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?

On Jun 6, 4:11*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?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Can+you+test+ra...r+pathogens%3F

On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 16:11:11 -0700 (PDT), 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?

Sure it can. For a lot of $$. Each batch!

Or you can test a pasteurization system for effective pathogenocide
for a relatively smaller amount of $$ and just run each batch of raw
milk through it and be reasonably sure of pathogen-free milk!

How much $$ do you want to spend per gallon of milk?

John Kuthe...

On Wednesday, June 6, 2012 5:11:11 PM UTC-6, 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?

In answer to your heading:

Only for those who drink it.
==

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

On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 16:11:11 -0700 (PDT), 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?

Good info here
http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com/raw-milk-hot-topics

Personally, I dislike milk so I don't drink it raw or cooked. Yet I
love most dairy products, especially a good cheese or ice cream.

Sources in the US are listed here
http://www.realmilk.com/

On Jun 6, 5:40*pm, Roy > wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 6, 2012 5:11:11 PM UTC-6, 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?
>
> In answer to your heading:
>
> Only for those who drink it.
> ==

+1 -ick, unless you are a calf.

On Jun 6, 10:59*pm, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 16:11:11 -0700 (PDT), 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?
>
> Good info herehttp://www.realrawmilkfacts.com/raw-milk-hot-topics
>

The above link makes the case for pasteurization.
The reason I asked about raw milk is that we drank it every day when
we had the farm. No illnesses reported. But then the above link also
mentions that farmers might become immune to pathogens contained in
the raw milk.

> Personally, I dislike milk so I don't drink it raw or cooked. *Yet I
> love most dairy products, especially a good cheese or ice cream.
>
> Sources in the US are listed herehttp://www.realmilk.com/

"A Moose in Love" > wrote in message
...
>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?

All depends on how it is stored. It's not the miit is the vessel. More
people get sick from pasteurized milk every year.

Paul

On 6/7/2012 9:23 AM, Andy wrote:
> A Moose in > wrote:
>
>> The above link makes the case for pasteurization.
>> The reason I asked about raw milk is that we drank it every day when
>> we had the farm. No illnesses reported. But then the above link also
>> mentions that farmers might become immune to pathogens contained in
>> the raw milk.
>
>
>
> We summer vacationed on an organic farm/resort. We all did farm chores.
>
> The farm raised free range cows. The farmer used a milking machine.
> Whether it pasturized the milk during the process? I don't know. My job
> was carting the milk jugs to the main house kitchen.
>
> It was served at breakfast at the appointed hour.
>
> Maybe it wasn't raw but it was the freshest and richest milk I ever had.
>
> None of the guests ever got sick in all the years.
>
> Andy

Free range, organic or not, are the cows regularly tested for
tuberculosis? If not, I'd leave the milk alone.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

On 6/7/2012 8:47 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "A Moose in > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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?
>
> All depends on how it is stored. It's not the miit is the vessel. More
> people get sick from pasteurized milk every year.

And the vessel includes the cow it came from, specifically, its teats.
We've had raw milk producers here caught running unsanitary
operations, including filthy barns and failure to adequately clean
their cows' udders and teats before milking. In those cases, it isn't
just the milk that is a potential hazard, it's the farmer's lack of
care for his cows' and customers' well-being that also puts them at risk.

Folks who think food was better or safer or more nutritious back in
the good old days *really* need to read some historical and medical
texts. Our regulatory practices didn't come from nowhere; they arose
to deal with widespread, dangerous issues related to food production
and supply.

One of the nation's most influential proponents of milk pasteurization
was Dr. Charles Mayo, of the famous Mayo brothers. The Mayo clinic
dealt with so _many_ cases of people afflicted with tuberculosis from
infected milk that Dr. Charlie built his own dairy on his own property
to research and propose sanitary handling practices for the public's
safety. He did an awful lot of lobbying to promote passage of the
pasteurization laws because of the toll raw milk consumption took on
so many families.

My family was one of them. One of my aunts and her father both died
from milk-transmitted tuberculosis. My aunt was not quite three years
old at the time. My grandmother never got over losing her youngest
child and her daughter from it.

