Talk:United States raw milk debate

Weasel Words

"Advocates of drinking raw milk claim raw milk contains desirable substances" is weasel words.

The "raw milk debate" is not about whether or not such substances are actually present in raw milk. That is a testable factual claim. The debate is about the significance or lack of significance of such substances.

If raw milk actually contains such noteworthy substances -- a verifiable claim -- then those substances should be referenced directly on the Raw milk page itself. The significance or lack of significance of those substances should be discussed here. And those substances should be named; not referred to as "substances". Is that page controlled by a cadre or cabal? Something isn't right here. Xkit (talk) 06:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedic topic?

I don't believe this kind of an aticle belongs on wikipedia. There really is no ongoing "debate." The safety and efficacy of pasteurization has been proven worldwide and there is general consensus worldwide that there are potentially serious, even fatal infections that can be caused by pathogens in raw milk. The reason this page is here is that there is a vocal advocacy group attempting to use the popularity of wikipedia to spead its agenda of promoting raw milk through unverified claims of safety and problems with pasteurized milk. Making it look like an active debate, makes their claims look potentially more valid. The debate was over 40 years ago.

Unfortunately, this may be economically driven. An organization that has a number of small dairy farms among its members is advocating "A Campaign for Real Milk." IMO, the way this is being done on this site is an abuse of the purpose of wikipedia. OccamzRazor 00:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been eating raw milk weekly since i was a child, and I'm not Takezo Kensei. Arronax50 (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A big small dairy conspiracy, is it? 2602:306:8015:AE60:40EF:37AA:7A78:CD12 (talk) 06:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Xkit

There absolutely is an ongoing "debate". Pasteurization has been proven to kill off beneficial bacteria and other nutrients in the milk. The worry about pathogens is only in mass produced milk with animals housed in filthy conditions. Healthy, happy cows and goats that are allowed pasture do NOT produce unsafe milk. Pasteurization also kills beneficial nutrients in eggs and honey.

Even if you are correct that the "debate" was resolved 40 years ago, that does not mean pasteurization is beneficial. 40 years ago, margarine was touted as a healthy alternative to butter. 20 years ago, during the low fat fad, trans fats were welcomed as a way to replace saturated fat. Your handle being a twist on Occam's Razor, I am surprised that you would support a complicated thing over a simple, more natural one. 74.160.5.53 (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep. And now finally mainstream science has begun to wake up to the importance of the gut microbiome. You can't make yogurt, kefir, etc. out of many commercially available milk products because ultra-pasteurization effectively cooks the milk. 24.90.168.106 (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I make kefir at home, from kefir grains. It's perfectly possible to make kefir from Ultra Pasteurised (UP) and Ultra Heat Treated (UHT) milk. Bacteria in kefir ferment the lactose in milk and lactose is not affected by the pasteurisation process. It is also perfectly possible to make yogurt from UP and UHT milk because the first step to making yogurt is to heat milk to a high enough temperature (80 degrees C) to denature milk proteins. UP and UHT milk are made by heating milk to that temperature, or above. Stassa (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Page Scope

Perhaps this page should be named "Raw milk debate in North America" or even "Raw milk debate".

Some of the content is not part of the debate, but is simply verifiable fact, and should be moved to raw milk.

What do you think? Edit, or comment here.

I removed the discussion of cow breeds and buying directly from farms for the reasons you give (they are just facts, not part of debate). Otherwise, I made no substantive changes, just clarified the lists and moved some items from one to the other.

Here is an interesting story on activism as it relates to raw milk: http://www.rebuild-from-depression.com/blog/2006/12/milk_is_milk_billboard_tagged.html The "Milk is Milk" Campaign (all milk is the same, whatever you do to it) had a billboard tagged by a raw milk supporter. (It's from my site.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.43 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 23 April 2007

The following sentence is verifiable fact and should be in raw milk: "The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) cite numerous cases of serious or fatal infections caused by raw milk, with E. coli O157:H7 being the most important because it can cause the hemolytic-uremic syndrome, a life-threatening condition [3]. In a CDC report, numerous cases were traced to raw milk from a cow-share program in Cowlitz County, Washington. After five children were hospitalized, a court order was issued to bring the farm into compliance [4]."

