On Jun 6, 6:11*pm, A Moose in Love > wrote:
> I understand that raw milk has a higher probability of containing
> pathogens than pasteurized milk.
> Can the raw milk not be tested for these pathogens?

The risk is small if the farmer is really diligent, but you have a
chance of getting pretty sick. Raw milk does taste awfully good. The
happy medium is "minimally pasteurized," which is pricey, safe, tastes
almost as good as raw, and is legal to sell everywhere. If I could
buy raw milk, I'd get a small amount for myself, but I wouldn't want
to chance it on my wife or son, though that's pretty silly since I
make medium rare hamburgers for all 3 of us at least 20 times a year.
I know a pretty straight-laced, very churchy young woman who bought
raw milk illegally for several years because she was convinced that it
was healthier for her children. I don't buy that one bit. Raw milk
is about aesthetics. To me, milk is a thrill. I restrict my
consumption because of the sugar in it. Allowing myself more than a
few sips of milk very infrequently would be falling off the wagon in a
big way. If I could find minimally pasteurized half&half, I'd be
willing to pay 3 times what I pay at Aldi or Trader Joe's, but I've
never seen that, even at Whole Foods.
Pasteurization has saved so many people from illness and even death,
and most folks are not discriminating about the taste of foods to the
extent that they'd get much extra pleasure from less cooked milk.
God, some Europeans are even OK with UHT milk, which is about halfway
to as bad as reconstituting evaporated canned milk (ICK!).

--Bryan