TB in cows is making a comeback, by the way. It's not surprising,
because it is increasing in the human population, too, and cows are
cared for by humans. Strains of TB resistant to antibiotics are
becoming more prevalent, too. The odds are quite good that TB is once
again going to become a major health issue, and it won't be confined
to humans. Considering the reality of antibiotic resistant TB strains,
I wouldn't be confident in the safety of raw milk now or in the future.

"Hell Toupee" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/7/2012 8:47 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> "A Moose in > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> 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?
>>
>> All depends on how it is stored. It's not the miit is the vessel. More
>> people get sick from pasteurized milk every year.
>
> And the vessel includes the cow it came from, specifically, its teats.

Humans have consumed raw milk for a long time. Keep the teet clean and you
don't have problems.

> We've had raw milk producers here caught running unsanitary operations,
> including filthy barns and failure to adequately clean their cows' udders
> and teats before milking. In those cases, it isn't just the milk that is a
> potential hazard, it's the farmer's lack of care for his cows' and
> customers' well-being that also puts them at risk.

It's not the milk, it's the human practices.

> Folks who think food was better or safer or more nutritious back in the
> good old days *really* need to read some historical and medical texts. Our
> regulatory practices didn't come from nowhere; they arose to deal with
> widespread, dangerous issues related to food production and supply.

In Wisconsin they have a special enforcement unit that tracks down people
who prduce and consume raw milk.

> One of the nation's most influential proponents of milk pasteurization was
> Dr. Charles Mayo, of the famous Mayo brothers. The Mayo clinic dealt with
> so _many_ cases of people afflicted with tuberculosis from infected milk
> that Dr. Charlie built his own dairy on his own property to research and
> propose sanitary handling practices for the public's safety. He did an
> awful lot of lobbying to promote passage of the pasteurization laws
> because of the toll raw milk consumption took on so many families.

Back in those days they barely knew what a bacteria was, how to isolate it
and how to prevent it from growing. I drank raw milk every day from age I
dunno up til about 8. So did the whole town.

> My family was one of them. One of my aunts and her father both died from
> milk-transmitted tuberculosis. My aunt was not quite three years old at
> the time. My grandmother never got over losing her youngest child and her
> daughter from it.

Zoonosis is highly debated today. Many scientists are unconvinced you can
get TB from cows. Besides, we can test cows for TB so we know they are safe
to produce milk. This isn't 1880 ya know. Back in the day you describe
people also died from cholera, polio, plague and a dozen other deadly
diseases. Not to mention trichinosis which is all but unheard of today. We
can safely produce and consume raw milk today.

> TB in cows is making a comeback, by the way. It's not surprising, because
> it is increasing in the human population, too, and cows are cared for by
> humans. Strains of TB resistant to antibiotics are becoming more
> prevalent, too. The odds are quite good that TB is once again going to
> become a major health issue, and it won't be confined to humans.
> Considering the reality of antibiotic resistant TB strains, I wouldn't be
> confident in the safety of raw milk now or in the future.

Organic cows are the way to go.

Paul

On 6/7/2012 11:04 AM, Andy wrote:
> James > wrote:
>
>> On 6/7/2012 9:23 AM, Andy wrote:
>>> A Moose in > wrote:
>>>
>>>> The above link makes the case for pasteurization.
>>>> The reason I asked about raw milk is that we drank it every day when
>>>> we had the farm. No illnesses reported. But then the above link
> also
>>>> mentions that farmers might become immune to pathogens contained in
>>>> the raw milk.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We summer vacationed on an organic farm/resort. We all did farm
> chores.
>>>
>>> The farm raised free range cows. The farmer used a milking machine.
>>> Whether it pasturized the milk during the process? I don't know. My
> job
>>> was carting the milk jugs to the main house kitchen.
>>>
>>> It was served at breakfast at the appointed hour.
>>>
>>> Maybe it wasn't raw but it was the freshest and richest milk I ever
> had.
>>>
>>> None of the guests ever got sick in all the years.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>
>> Free range, organic or not, are the cows regularly tested for
>> tuberculosis? If not, I'd leave the milk alone.
>
>
> Jim,
>
> I don't know. As a kid I wasn't privy to that info.
>
> Maybe they were tested outside of the vacation months. (July, August)
>
> I drank it from toddler to about 10-years-old when the farm went out of
> business, after which I was shipped off to YMCA summer camps to eat pig-
> slop mac'n'cheese and drink "bug juice" and eat candy
>
> These days I would pass on raw milk!
>
> Andy