The sentence after that links to an excellent review article in a major medical journal, but ends with the author's opinion that pasteurized milk is just as nutritious as raw milk: "A review of infections associated with raw milk contends that pasteurized milk is just as nutritious as raw milk, so that there is neither a scientific nor an aesthetic reason for choosing raw milk products[5]." At this point, it would be nice to include studies, if any have been done, on how laboratory animals do when drinking pasteurized milk vs. raw milk - do they grow as fast or to the same extent? Also, how about a taste test of whole pasteurized milk vs. raw milk - can people tell them apart without a label? However, milk industry experts worrry about standardizing the taste of milk - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3301/is_9_105/ai_n6205068 For example, I've had milk from a small dairy that tasted like scallions, perhaps because the cows grazed in a field with scallions. I'm not sure that Wikipedia can solve all of these questions about this emotionally charged area. Perhaps it would be good to add a section to this topic - and perhaps many other Wikipedia topics - called "Unanswered Questions" or "Topics for Further Study" that reflect the true incomplete nature of much of our knowledge.

[edit] Views of raw milk supporters

Rkornbluth 15:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)rkornbluth

While some of the article is fact I do believe a lot of facts were omitted making pasteurized milk look better. Where are the CDC homogenized milk illness statistics. This is not a fair unbiased article if the same facts are not given for both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.213.49 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 21 January 2011

First reference link

I'm not sure how notable it is to include the paper written in 1938 as a reference. Especially since it's a Pro-raw milk paper and it's included in the the Pro-pasteurization section. I'm going to remove it. If anyone can come up for a reason to keep it there, you can put the link back. http://www.realmilk.com/rawvpasteur.html Quasispace 03:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Scientific Studies

I am aware of numerous scientific studies on the safety of raw milk, but I have not found any that address what I think is an important issue.

Do the studies that claim high incidence of pathogens in raw milk take into account the environment or the methods of raising the cows at each farm? Supporters of raw milk claim that pasture-fed cows in clean environments have natural resistance to disease causing bacteria.

If a study lumps all raw milk producers together, how can we be certain whether any health risks are not simply explained by poor handling of the cows or the milk? In other words, is it the raw milk itself that carries high risk, or is it only the way it is handled that makes it potentially dangerous?

If anyone can find any info on this (from either side) I think it would be helpful. Dogrun81 (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Aesthetic?

A review of infections associated with raw milk contends that pasteurized milk is just as nutritious as raw milk, so that there is neither a scientific nor an aesthetic reason for choosing raw milk products. - What exactly is meant by aesthetic, and what's it got to do with how nutritious it is? --Random832 (contribs) 10:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

How could a review of the infections contend that pasteurized milk is as nutritious as raw milk? Either it's a review of infections or a review of nutritions. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Raw milk info spamming

I'm trying to centralize the discussion for now at Talk:Raw_milk#Moved_to_talk_for_discussion --Ronz (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

External links

I'd like to know the purpose of the tag, and who thinks we have a problem with inappropriate links. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I just restored the favorable external links which had been moved from their original location, restored the links for the opposite POV which had been (stealthily?) deleted in the process, and cleaned out the dead and commercial links. This leaves a number of favorable links that partially violate our External links policy, as well as our requirements for scientific sourcing as defined at WP:MEDRS. Do not add more links that violate these policies. The only reason some of these links can be allowed at all, even as external links, is because they are about the subject of the article and may, per WP:ELNO #2, be used. Otherwise they'd be disqualified completely. They should probably be culled further leaving only one or two that document the POV. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

There is very little independent analysis of this issue out there. The only source is the US Government, which opposes raw milk. Apparently the other side of the argument cannot afford a thorough analysis of the matter. Who can battle the unlimited resources of the govt? It's quite unfortunate, since the government is hardly perfect in it's assessment of the healthfulness of foods. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No less dangerous than deli meats

At the end of the section "Arguments of raw milk supporters" is the sentence "Even with the FDA's numbers, raw milk was cited as being no less dangerous than deli meats." Surely this should read "no more dangerous than deli meats"? -- Mwanner | Talk 22:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Access to review article

Anyone out there with full acces to doi:10.1016/S1043-4526(07)53001-9? I think it would be useful for this article as well as Homogenization (chemistry). — Scientizzle 17:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Very NPOV

