The biggest concern parents have about making homemade formula is that it is based on raw milk which, according to medical orthodoxy, is a source of contamination and disease. The only possible way to protect our children, they say, is to be sure the milk is pasteurized.

The chart below was drawn up for a Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors vote on permitting raw milk in the County. (The vote was favorable, by the way, and raw milk is once again available in Los Angeles.) Except for a brief hiatus in 1990, raw milk has always been for sale commercially in California, usually in health food stores, although I can remember a period when it was even sold in grocery stores. Millions of people consumed commercial raw milk during that period and although the health department kept an eagle eye open for any possible evidence of harm, there is not a single proven case of raw milk causing illness. During the same period, there were many instances of contamination in pasteurized milk, some of which resulted in death. There have also been many instances of contamination of other foods, including baby formula. In fact, if we withdrew from the market every food type responsible for a case of food poisoning, there would be virtually nothing left to eat. But only raw milk has been singled out for general removal from the food supply.

Both raw and pasteurized milk harbor bacteria but the bacteria in raw milk is the healthy bacteria of lactic-acid fermentation while the bacteria in pasteurized milk is the bacteria of spoilage. And the overall bacteria count of milk produced under clean conditions is much lower than that of pasteurized milk. Both raw and pasteurized milk contain E. coli, normally a benign microorganism. The most likely source of the new strains of virulent E. coli is genetically engineered soy, fed to cows in large commercial dairies. If there is any type of milk likely to harbor these virulent breeds, it is commercial pasteurized milk.

Back in the days when scientists at our universities did real research, they compared the health of children fed raw or pasteurized milk. Children fed raw milk have more resistance to TB, scurvy, flu, diphtheria, pneumonia, asthma, allergic skin problems and tooth decay. In addition, their growth and calcium absorption was superior. (www.realmilk.com/abstractsmilk.)

Of course, as with all foods, raw milk should be whole milk (because the butterfat contains important antimicrobial factors0, it must come from healthy cows, and it should be carefully handled and stored. The same technology that we use to pasteurize our milk also allows us to keep raw milk fresh and clean. If you are buying directly from a farmer, be sure that the cows are mostly on pasture and that the barn is kept clean. The milk should go directly from the milking machine into a stainless steel tank or clean containers and be kept chilled. It should be used within a period of one week, after which it will begin to go sour (although it is not dangerous when it does so). With these precautions, raw milk is not only healthy but a safe food for all members of the family, even babies.

To find raw milk in your area, visit www.realmilk.com or contact your local chapter of the Weston A. Price Foundation.

 

Update:

A recent blog posting has challenged our statement that there have been no outbreaks attributable to raw milk in california during the period 1982 - 1996. See:http://www.ethicurean.com/2009/07/20/raw-milk-2/.

The blog provides the following as an example of alleged "outbreaks" from raw milk: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=3140275. Below is analysis of this report showing that this article does not show conclusive evidence linking illness to raw milk, and in fact is typical of the highly biased attitudes in published reports alleging problems with raw milk.

As far as I know, we have analyzed every published report linking illness to raw milk in our Response to William Marler, posted here: http://realmilk.com/documents/ResponsetoMarlerListofStudies.pdf. If there are any reports that we have missed, please let us know and we will take a close look at them and post the analysis.

ANALYSIS OF Assessment of the excess risk of Salmonella dublin infection associated with the use of certified raw milk. Public Health Rep. 1988 Sep–Oct; 103(5): 489–493.

This report made the absurd assumption that the causal relationship between raw milk and illness could be determined using statistics. After ascertaining all cases of S. dublin diagnosed between 1980 and 1983 and then asking them over the course of 1984 to 1985 whether they had consumed certified raw milk (the only source of which was Alta Dena), the authors calculated the incidence of S. dublin among certified raw milk users and the incidence in the general population, and then calculated the "excess" occurring in raw milk users and concluded that this fraction was "acquired from the milk."

In addition to recall bias, the authors noted that people who reported drinking raw milk at the time of illness may have been more likely to have been tested for S. dublin [thus creating a false association of raw milk with illness].

Most importantly, the authors offered no evidence that the milk drunk by these cases was contaminated with S. dublin or whether the strain matched that of the infecting organism. Correlation does not prove causation.

VERDICT: This report does not contain conclusive evidence linking illness to raw milk.
Edited: 04/19/2010

About the Author

[authorbio:fallon-morell-sally]

Comments (6)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Add Comment Preview