I'm willing to believe that raw milk might taste different from (and
better than) pasteurized but one is bombarded with singular instances:
"Did me no harm" or "Grandpa smoked a pipe several times a day 'til he
died at 101"

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

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?

Why take chances with your health? Diseases that can be transmitted
to humans through unpasteurized cow's milk are varied and unpleasant.
What's wrong with pasteurizing?

N.

On Jun 7, 7:15*am, A Moose in Love > wrote:
> On Jun 6, 10:59*pm, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 16:11:11 -0700 (PDT), 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?
>
> > Good info herehttp://www.realrawmilkfacts.com/raw-milk-hot-topics
>
> The above link makes the case for pasteurization.
> The reason I asked about raw milk is that we drank it every day when
> we had the farm. *No illnesses reported. *But then the above link also
> mentions that farmers might become immune to pathogens contained in
> the raw milk.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Personally, I dislike milk so I don't drink it raw or cooked. *Yet I
> > love most dairy products, especially a good cheese or ice cream.
>
> > Sources in the US are listed herehttp://www.realmilk.com/

We drank our own cows' milk when I was a young'un in the 40s - and my
parents pasteurized it. Even though the cows weren't ever sick, it's
pretty foolish to drink raw milk, IMO. Too much risk for little
reward, if any.

N.

On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 18:21:28 -0700 (PDT), Bryan
> wrote:

>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
....

Where do you get your "minimally pasteurized" milk? I Googled it and
it seems very rarely available.

John Kuthe...

>
> Humans have consumed raw milk for a long time. *Keep the teet clean and you
> don't have problems.

Just like with eggs and salmonella, not all the risk is in the
cleanliness of the teat.

N.

On 2012-06-07, Nancy2 > wrote:

> We drank our own cows' milk when I was a young'un in the 40s

I'm sure yer cows were not subjected to Monsanto's horrific chemical
cocktail, as are 98% of todays milk cows. I no longer even drink
milk.

nb

--
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
<http://www.labelgmos.org/>

On 6/7/2012 10:02 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "Hell > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 6/7/2012 8:47 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>> "A Moose in > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> All depends on how it is stored. It's not the miit is the vessel. More
>>> people get sick from pasteurized milk every year.
>>
>> And the vessel includes the cow it came from, specifically, its teats.
>
> Humans have consumed raw milk for a long time. Keep the teet clean and you
> don't have problems.

Humans have suffered from tuberculosis and other diseases for
millenia, too. Same as parasitic infections from meat consumption. You
seem to buy into the delusion that nature is by default pure and it is
human practices that are the problem. That simply isn't true. Of
course, if you want to pretend that unsafe practices are safe simply
because they're traditional, you're got to delude yourself.


>
>> We've had raw milk producers here caught running unsanitary operations,
>> including filthy barns and failure to adequately clean their cows' udders
>> and teats before milking. In those cases, it isn't just the milk that is a
>> potential hazard, it's the farmer's lack of care for his cows' and
>> customers' well-being that also puts them at risk.
>
> It's not the milk, it's the human practices.

It's both, Mr. Delusion.