The other side gets a brief word in edgewise, and then a huge section on pasteurization. There was a 50 year study in California (I wish I had the source in front of me) where the government kept demonizing raw milk. Nobody got E. Coli or botulism. Then there was one case after all that time, probably due to an accident. 50 YEARS people! And yet this article has a huge amount of fluff propping up pasteurization.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulmabriefs144 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 26 October 2010

WP:MEDRS applies, maybe WP:FRINGE as well. One study alone counts for little or nothing in such situations. --Ronz (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Made the whole article POV, not just a section. There are curious omissions on things that people probably should know about the things cooked out of milk, which would likely affect customer's assessments that the risks do indeed outweigh the benefits. Just from looking up L. acidophilus, I found the following: decreased incidence of pediatric diarrhea, significant decrease in levels of toxic amines in the blood of dialysis patients with small bowel bacterial overgrowth, L. acidophilus may facilitate lactose digestion in lactose-intolerant subjects. I just copied and pasted all of this. So let's see here, we have some pathogens, but we also have the cow's own bacteria being able to lower toxins, intolerance, and diarrhea all at once (that's just one bacteria, too). Might this have been included? If this is to be at all NPOV, serious thought needs to be made analyzing each of these nutrients, and whether they have something in them that could counter the supposed bacteria risk.

(Shortening this because it's overlong) Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 06:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Also there is a brief history of milk production here: http://host.madison.com/article_ad70c600-e1bd-11de-9b39-001cc4c03286.html Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you look at MEDRS? --Ronz (talk) 14:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Bulmabriefs144, I don't think the article necessitates a {{POV}} tag. In fact, almost all of the actionable things you mentioned can be dealt with through adding a little more cited prose or, in some cases, actually reading what's already written. If you can provide quality sources to back up your medical claims, I'll help integrate the information. While the article does discuss the non-selective anti-microbial effects of pasteurization, I think you have a point that the claims regarding the lost "good" bacteria can use further expounding. I'll work on that. However, it is clear from the most reliable sources that while there are probably some tangible nutritional benefits to raw milk, the science indicates they are modest at best and come with a marked increase in the risk of food-bourne disease; it's abundantly clear from the cited sources that, controlled for consumption, raw milk presents a vastly greater risk of pathogen exposure with resulting morbidity and mortality. As this is the well-established "mainstream" opinion, WP:NPOV/WP:FRINGE requires that the article is properly weighted to present competing opinions in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.

I spent a lot of effort digging up peer reviewed literature that addressed the nutritional values and safety concerns of raw milk. If you've got appropriate sources to add that discuss your particular view of the regulation process, safety, nutrition, etc. please present them. Otherwise, you've really given us awfully little to work with... — Scientizzle 23:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not my views on the regulation process, but I did find some stuff on the raw milk versus pasteurized itself. I added it in. Mainly what I found was that (1)there was actually a comparison based on two different things, since cooked milk was likely to come from grain fed cattle rather than grass-fed, while many regulations required numerous health and sanitation prcedures for the milk to be raw, from good pasture land to a grass-heavy diet, (2)as I stated before, the l. acidophilus thing was left out, and (3)I found two sources that naturally-raised raw milk is a more heart-healthy food, one from acidophilus and another from the conjugated linoleic acid found when cattle actually eat grass. Now that that's added, it's not quite so POV. Still, I dunno, since some of that info is out of the raw milk people's research, just as much of the pasteurized stuff is by those in favor of pasteurizing all milk. It's inherently POV, since two major lobbies are involved in all research. Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I've definitely incorporated some of your changes. L. acidophilus was covered, but the now to a greater extent; however, anything further should go into that article. Please be aware that some of your sources clearly don't meet WP:RS or WP:MEDRS (the latter is more strict and applies to scientific/medical claims). If a given source doesn't make the logical leaps you want to express, it's a violation of WP:NOR to do it for them...the Reuters link is fine for a claim that grass-fed may have some health benefit over grain-fed, based on the results of one study, but it said nothing about raw milk. If a source connects the dots, we can put it back in. — Scientizzle 14:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

