The truth about drinking raw milk

03 OCTOBER 2022|FOOD & DRINK

There is a new appetite in the food and wine industry for unpasteurised milk products, also known as raw milk. Foodies and restaurant diners are often wowed by the complex flavours of raw milk products, but are they safe to eat and drink?

In response to the raw milk movement, retail sales of raw milk are banned in about 20 US states. Some people say that pasteurisation kills off important nutrients, but scientists don’t believe that anything lost during pasteurisation is important for human health. We uncover the truth about raw milk.

Script by Jessica Bradley
Narration by Cherry Stewart-Czerkas
Animation by Dominika Ożyńska
Commissioning Editor: Cagney Roberts

https://www.bbc.co.uk/reel/video/p0d47mjl/the-truth-about-drinking-raw-milk

Inform Yourself About Pasteurized Milk

If you do your own grocery shopping or you’ve been to a supermarket recently, you’d be aware that pasteurized milk has monopolized the dairy section. Having been around since the late 1800s, pasteurized milk has been widely utilized by the population because of the “safety” it provides, as it’s said to minimize the risk of contracting milk-borne bacteria and diseases.

June 02, 2017

But while this may seem like a plausible idea, pasteurization has been observed to lower or even extinguish the nutrients found in milk. Aside from this, toxins and other harmful chemicals have also been introduced to conventional pasteurized milk, which compromises your health instead of providing a better choice.

Continue reading to learn more about pasteurized milk, the detrimental effects it may have on your body and why raw milk is a better choice.

What Is Pasteurized Milk?

Pasteurization was first introduced in the late 1800s, and was pioneered by Louis Pasteur after his study on the fermentation process of both wine and vinegar. After discovering the difference in the microbes in both substances, he developed the process, determining the exact time and temperature microbes die.

Pasteurization was first applied to dairy products after the spread of numerous milk-borne infections in the population.1 It refers to the heating of milk to a temperature higher than the boiling point, and then rapidly cooling it.

This process supposedly removes the bacteria and other harmful particles found in conventionally produced milk. However, what government health agencies have left out is that pasteurization renders essential enzymes and nutrients inactive.2

Conventional Milk May Also Be ‘Ultra-Pasteurized’

In addition to this, milk producers have also devised another process for milk production, a process called ultra-heat treatment (UHT), which produces ultra-pasteurized milk. Nowadays, you’ll notice that most milk, including organic milk, bear the label “UHT.” Milk that is labeled as such is thermally processed at or above 280 degrees Fahrenheit, in contrast to pasteurization, which heats the milk at about 161 degrees Fahrenheit. This prolongs its shelf life under refrigerated conditions.

While a small amount of bacteria can survive the process of pasteurization, ultra-pasteurization produces a nearly sterile milk product. This means that ultra-pasteurized milk can last from 30 to 90 days when unopened, which is good news for milk producers because they can ship to a larger population without the risk of spoilage.3

But is ultra-pasteurized milk good for you? No, it isn’t. Because of the extreme process, ultra-pasteurized milk contains fewer nutrients than pasteurized milk, and even fewer when compared to raw milk. Researchers and microbiologists have also said that ultra-pasteurization is extremely harmful to milk, as it was found to flatten milk molecules and cause immune responses in the body when digested.4

Raw Milk Versus Pasteurized Milk: Which Is Safer and Healthier?

The debate between raw milk and pasteurized milk has plagued the public for numerous years because of both safety and health issues on both sides. Processed milk advocates claim that the pasteurization is essential to avoid the recurrence of milk-borne diseases such as brucellosis, listeriosis and typhoid fever. They also claim that aside from preventing bacterial infections, pasteurization can lengthen the shelf life of milk.5

But although pasteurized milk is highly recommended and advertised by both the CDC and FDA, the talks of its safety are questionable. While raw milk enthusiasts are commonly lambasted because they supposedly “expose themselves to a higher risk of milk-borne bacteria,” pasteurized milk consumers actually have a higher chance of ingesting chemicals and other toxins from conventional dairy factories.

Because of pasteurization and other filtering processes, factory milk producers are allowed to raise cows in unhealthy, cramped environments, where they are fed an unnatural diet of grains and corn. This is mainly because they are dependent on pasteurization’s ability to kill off pathogens or filter antibiotics that may have leaked into their milk products.

