I have looked at all of these arguments in depth and recommend you read at least "The Untold Story of Milk" before making conclusions.
The history of raw milk has been tainted with misinformed public policy. The dangers of unpasteurized milk are highly over-exaggerated. To put it bluntly, I don't trust the government's assessments about raw dairy.
On a practical level, consider this: people drank milk for thousands of years, but we only started pasteurizing it in the early 1900s. Do you really think people before 1900 were just living with these supposed diseases of raw milk, completely unawares? No, they drank raw milk and they were fine.
> Do you really think people before 1900 were just living with these supposed diseases of raw milk, completely unawares? No, they drank raw milk and they were fine.
Except for the ones who died. Life expectancy has gone up dramatically since 1900.
>> On a practical level, consider this: people drank milk for thousands of years,
but we only started pasteurizing it in the early 1900s. Do you really think
people before 1900 were just living with these supposed diseases of raw milk,
completely unawares? No, they drank raw milk and they were fine.
People fall ill from drinking raw milk and even die today, when we have a
better understanding of the causes of disease and have much better hygiene
standards. I don't understand why you expect that this happened less, or not
at all (?) in the past.
>> To put it bluntly, I don't trust the government's assessments about raw dairy.
Which government's? I linked to sites from the US, the UK and the EU. They are representative of health agencies from around the world.
In any case, this is from the WHO, i.e. not a governmental source:
Salmonella, Campylobacter, and Enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli are among the most common foodborne pathogens that affect millions of people annually – sometimes with severe and fatal outcomes. Symptoms are fever, headache, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain and diarrhoea. Examples of foods involved in outbreaks of salmonellosis are eggs, poultry and other products of animal origin. Foodborne cases with Campylobacter are mainly caused by raw milk, raw or undercooked poultry and drinking water. Enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli is associated with unpasteurized milk, undercooked meat and fresh fruits and vegetables.
Listeria infection leads to miscarriage in pregnant women or death of newborn babies. Although disease occurrence is relatively low, listeria’s severe and sometimes fatal health consequences, particularly among infants, children and the elderly, count them among the most serious foodborne infections. Listeria is found in unpasteurised dairy products and various ready-to-eat foods and can grow at refrigeration temperatures.
It's interesting to note that some of the diesease associated with raw milk consumption are also caused by consumption of other foods, e.g. raw meat or raw eggs etc. It doesn't make a lot of sense to think that it's possible to get, e.g. E. coli from raw meat, but not from raw milk.
> People fall ill from drinking raw milk and even die today, when we have a better understanding of the causes of disease and have much better hygiene standards. I don't understand why you expect that this happened less, or not at all (?) in the past.
The illnesses associated with raw milk are caused by improperly handled milk, diseased cows, or something else entirely. Its human error, not some inherent quality of milk that is dangerous. Seriously take a look at the book The Untold Story of Milk, it has done all of the intellectual work to weigh the evidence and analyze the history already.
>> Its human error, not some inherent quality of milk that is dangerous.
I agree that it's not an "inherent quality of milk" that is dangerous. For instance, it's not the fact that milk is liquid, or that its colour is white/yellow that makes it dangerous. It is the presence of pathogenic bacteria in raw milk that make drinking raw milk dangerous.
However, the presence of pathogenic bacteria in raw milk is not the result of "human error". Indeed, one would say that it is the natural state of things that bacteria will populate everything we eat, drink or breathe. It just happens that some of those bacteria can cause illness or kill us.
>> Seriously take a look at the book The Untold Story of Milk, it has done all of the intellectual work to weigh the evidence and analyze the history already.
So have the WHO, FDA, CDC, EFSA, FSA, etc etc. Does the book you recommend arrive at different results?
Edit: To be a bit more precise about "human error". Animals do not need to be diseased and humans don't need to make errors for raw milk to cause illness. See for example the campylobacter outbreak caused by raw milk produced by Kendal Farm in the UK:
In August the farm won a National Trust fine farm produce award for its unpasteurised milk.
Meaning the highest possible hygiene standards were observed at that farm. This being a UK farm, hygiene standards means that ill animals are separated from the herd and their milk destroyed and that animals and their milk are tested at least twice a year to ensure they're free from infection. You will not find more stringent hygiene procedures the world over. And yet, an outbreak did occur.
The history of raw milk has been tainted with misinformed public policy. The dangers of unpasteurized milk are highly over-exaggerated. To put it bluntly, I don't trust the government's assessments about raw dairy.
On a practical level, consider this: people drank milk for thousands of years, but we only started pasteurizing it in the early 1900s. Do you really think people before 1900 were just living with these supposed diseases of raw milk, completely unawares? No, they drank raw milk and they were fine.