>
>> Folks who think food was better or safer or more nutritious back in the
>> good old days *really* need to read some historical and medical texts. Our
>> regulatory practices didn't come from nowhere; they arose to deal with
>> widespread, dangerous issues related to food production and supply.
>
> In Wisconsin they have a special enforcement unit that tracks down people
> who prduce and consume raw milk.
>
>> One of the nation's most influential proponents of milk pasteurization was
>> Dr. Charles Mayo, of the famous Mayo brothers. The Mayo clinic dealt with
>> so _many_ cases of people afflicted with tuberculosis from infected milk
>> that Dr. Charlie built his own dairy on his own property to research and
>> propose sanitary handling practices for the public's safety. He did an
>> awful lot of lobbying to promote passage of the pasteurization laws
>> because of the toll raw milk consumption took on so many families.
>
> Back in those days they barely knew what a bacteria was, how to isolate it
> and how to prevent it from growing.

You really are ignorant, aren't you? The Mayos were around long after
germ theory came about. They were medical pioneers of the *twentieth*
century, doofus. The whole point of Dr. Mayo's dairy herding was to
prove to the farmers and the legislators (often the same individuals)
that, contrary to claims, sanitary farming and milk processing
practices would improve public safety at a negligible expense.

I drank raw milk every day from age I
> dunno up til about 8. So did the whole town.

So did my grandmother's family. She lost her husband and her youngest
daughter. She was by far not the only one. TB was one of the most
common causes of illness and deaths prior to the imposition of dairy
regulations (including pasteurization) and vaccinations of both cows
and humans.

>
> Zoonosis is highly debated today.

Only by kooks and cranks, not by science.

Many scientists are unconvinced you can
> get TB from cows.

Okay, you have proved yourself an ignorant kook. Transmission of TB
between cows and humans was known a hundred years ago, kook.
Contemporary cases still arise and are reported.


Besides, we can test cows for TB so we know they are safe
> to produce milk.This isn't 1880 ya know.

It wasn't then, either. It was the twentieth century. Nineteen-teens
and twenties, matter of fact. It took that long for regulatory laws to
be passed and the milk supply to be made safe.

Back in the day you describe
> people also died from cholera, polio, plague and a dozen other deadly
> diseases. Not to mention trichinosis which is all but unheard of today. We
> can safely produce and consume raw milk today.

Raw milk producers have proven they can't. They've proven it's about
ideology, not safety. They don't care about safe practices, they don't
care about consequences. That's why they get caught, cited, and
continue their unsafe ways.

BTW, trichinosis is all but unheard in *pork*, thanks to pork having
the toughest regulatory inspection process _because_ of its historical
tendency to be infected. Again, it's not that trichinosis was
uncommon. It's that modern science and regulation made trichinosis
uncommon in our food supply.

> Organic cows are the way to go.

No, Mr. Deluded. As I told you, Nature is not naturally pure, safe, or
clean. Organic anything can be inherently dangerous or containing
hazards even without human intervention. In fact, human intervention
can make it safer.

On 6/7/2012 11:01 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
> On Jun 6, 6:11 pm, A Moose in > 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?
>
> Why take chances with your health? Diseases that can be transmitted
> to humans through unpasteurized cow's milk are varied and unpleasant.
> What's wrong with pasteurizing?

You've probably noticed how some people develop dietary-centered
belief systems that are very similar to religion, treating food as if
it is holy and fetishizing/demonizing aspects of it accordingly. With
that mindset, it's commonplace to find them believing that food is
best in its natural state (whatever that is) and anything that alters
food is bad. Hence the ranting about pasteurization, cooking, and
just about anything to do with its raising and consumption.

In article >,
says...
>
> On 2012-06-07, Nancy2 > wrote:
>
> > We drank our own cows' milk when I was a young'un in the 40s
>
> I'm sure yer cows were not subjected to Monsanto's horrific chemical
> cocktail, as are 98% of todays milk cows.

What Monsanto chemical cocktail are you referring to?

Janet

On Jun 7, 12:01*pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 18:21:28 -0700 (PDT), Bryan wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Minimally pasteurized? *Is that like "almost pregnant"?
>

This sounds to me like "flash pasteurization" of beer:

When I first took the Anchor Steam tour, almost 30 years ago, they
made a point of pasteurizing all their beer, even the beer going in
kegs. But while industrial breweries set their bottles and cans on a
belt going through a furnace, Anchor "flash pasteurized" their beer in
a heat-jacketed tube on the way to the filler. The beer bottles were
all new and sterile.