But while they claim that this is entirely safe, the nutrient content and the overall quality of these milk products may be compromised.6 Pasteurization removes the essential nutrients and compounds that are beneficial to the human body. Studies show that this process deactivates the enzymes that are necessary for the human digestion of milk, kills off the good bacteria that may be beneficial to the human body, alters the calcium content and removes most of the vitamin C in raw milk.

By switching to raw milk, you ensure that you get a whole food filled with minerals, proteins, vitamins and beneficial bacteria that assist digestion and metabolism.7

The only issue that is often held against raw milk is that it supposedly increases your risk of ingesting pathogens or harmful bacteria, but this can easily be dealt with by locating and sourcing your raw milk from trustworthy producers. Organic, pasture-raised dairy cattle guarantee that you get safe and high-quality raw milk, in contrast to the antibiotic-treated cattle used in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

Possible Side Effects and Dangers of Pasteurized Milk

Due to the numerous chemically manipulated components of pasteurized milk, it may pose numerous threats to your health. This includes the hidden exposure to pesticides, drugs and other harmful chemicals that may have seeped into the milk. The other dangers of the consumption of pasteurized milk include:

•Exposure to hormones and antibiotics. A 2011 research tested various milk products for chemicals that may have contaminated the product.8 It showed that conventionally sourced milk had high amounts of antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, natural hormones, anti-malaria drugs, steroid hormones, and anti-fungal drugs. This is probably because of the exposure of the cattle to these chemicals inside CAFOs.

Antibiotics are usually given to cattle to treat mastitis, but this eventually seeps into the milk produced by these cattle. The consumption of this type of milk eventually leads to you to acquire these harmful chemicals that aren’t even supposed to be in milk.

•Ingestion of glyphosate. Glyphosate is a chemical component of Roundup, a pesticide and herbicide that is usually applied to genetically engineered crops, which are then fed to the cattle. Aside from the possibility of glyphosate contamination in the milk that these cattle produce, you are also exposed to the altered composition of the milk because of the unnatural way that these dairy cows are fed.

•May increase asthma risk. Studies show that pasteurization alters the composition of commercially available milk. Instead of preventing the development of asthma by stabilizing mast cells and preventing inflammation, pasteurized milk destabilizes the mast cells and triggers the release of histamines, causing inflammation and eventually, asthma.9

•May lead to bone wasting or osteoporosis. Milk has always been packaged as the primary source of calcium, helping preserve bone density and skeletal health. However, pasteurization has been observed to destroy phosphatase in milk, an enzyme that is crucial for the absorption of calcium. This renders the calcium in milk indigestible and basically useless.10

While pasteurization was initially done to protect the population, the process has allowed dairy corporations to hide unnatural and chemically-based milk production processes. Instead of providing a healthier and safer choice for people, pasteurized milk has become a lesser version of what milk is supposed to be, endangering the public and simultaneously depriving people of vitamins and minerals that are absolutely essential for your body.

Instead of consuming pasteurized or UHT-labeled milk, consider switching to raw milk to ensure that you get all the nutrients and enzymes that are supposed to be in dairy. This will guarantee that you’re getting whole and healthful milk, in contrast to its sterile counterpart.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About Pasteurized Milk

Q: When did pasteurization of milk start?
A: Before pasteurization was developed by Louis Pasteur, William Dewes proposed the heating of milk before feeding infants during the prevalence of milk-borne diseases. It was only knowingly applied to milk in the late 1880s by dairy producers.11

Q: Is organic milk pasteurized?
A: Unfortunately, most brands of organic milk in the United States are still pasteurized. But although most of the organic milk available still undergoes this damaging process, studies show that it is still a better choice compared to conventional homogenized or pasteurized milk.

Q: Is cultured milk pasteurized?
A: Yes. According to the regulations that are enacted by the FDA, the production of cultured milk requires the addition of microbial culture to pasteurized or homogenized milk.12

Q: Is pasteurized milk sterile?
A: Not entirely. Pasteurization kills off a significant amount of the pathogens found in milk. There are instances where a small amount can survive this process. UHT, on the other hand, processes the milk to the point that the milk is virtually sterile.

Q: Is pasteurized milk safe to drink?
A: Despite claims of its safety, pasteurized milk can expose you to different harmful toxins that may have seeped into the milk, especially if the pasteurized milk comes from conventional dairy farms. It should be noted that pasteurized milk contains a lower concentration of the beneficial components found in unprocessed and raw milk.