To add to my comment above, I think there is a place to consider and discuss the production methods that typically go along with raw milk production. If we can find some good sources that discuss how raw milk dairies typically eschew hormones and antibiotics, use more grazing for feed, and perhaps how they tend to be smaller, we can link to other articles like cattle feeding where these considerations receive due focus. There's certainly room to discuss farming practices in the production of raw milk. However, since this article is really about the advantages and disadvantages of homogenization & pasteurization, it can be a bit of a red herring to focus too much on correlating confounds. — Scientizzle 14:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

So far, all I've been able to find is that antibiotic-free milk is probably more likely to be grass fed, due to a lower need for antibiotics (also from wikipedia's sourcing on Cattle feeding). I don't really have any "good sources" for that they are fed grass for milk cows since what I have in front of me is the internet, which tends to be a tad... biased. Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The internet can be funny that way, eh? Let me go through the Weston A Price site linked in the article--they might have something useful...given that they're a notable organization aligned with this particular cause, they're probably WP:RS-approriate for the claims of the raw milk industry. — Scientizzle 15:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure Weston Price or the Price Foundation articles or organizations are experts on raw milk, or the science thereof. They are on the activism part. Also be careful of WP:SPS, when choosing sources. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 15:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that Weston Price etc. articles are not good sources for scientific/medical claims, but they are good for sourcing the claims of raw milk proponents. Typically their assertions are readily countered by peer-reviewed literature.

RE: the demographics of raw milk farms...I've not had much luck. There's this from The Ecologist (full text: "Raw milk tends to be produced on farms with small grass-grazing herds...Because this milk is not pasteurised, producers also have to be far more stringent on hygiene and the health of their herd than conventional dairy farmers.") But it's not much to go on. — Scientizzle 15:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I have a source. It's a big PDF file on the difference between organic and conventional. I'm hoping to tie it in to show that the way raw milk is raised in not conventional, and does indeed involve a diet of grass. But I'd need govt mandates claiming that for raw milk to be allowable, it must be certified organic. It'll be awhile longer.Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be wise to link to the source(s) here if you can; maybe best to propose your text on the talk page first, in a new section. It can be deceptively easy to trip over WP:NOR. — Scientizzle 15:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Behold! lol. Yeah, it jumps from point to point. But I made a link between the fact that grass-fed is likely antibiotic free, conventional stuff not being organic, what organic means, and lacking a government mandate, I instead relied on the fact that someone did analysis on the fact that what cattle eat can in fact change what the milk is like (it's extremely dry and technical, but I gleaned that much from it, since there were lovely graphs about various protein, fat, etc and also certain minerals. I don't think it's too far a stretch to assume that like thoses wackos in Weston Price say, some of the crap in the the feeding stables can pass to the milk). Then I concluded with the reuters thing as it was a sorta nice tie in that grass-fed (I seriously don't care if it's raw or not, aside from the added L. acidophilus perk) has that wonderful linoleic acid. Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I set off the proposed text in its own section to facilitate collaborative editing. The dry technical stuff doesn't scare me so I'll take a closer look at it in a couple hours. The current text looks like it's too OR, but tI think we can pull something useful & informative together... — Scientizzle 16:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed text

Quoted stuff:

• Many of the studies, it should also be noted, are correct in terms of milk toxicity, but only because an apples to oranges comparison is taking place. The actual raw milk which can be certified is nutritionally more similar to "antibiotic-free" milk, that is, grass-fed. In dairy herds, grazed or grass-fed cattle typically have a reduced need for antibiotics relative to grain-fed cattle, simply because the grazed herds are less productive. Conventional milk is not from grass-fed cattle, as it requires such antibiotics, in comparison to organic milk. It can be said that in order to meet the basic requirements for cleanliness and drinkability, the raw milk should in fact be organic, which by guidelines means to use "ecologically based practices that virtually prohibit the use of antibiotics and hormones in the cow herd and the use of synthetic chemicals in the production of cattle feed. Organic milk production systems also attempt to accommodate the animals’ natural nutritional and behavioral requirements, for example ensuring that dairy cows have access to pasture." Not all raw milk can in fact be proven to be raised in an organic fashion (short of personally inspecting the farm), however, and feed can in fact greatly change the chemical composition of the milk, from the lactose content, protein, and fat content, to even the presence or absence of urea and elements like selenium. In its natural state as grass-fed, milk has along with the L. acidophilus that raw milk has simply by being raw, an unsaturated fat called conjugated linoleic acid which actually may reduce the risk of heart disease.