Anchor's argument was that flash pasteurization was effective (killed
any microbes) while having minimal effect on the beer (Not much heat
is required to bring the small cross-section of the flow high enough,
long enough to pasteurize.)

"Hell Toupee" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/7/2012 10:02 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> "Hell > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 6/7/2012 8:47 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>> "A Moose in > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>> All depends on how it is stored. It's not the miit is the vessel.
>>>> More
>>>> people get sick from pasteurized milk every year.
>>>
>>> And the vessel includes the cow it came from, specifically, its teats.
>>
>> Humans have consumed raw milk for a long time. Keep the teet clean and
>> you
>> don't have problems.
>
> Humans have suffered from tuberculosis and other diseases for millenia,
> too. Same as parasitic infections from meat consumption. You seem to buy
> into the delusion that nature is by default pure and it is human practices
> that are the problem. That simply isn't true. Of course, if you want to
> pretend that unsafe practices are safe simply because they're traditional,
> you're got to delude yourself.


Another hyper paranoid asshole with his panties in a twist over milk this
time. I look at the calendar. Yep, same shit different day. Excuse me, I
have to go to the doctor. Seems I picked up a case of bubonic plague eating
steak tartar. It happens.

Paul

On 2012-06-07, Janet > wrote:

> What Monsanto chemical cocktail are you referring to?

What rock have you been living under?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin

nb

--
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
<http://www.labelgmos.org/>

On Jun 6, 7:11*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?

At one time, a dairy farmer told me the herd had to undergo some kind
of certification to sell raw milk which was costly and not worth the
effort.

I DO recall drinking some when that farmer's dtr had us over and it
was wonderful. Don't now if it was from a certified cow, but I lived
to tell the tale.

"Nancy2" > wrote in message
...
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?

Why take chances with your health? Diseases that can be transmitted
to humans through unpasteurized cow's milk are varied and unpleasant.
What's wrong with pasteurizing?


Well it has been known to create hyper paranoid, egotistical *******s with
delusions of superiority who are prone to ridiculous appeals to authority
because a relative kicked off allegedly from drinking milk. There is that.
Lots of people died from TB back then. I had a great aunt die of cholera in
NY back in 1890. That doesn't make me an expert of communicable diseases,
doctor.

This is gonn a **** youi off:

Raw organic milk from a certified dairy is about as safe a food as you will
find. There, I said it!! Flame on!

Paul

On Jun 7, 11:28*am, notbob > wrote:
> On 2012-06-07, Nancy2 > wrote:
>
> > We drank our own cows' milk when I was a young'un in the 40s
>
> I'm sure yer cows were not subjected to Monsanto's horrific chemical
> cocktail, as are 98% of todays milk cows. *I no longer even drink
> milk.
>
> nb
>
> --
> vi --the heart of evil!
> Support labeling GMOs
> <http://www.labelgmos.org/>

It's very easy to find hormone-free pasteurized milk around here.

N.

On Jun 7, 12:16*pm, Hell Toupee > wrote:
> On 6/7/2012 11:01 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
>
> > On Jun 6, 6:11 pm, A Moose in > *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?
>
> > Why take chances with your health? *Diseases that can be transmitted
> > to humans through unpasteurized cow's milk are varied and unpleasant.
> > What's wrong with pasteurizing?
>
> You've probably noticed how some people develop dietary-centered
> belief systems that are very similar to religion, treating food as if
> it is holy and fetishizing/demonizing aspects of it accordingly. With
> that mindset, it's commonplace to find them believing that food is
> best in its natural state (whatever that is) and anything that alters
> food is bad. *Hence the ranting about pasteurization, cooking, and
> just about anything to do with its raising and consumption.

Yes, I know, it's sad. Just like "organic" and "free range" - both
often open to a specific department's interpretation.

N.