Q: Is pasteurized milk safe during pregnancy?
A: Because of the possible chemical components of pasteurized milk, its consumption may cause different repercussions for both you and your unborn child. Consider drinking raw milk from trustworthy distributors so that you can get the whole array of nutrients and enzymes in milk, without the risk of exposing yourself to possible toxins in conventional milk products.

Q: Is raw milk better than pasteurized milk?
A: Yes raw milk is the highest quality milk you can get. Nutritionally, raw milk contains active enzymes, vitamins and minerals, which are deactivated in pasteurized milk. Consumption of raw milk also ensures that you do not unknowingly expose yourself to possible harmful components found in pasteurized milk.

References:

• 1 Science: How Stuff Works, How Pasteurization Works
• 2 Food Policy For Thought, The History of Raw Milk and Pasteurization
• 3 Cornell University, Pasteurized versus Ultra-Pasteurized Milk – Why Such Long Sell-By Dates?
• 4 Food Renegade, Just Say No To UHT Milk
• 5 U.S. Food &Drug Administration, The Dangers of Raw Milk: Unpasteurized Milk Can Pose a Serious Health Risk
• 6 Daily Mail Online, It’s Worth Paying Extra for Organic Milk…Not Just For Your Health But For The Sake Of The Cows
• 7,10 Global Healing Center, Pasteurized Milk vs. Raw Milk: Which One is Healthier for You and Your Family?
• 8 PubMed.gov, Simultaneous determination of 20 pharmacologically active substances in cow’s milk, goat’s milk, and human breast milk by gas chromatography-mas spectrometry
• 9 A Campaign for Real Milk, The 15 Things That Milk Pasteurization Kills
• 11 World Organization for Animal Health, Milk pasteurization and safety: a brief history and update
• 12 U.S. Food and Drug Administration, CFR – Code of Federal Regulations Title 21

https://foodfacts.mercola.com/pasteurized-milk.html

Curious Cook: Food, proteins and googly eyes on fish

My sister and her family recently came to stay in France, and one of their consistent comments was how good and “different” food tastes here – and were therefore curious about the “secret”.

September 23, 2018 

By CHRIS CHAN

Of course, there is no secret as such. For one, the food raised in France (and other parts of Europe) is different from food in Asia. By different, I mean the varieties of vegetables, fruits and animals here are distinct from other parts of the world. The preparation of the food is also often different, and I am also particularly fussy – for example, to get the right bangers for a barbecue, we made a return trip of around 100km to a butcher who sold sausages hand-crafted from pigs raised in the Cantal region.

There are, of course, several other items for which I would consider making such a long trip and top of the list would be good Malaysian durians – but sadly, there is no chance of that here as durians are still banned on flights.

This fussiness applies even to little things like salt. It is hard to believe but there are significant differences in the taste of salt. My personal preference is for Fleur De Sel De Guérande – if you are curious, try comparing a sample with ordinary salt side by side. The difference is usually due to the desiccants and/or flow-improvers in normal table salt.

French cheese Reblochon is made with raw, unpasteurised milk. Photo: The Star

France is largely agricultural and many regions are littered with remote farming communities where there is only one obscure road in and the same route out. Industrial farming is impossible and these communities mainly supply local markets with produce seldom contaminated by modern additives or processes used for mass production.

This is not always riskless – many fine French cheeses are made with “lait cru” or raw, unpasteurised milk and there was recently a recall of many tonnes of Reblochon de Savoie after some batches were found to be contaminated with E. coli. This outbreak had caused hemolytic-uremic syndrome in six out of seven affected children (though nobody died).

Statistically, this still makes eating Reblochon safer than crossing a road, so for that reason, such stories seldom bother me – though I would never offer young children cheese made with unpasteurised milk, just in case.

The right type of ingredients matter very significantly, especially in countries where there are few heavy spices to cover any deficiencies in food elements. For example, the closest to a French national dish might be boeuf bourguinon, a heady stew of beef, Provence herbs and red wine.

Boeuf bourguignon is made with few ingredients, unlike a Malaysian beef curry (see main image, top), which is often heavily spiced. Photos: The Star

In theory, it should be very easy to make (as it is mostly boiling lumps of beef for hours in wine and herbs) but it took a year before getting it right. The main problems were the cuts of meat used and the wine selection, according to a professional cook. So changing the meat for a fresher tougher cut and using a lighter Cote du Rhone (and adjusting the balance of herbs) now results in a pretty good stew every time.