• The issue is that the argument against raw milk isn't based on nutrition, it's based on pathagens. On the other hand, the argument for raw milk, is based on nutrition, and not pathogens. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 17:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Notes on the refs provided:

1. This is about beef cattle and doesn't discuss dairy production. While antibiotic and hormone use in dairy production may have similar justifications and levels of use, that would need to be discussed directly in a cited source.

2. Organic milk production uses almost no antibiotics or hormones and has more pasture feeding. No discussion of raw milk in relation to organic...It seems likely that raw milk would typically be produced at organic farms, but certainly many organic farms do not/cannot sell raw milk. Organic milk may have use for some of this information.

3. There was no subnstantive difference between conventional and organic dairies of varying herd sizes in the quality of the final milk product. No discussion of the processing or consumption of the milk products. Organic milk may have use for some of this information.

4. One study found higher levels of a particular conjugated linoleic acid correlated with a lower risk of MI. I went to the original study (now linked above) and was really surprised at the number of confounding variables! The results are really far more equivocal than one might believe from the authors' conclusions (my own OR, naturally). It's kind of a case study as to why we shy away from citing primary research articles if there are reviews available. The case for CLAs having medical effects is best made on that page.

However, the following article should definitely be cited at conjugated linoleic acid and probably Cattle feeding: Dhiman TR, Anand GR, Satter LD, Pariza MW (1999). "Conjugated linoleic acid content of milk from cows fed different diets". J. Dairy Sci. 82 (10): 2146–56. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75458-5. PMID 10531600. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I'm afraid we have not put together a Wiki-appropriate case of "raw milk...is nutritionally more similar to [organic, grass-fed] milk". More basically, we haven't yet made the case that raw milk is (almost always) "organic". Frankly, I'm surprised that it's been that difficult to find a source that says "raw milk comes from organic farms"! If we do find that, we can at least justify a section that discusses the basic characteristics associated with organic dairies and let the reader make any inferences. — Scientizzle 18:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

a refutation of this article

Strong evidence against the view that Raw Milk is "dangerous", showing instead that it is quite beneficial, is provided here: http://realmilk.com/rawmilkoverview.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottinger's cats (talk • contribs) 11:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a forum. See WP:NOTAFORUM. You can post specific suggestions for improving this article. Citations must come from third party reliable sources. See WP:RELIABLE --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits - NPOV, COI, and more

24.95.76.248 (talk · contribs) claims to be Gary Cox, a lawyer and general counsel for Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (farmtoconsumer.org), an organization that promotes raw milk and fringe theories about it. There will be a WP:COIN discussion on him shortly, which I'll link here.

The edits from this ip violate all the regular policies/guidelines that come up regularly here: WP:SYN, WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS, and WP:FRINGE. WP:BATTLE and WP:COI apply to the specific editor as well. --Ronz (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

COIN discussion started. --Ronz (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed most of it. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

CDC estimate on number of people consuming raw milk

Currently the article says, "In 2007, the FDA estimated over 3,000,000 people in the US consumed raw milk on a daily basis." I wasn't able to find the information in the report. Can someone identify it for verification, quoting the information and indicating the page number? Also, if I read it correctly, the information is from the 2006 census, so it would be better to indicate when it applied rather than when it was reported. It looks like the numbers still work out correctly. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it. It fails verification and appears to be an inappropriate and misleading extrapolation of the data in the source. --Ronz (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

References

I redid a section

Protection against non-infectious disease was changed to Protection against non-infectious disease research. The information that I changed was based-on reading the provided references, (the ones that were there), and noticing that the information was out of context and false when seen in light of the entire body of work that ISAAC has accumulated on this research. There were some critical mistakes which I boldly changed so I hope that I will be forgiven for any unintentional mistakes which I could have made myself. Also, the "farm effect" research was an international effort, and is now a global effort,http://www.globalasthmanetwork.org/ so I'm not sure how it should be presented in an article titled United States raw milk debate?24.0.133.234 (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Please be specific regarding "out of context", "false", and "critical mistakes". --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes. The highlighting and emphasis on older studies rather than more recent reviews violates WP:MEDRS.

