As far as I can tell, it's in the same weird "purity" deal as anti-vax, anti-mask, and various other kinds of orthorexia. As well as being aligned with anti-helmet and anti-seatbelt campaigners: seemingly they want it because it's dangerous. It makes them feel good to reject objective standards of safety and substitute their own specialness. After all, they're the protagonist, they can't die in the middle of the show.
Raw milk isn't anywhere near as dangerous as the other choices you mention except during a cow pandemic. Still, I agree, the risk/reward seems like it could throw an exception. I would like to controversially throw preservatives in bread into the same category. When we started adding preservatives to bread, the incidence of colon cancer dropped significantly. Bread mold isn't good for you, preservatives have a very long track record of being the less (but probably still) dangerous option.
The tendency for HN comments to focus on a relatively less important detail and completely ignore the larger implications never ceases to amaze.
Certainly the safety of raw milk is important for the 2% of the population that drinks it, and we should add H5N1 to the existing pile of pathogens they should worry about like E. coli, salmonella, listeria and campylobacter.
The far more significant fact that we're not discussing for some reason is that H5N1 has not only jumped from birds to mammals, but it's spreading rapidly between different species of mammals. And not just cattle from coast to coast in the US, but also bears, foxes, skunks, minks, raccoons, otters, seals, sea lions, domestic cats and even at least one dolphin. And for many of these mammals, not only does it spread fast, it also has a very high fatality rate.
If the virus has mutated to spread rapidly from mammal to mammal, and it also spreads to many different species of mammal, that's a very new thing that's never been seen before with this virus.
I don't know what the probability is for this to turn in to a high-mortality human pandemic, but that probability is certainly orders of magnitude greater now than before the virus achieved mammal-to-mammal transmission.
"As far as you can tell" is just your misinformed and shit-stirring opinion. Pasteurization is unnatural and changes the quality and nutrition of the milk. Baby cows don't drink pasteurized milk, and neither do human babies. In other words, you're projecting--hard.
Disclaimer: I drink pasteurized milk like everyone else because raw milk is expensive and hard to source. When I was a child I drank raw milk in glass bottles sourced from a local dairy since I grew up in a dairy town. I suffered no ill effects.
Does it? In what way, and with what evidence? People say things like this without ever getting specific.
> Baby cows don't drink pasteurized milk, and neither do human babies
No, but (a) there's a much shorter supply chain there in nature, which is the big problem, (b) cows consume all sorts of things that are inedible by humans, and (c) it's not actually "natural" for humans to drink cow's milk at all, that's a relatively recent genetic adaptation (lactose tolerance) that not everybody has.
>> Baby cows don't drink pasteurized milk, and neither do human babies
> No, but (a) there's a much shorter supply chain there in nature, which is the big problem, (b) cows consume all sorts of things that are inedible by humans, and (c) it's not actually "natural" for humans to drink cow's milk at all, that's a relatively recent genetic adaptation (lactose tolerance) that not everybody has.
and (d) some places, especially large dairies, do feed baby cows pasteurized milk. They do this to limit the spread of illness among their livestock and to use up waste milk. Some do this with colostrum as well.
Not sure why this is downvoted. Probably because of the agressive wording, but imo you are right.
They just want the pure milk, because it's pure. Not because it's better in any way.
I do wonder every now and then if there is a way to stop this trend. I do believe that most people know that they'd have all the information available to prove themselves wrong. But that's just uncomfortable. Being the one who "knows better" feels better. We need to embrace uncomfortable truths more.
I do not drink raw milk. However, I have once or twice on a farm, and it does taste better. More creamy and full bodied. Like the difference between pasturised orange juice and fresh orange juice. So there is a reason other than purity and ego.
The French can access raw milk and cheeses made from raw milk. As I understand it, one or two people a year in France die from this.
I’ve tasted pasteurized milk from a farm. It’s also more creamy and full bodied.
I don’t think it’s the lack of pasteurization that made the milk you tasted different but the fact that it was directly from the farm and from healthier animals.
That being said, oat milk beats the crap out of cow’s milk for me now minus the hormones, antibiotics, abuse and torture.