On Jun 7, 3:27*pm, Kalmia > wrote:
> On Jun 6, 7:11*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?
>
> At one time, a dairy farmer told me the herd had to undergo some kind
> of certification to sell raw milk which was costly and not worth the
> effort.
>
> I DO recall drinking some when that farmer's dtr had us over and it
> was wonderful. *Don't now if it was from a certified cow, but I lived
> to tell the tale.

I don't think it's quite legal in some states in the US to sell raw
milk.

N.

In article >,
says...
>
> On 2012-06-07, Janet > wrote:
>
> > What Monsanto chemical cocktail are you referring to?
>
> What rock have you been living under?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin
>
> nb

The rock called Europe, where bovine-somatotropin is banned.
Same in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Israel....

Janet.

On 2012-06-07, Janet > wrote:

> Same in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Israel....

Yeah, I can read, too.

Monsanto. Coming to a country near you.

nb

--
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
<http://www.labelgmos.org/>

"Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>
> Raw organic milk from a certified dairy is about as safe a food as you will
> find. There, I said it!! Flame on!
>
> Paul

I'm with you, Paul.

Too many people take all this organic, all natural, free range, going green
crap beyond the limits of normal common sense. All these ppl today should
start a new hippie commune and live off the land. Meanwhile, food producers
will take advantage of this and reap mega dollars by charging so much more
for the "natural" foods.

All people did that many years ago (without the new science) and the average
life span was 50 if you were lucky.

Gary

Nancy2 wrote:
>
> I don't think it's quite legal in some states in the US to sell raw
> milk.
>
> N.

heheh Neither is "moonshine" but my state of Virginia produces and sells
quite a bit.

On 06/06/2012 7:11 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?

I don't know why that should be hard to believe. Pasteurization is a
process that is used to destroy naturally occurring pathogens in milk.
It was first used to kill harmful pathogens like Campylobacter jejuni,
E. coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes, and Salmonella.Pasteurization
is effective in destroying the bacteria in milk that cause tuberculosis,
salmonellosis, diphtheria, typhoid fever, and other illnesses without
adversely affecting the milk's nutritional content, flavor or quality.

http://www.ext.colostate.edu/safefoo.../v10n2s04.html

On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 12:18:48 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
> wrote:

>On Jun 7, 12:01*pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 18:21:28 -0700 (PDT), Bryan wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> Minimally pasteurized? *Is that like "almost pregnant"?
>>
>
>This sounds to me like "flash pasteurization" of beer:
>
>When I first took the Anchor Steam tour, almost 30 years ago, they
>made a point of pasteurizing all their beer, even the beer going in
>kegs. But while industrial breweries set their bottles and cans on a
>belt going through a furnace, Anchor "flash pasteurized" their beer in
>a heat-jacketed tube on the way to the filler. The beer bottles were
>all new and sterile.
>
>Anchor's argument was that flash pasteurization was effective (killed
>any microbes) while having minimal effect on the beer (Not much heat
>is required to bring the small cross-section of the flow high enough,
>long enough to pasteurize.)

No, that is ultra-pasteurization. High heat, very short time.

"Minimally pasteurization" is lower heat than normal pasteurization
for a longer time.

It's a inversely related combination of temp and time that kills
pathogens. Very high heat for a very short time, medium heat for a
little longer orf lower heat for a lot longer. "Minimally pasteurized"
falls into this latter category. I Googled it. But it's not sold very
many places at all. Mostly dairy farms.

I think Bryan is just blowing smoke out his ass again when he went on
and on about how it's "...pricey, safe, tastes almost as good as raw,
and is legal to sell everywhere." Legal maybe, but not sold
everywhere. The normally pasteurized milk is sold everywhere. Bryan
consistenly has a way of "pontificating" something gloriously which is
not widely available, making it sould like us normal folks are getting
so screwed.

I'll tell you the mest milk I ever tasted! When my wife was breast
feeding our son she expressed and stored her breast milk so I could
feed him her breast milk too. And I tasted some, and I can tell ya
everything they say about "mother's milk" is true!! YUM!!

John Kuthe...