The ongoing research is going to make it difficult to keep this up to date. If we stick to MEDRS, and take care with what new research we incorporate, we shouldn't go to far wrong. --Ronz (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no more research going on from the ISAAC study-it is over but there is a huge body of research that they produced up to 2012-(they have a Guinness Book World record for the amount). Sorry but facts are facts and you just re-posted incorrect statements that were not true to the sources provided or the sources (done under the same umbrella of research), which came AFTER the studies mentioned. The later studies tested and retested some of the ideas proposed and proved that they were false-(not "likely" as the article(s) state, also the statement, for example that only farm children were tested is false as well. I tried to update things but if you want to keep incorrect, false info. you should at least verify what you are doing.Which you obviously did not or you would not have made the reversal.24.0.133.234 (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

"Please be specific..."

From what I can make of it, you're completely overlooking the more recent, MEDRS-preferred research review over older, individual studies.

If we cannot even agree to follow MEDRS, then we're not going to make much progress here or in Raw milk. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I'm looking to find an accessible copy of http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22892709 . --Ronz (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Found a copy. It's a short article, though I'd prefer someone with more expertise figure out how to properly summarize medical consensus at this time.

A couple highlights:

The protective effect that exposure to stables and consumption of unprocessed cow’s milk independently have for asthma and atopy were identified already a decade ago

Riedler J, Braun-Fahrlander C, Eder W, et al. Early life exposure to farming environment is essential for protection against the development of asthma and allergy: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet 2001; 358:1129–1133.

Although the farm dust studies discussed above emphasize the protective role of microbial diversity, the factors underlying the other major asthmaprotective and allergy-protective exposure, unprocessed farm milk, remain partly elusive. A recent, large cross-sectional study showed that reduced risk of asthma and allergy is associated with early life consumption of unheated, unprocessed farm milk, whereas boiled milk conferred no protection [19&&]. Contrary to expectations, though, no association was found between total viable bacterial counts (or specific subgroups) or total fat content and asthma or allergy. Moreover, a significant inverse association was found between levels of whey proteins (albumin, a-lactalbumin, b-lactoglobulin) and asthma but, again, not atopy. Because a-lactalbumin and b-lactoglobulin are major milk allergens, early life exposure to these proteins may decrease the risk of asthma by promoting early tolerance.

Loss G, Apprich S, Waser M, et al. The protective effect of farm milk consumption on childhood asthma and atopy: the GABRIELA study. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2011; 128:766–773.

--Ronz (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I was unable to access the article but just to let you know I logged in with library access to try;). That is exactly what the source that I posted said,(when I changed it) but if having a secondary source repeat it is better than what you have posted there disputes what is in the article now about the "farm effect".....it looks to me like they are making progress, but no definitive answer, and the source that I posted concluded with saying that raw milk has hazards that outweigh the risk of recommending using it for allergies and asthma.24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

States that allow retail sales

Idaho should be added to the list. I don't have a citation that I can point to but I have bought raw milk in retail grocery store in Idaho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.51.165.93 (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Advocacy -vs- Wiki

I was only vaguely aware of the controversy before I stumbled upon this article. So I'm kind of an unbiased observer. And phrases like "miracle cure" tend to trigger BS alarms.

This article appears to be pretty tightly controlled by the milk industry or maybe the manufacturers of Pasteurization equipment. It goes beyond describing the controversy and takes a strong advocacy position. So now I'm sitting here wondering if I should suggest a major rewrite or just delete the entire article. FatBear1 (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

"Raw milk has significant health benefits over pasteurized milk," is an extraordinary claim. As such, the onus is on the raw milk "advocates" to prove that raw milk does have health benefits.

It would be like going over to the Essential Oil/Aromatherapy article and complaining that the article is slanted too much towards mainstream (i.e. proven) medical advice. Angryapathy (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

This article is supposedly about the controversy. Such an article should explain the issues objectively. It should not aggressively advocate for one side or the other. That's not what Wikipedia is about. FatBear1 (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not that "anti-raw milk advocates" are ruining this article. It's just that there isn't much scientific evidence that raw milk has health benefits. Being neutral doesn't mean you have to equally support each side, it just means you have to present the best sources. If the sources are overwhelmingly in support of one side, then the article reflects that fact, as is the case with this article. People believe raw milk is helpful, but when evidence is required, there is very little support. Angryapathy (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

That's fine, but it's not how this article reads. FatBear1 (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)