies to serious diseases.

There has been quite a bit of research done on the subject over the years.

Here is some information from “Jane Says”:

1. Nutritive Content - If you compare the nutritional components of pasteurized whole milk and raw milk from grass-fed cows, you’ll see that there are no major differences for nutrients such as protein (1 cup provides about 8 grams), carbohydrates (13 grams), and most vitamins and minerals—including B1 (thiamine), B2 (riboflavin), B12, calcium, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc. Yes, vitamin C is virtually destroyed by the heat of pasteurization, but the amount in raw milk is negligible (5 milligrams per cup) when compared with that in fruits (strawberries: 86.5 milligrams per cup) and vegetables (red bell pepper, chopped: 190.3 milligrams per cup) and can be easily compensated for in a varied, balanced diet.

2. Enzymes - As I wrote in a 2013 column on raw food, all living organisms contain thousands of different enzymes, and each one triggers a specific—and species-specific— biochemical reaction. Central to raw-foodism [and raw-milkism] is the fervent belief that the enzymes in raw food carry a “life force” that leads to increased vitality and other health benefits. However, the enzymes present in raw milk are there to aid the digestive systems of newborn calves. We humans have our own digestive enzymes, about 22 of them. The only people who can put those bovine enzymes to good use are cheese makers.

3. Lactose Intolerance - “The lactose-intolerant argument has been bolstered by the fact that both laypeople and many doctors often chalk up any milk-related digestive trouble to lactose intolerance without conducting specific diagnostic tests,” wrote Anne Mendelson, culinary historian and author of Milk, in the Spring 2011 issue of Gastronomica: The Journal of Critical Food Studies. “Lactose [a milk sugar] cannot be the culprit in all such cases, because raw milk contains as much lactose as pasteurized. Nor, as some believers claim, does raw milk have enough lactase [an enzyme] to break down lactose. Lactase does not occur in milk; it is secreted in the small intestine of all baby mammals.” For more about lactose intolerance and what an evolutionary biologist has to say about it, check out this column from March 2013.

You may also be interested in the results of a small, randomized, double-blind Stanford University study, published this spring in the Annals of Family Medicine and funded in part by the Weston A. Price Foundation, a huge advocate for raw milk through its Real Milk campaign.

“It’s not that there was a trend toward a benefit from raw milk and our study wasn’t big enough to capture it; it’s that there was no hint of any benefit,” said nutrition expert Christopher Gardner, Ph.D., professor of medicine at the Stanford Prevention Research Center and senior author of the study. I’m quoting a Stanford release here, as I can’t find anything about the study on the WAPF website. “When claims about ‘all-natural’ foods are merely anecdotal, it works against the food movement and undermines nutrition science,” Gardner added. “Let’s get to the part that’s real and do away with myths and anecdotes.”

4. Beneficial Bacteria (Probiotics) - The term probiotic in reference to “good” bacteria, such as lactobacillus and bifidobacteria, was first coined in the 1960s, and research in the area has progressed considerably in the last 20 years, according to the World Health Organization. In a 2001 report on the health and nutritional properties of probiotics in food, WHO defined probiotics as “live microorganisms which, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host.” And M.E. Sanders, a leading expert in the field, wrote in an article for Clinical Infectious Disease Journal that “the term probiotic should only be used for products that meet the scientific criteria for this term.” She goes on to propose that “probiotics must be identified to the level of strain, must be characterized for the specific health target, and must be formulated into products using strains and doses shown to be efficacious.”

“Randomized double-blind studies have provided evidence of probiotic effectiveness for the treatment and prevention of acute diarrhea and antibiotic-induced diarrhea, as well as for the prevention of cow milk–induced food allergy in infants and young children,” according to the overview in that journal. Furthermore, “research studies have also provided evidence of effectiveness for the prevention of traveler’s diarrhea, relapsing Clostridium difficile–induced colitis, and urinary tract infections. There are also studies indicating that probiotics may be useful for prevention of respiratory infections in children, dental caries, irritable bowel syndrome, and inflammatory bowel disease.”

That all sounds very exciting, but raw milk, as yet, doesn’t fit the probiotics definition. I reached out to Sanders for clarification. “Probiotics are not the same as live microbes,” she wrote back in an email. “Being a live microbe is necessary, but not sufficient, to meet the definition of a probiotic. The microbe must also have been studied and shown to confer a health benefit. The microbes that contaminate raw milk may be alive, but until they are isolated, identified, and studied for specific health benefits, they do not fall under the probiotic ‘umbrella.’ ”

5. Asthma and Other Allergic Conditions - Children who drink raw milk seem to suffer less from asthma and allergies. “In Europe, the consumption of unpasteurized milk has repeatedly correlated with protection against allergic disease,” wrote Moises Velasquez-Manoff, in the New York Times last year. In the United States, 80% of the Amish studied by allergist Mark Holbreich, who Velasquez-Manoff spoke with for his story, consume “farm” milk. As a population, they have very low rates of allergies, but it’s not clear whether it or another farm factor, such as being around livestock, is the key to the reduced instances. This “hygiene hypothesis” is well-known and the subject of studies such as one published in Clinical & Experimental Allergy in 2000 and another published in Lancet in 2001.

A helpful 2008 review of peer-reviewed published studies by attorney Bill Marler, who specializes in food poisoning cases, also mentions the much larger Parsifal study of almost 15,000 children in five European countries. A major flaw in that substantial bit of research is that raw milk was not distinguished from farm milk that had been boiled. (Can we pause for a collective whaaat?) The researchers concluded that drinking farm milk is associated with a reduced risk of asthma and rhinoconjunctivitis during childhood. The same association was observed both on and off the farm, suggesting that the milk, not living around livestock, plays a key role, but the study doesn’t offer a full-throated endorsement.

“A deepened understanding of the relevant ‘protective’ components of farm milk and a better insight into the biological mechanisms underlying the reported epidemiological observation are warranted as a basis for the development of a safe product for prevention,” the researchers wrote. “At this stage, consumption of raw farm milk cannot be recommended as a preventive measure.”

6. Last but Not Least: What About Flavor? - People tend to be particular about milk. They like what they like. Some only buy the kind in glass bottles. One friend of mine only buys it in aseptic containers because the taste reminds her of the time she lived in Europe. People who grew up on commercial skim milk often find the cream at the top of non-homogenized whole milk revolting. Everyone pretty much agrees, though, that raw milk fresh from the farm tastes different from what’s in his or her refrigerator, it has a wonderfully clean yet creamy mouth feel.

Read More