John Kuthe wrote:
>
> I'll tell you the mest milk I ever tasted! When my wife was breast
> feeding our son she expressed and stored her breast milk so I could
> feed him her breast milk too. And I tasted some, and I can tell ya
> everything they say about "mother's milk" is true!! YUM!!
>
> John Kuthe...

UCK, you sick *******!!! Just kidding somewhat there, John.
I tasted that once while having sex with a nursing mom.
I immediately knew why I grew older many years before and quit drinking that
crap.

Gary

On 6/7/2012 6:34 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 06/06/2012 7:11 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?
>
> I don't know why that should be hard to believe. Pasteurization is a
> process that is used to destroy naturally occurring pathogens in milk.
> It was first used to kill harmful pathogens like Campylobacter jejuni,
> E. coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes, and Salmonella.Pasteurization
> is effective in destroying the bacteria in milk that cause tuberculosis,
> salmonellosis, diphtheria, typhoid fever, and other illnesses without
> adversely affecting the milk's nutritional content, flavor or quality.
>
> http://www.ext.colostate.edu/safefoo.../v10n2s04.html

There's only one serious reason for objecting to pasteurization of milk;
raw milk is supposed to taste better. It's certainly no better for you
and I don't like the taste of milk much anyway!

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

On 07/06/2012 12:28 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2012-06-07, > wrote:
>
>> We drank our own cows' milk when I was a young'un in the 40s
>
> I'm sure yer cows were not subjected to Monsanto's horrific chemical
> cocktail, as are 98% of todays milk cows. I no longer even drink
> milk.


If I were really, really thirsty and looked in the fridge for something
cold to drink and there as nothing but milk, I would drink tap water. I
have not drunk a glad of milk for at least 30 years. I have milk on
cereal and in my morning latte. I never drink it straight. I throat
gets all phlegmy just thinking about it.

On 07/06/2012 8:15 PM, James Silverton wrote:

>> I don't know why that should be hard to believe. Pasteurization is a
>> process that is used to destroy naturally occurring pathogens in milk.
>> It was first used to kill harmful pathogens like Campylobacter jejuni,
>> E. coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes, and Salmonella.Pasteurization
>> is effective in destroying the bacteria in milk that cause tuberculosis,
>> salmonellosis, diphtheria, typhoid fever, and other illnesses without
>> adversely affecting the milk's nutritional content, flavor or quality.
>>
>> http://www.ext.colostate.edu/safefoo.../v10n2s04.html
>
> There's only one serious reason for objecting to pasteurization of milk;
> raw milk is supposed to taste better. It's certainly no better for you
> and I don't like the taste of milk much anyway!

I don't like milk enough to try a taste test..... However..... I was
upset a few years ago when our government was talking about banning the
importation of European cheeses made with unpasteurized milk. Being
lactose intolerant, I am not a major consumer of cheese, but there are
some unpasteurized milk cheeses that I really like.

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> "Paul M. Cook" wrote:
>>
>> Raw organic milk from a certified dairy is about as safe a food as you
>> will
>> find. There, I said it!! Flame on!
>>
>> Paul
>
> I'm with you, Paul.

Organic really does have a meaning.

> Too many people take all this organic, all natural, free range, going
> green
> crap beyond the limits of normal common sense. All these ppl today should
> start a new hippie commune and live off the land. Meanwhile, food
> producers
> will take advantage of this and reap mega dollars by charging so much more
> for the "natural" foods.

You left off Birkenstock wearing alpaca growers. Oh and tie dye, who could
forget tie dye.

> All people did that many years ago (without the new science) and the
> average
> life span was 50 if you were lucky.
>

With science it rocks. People died young frim all kins of things back then.
A simple infection could kill you. Strep throat often led to heart disease.
Polio was a death sentence. Milk was probably very, very low on the list.

I am just reacting to the fact that mature, educated, intelligent adults
well aware of the "risks" cannot buy something simple like what used to be
left 2 quarts at a time on my doorstep 3 days a week. Milked at 4:00am,
chilled, in bottles by 6 and on the doorstep in time for breakfast at 7.
Somehow we lived.

Paul