I would probably not bother to make boeuf bourguinon in tropical Asian countries. This is because most “beef” in many South-East Asian countries is actually water buffalo imported from India. The other issue may also be the freshness of meat in tropical climates. Meat decomposes and changes its flavour very quickly, especially at warm temperatures – this rapid decomposition is mainly due to aerobic bacteria breaking down meat proteins and spoiling the flavour.

Hence in the Far East, it would make much more sense to cook food with strong spices or flavours to counteract any possible issues with meat protein decomposition. And of course, this is what most people do.

Check the eyes for freshness. Photo: The Star

Googly eyes

A funny story recently is the use of plastic googly eyes by a Kuwaiti fishmonger to cover the rotting eyes of old fish – a common way to test the freshness of fish is to check the decomposition of the eyes. The other is to check the redness underneath the gills. This indicates that consumers are acutely aware of the problems of protein decomposition.

Snack bars

This brings us round to the subject of proteins itself, especially in the modern diet. My daughter recently informed me that dietary protein is now such a fad that even confectionery manufacturers now offer protein-rich snack bars. This was a surprise to me, but a quick search proved she was right – you can get protein-rich Mars, Snickers and Bounty bars, for example. The Carnivore Diet is also an off-shoot of this protein fad. See “A modern food story – Part 1”.

Proteins

After ingestion, proteins are digested down into amino acids which are then released into the blood stream. Amino acids are extremely important as they are the building blocks of enzymes, antibodies, hormones, muscles and connective tissues such as collagen, without which the body simply cannot survive – and we cannot produce all the required amino acids so we require them in our diets. Humans need around 0.8g of protein per kilo of body weight.

One fact about proteins is they provide fewer digestible calories than carbohydrates and fat – as often stated before, not all calories from food are equal. This is because of the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF) which basically means that proteins take up five times more energy to digest compared to carbohydrates and fats. Hence, a piece of lean meat or soy protein delivers fewer calories than a fried doughnut of the same weight. This was reviewed in “The perils of dieting – Part 1”.

The TEF is also known as dietary-induced thermogenesis and appears to be the rationale behind many of the protein diet fads. Unlike dietary carbohydrates, which are chains of glucose molecules easily freed by enzymes (eg. amylase, galactose, sucrase, etc) into energy-giving glucose molecules, proteins are digested via a completely different pathway.

Proteins are more difficult to convert into energy for two reasons: (i) proteins contain nitrogen; and (ii) the digestive system needs to break down the peptide bonds holding together polypeptides. A string of amino acids is a polypeptide and proteins are either polypeptides or chains of polypeptides. Degradation of proteins is known as proteolysis and the first stage is denaturation of proteins in the extremely acidic environment of the stomach, plus the introduction of a stomach enzyme called pepsin. The deconstruction of proteins is further enhanced by the enzymes trypsin, chymotrypsin, carboxypeptidase A and B and elastase produced by the pancreas while passing into the intestines via the duodenum (where bicarbonate is introduced to raise pH to the level needed for the pancreatic enzymes to function efficiently).

After reducing proteins into amino acids, the amino acids are then passed into the intestinal cell walls and released into the bloodstream to be absorbed by other tissues.

Excess amino acids produced after digestion cannot be stored, and can then be converted into energy. These excess amino acids are subjected to processes called transamination and deamination, which remove the nitrogen molecules in amino acids, thereby reducing amino acids to carbon-based structures (such as pyruvate) which can be converted into glucose (energy) or stored as fat. The nitrogen is freed as ammonia, extracted from the bloodstream by the liver and passed for excretion by the kidneys as urea.

Due to the increase in urea production, anyone with chronic kidney diseases may be negatively affected by high protein diets. Healthy people generally have no issues with any amount of protein.

Although a high-protein diet may help weight loss due to the TEF of proteins, in many ways it is not significantly better than eating raw vegetables, which also have a high TEF. Also, a recent cohort study published in The Lancet (based on 432,179 participants) found that high-protein diets involving mainly animal proteins shortened lifespans (the reasons were not investigated). The study also suggested getting 50% to 55% of daily energy requirements from carbohydrates extended lifespans.

In summary, there is no compelling reason to pursue a high-protein diet but if you must do so, then consider a diet with a much higher proportion of non-animal proteins. There is even less sense in eating expensive sugary confections with added protein – if you investigate the protein content, much of it are by-products from other food processing. Examples are hydrolysed collagen, soy protein isolate, milk protein isolate, skimmed milk powder, whey protein, egg albumen, etc, all mixed with sugars and fats.

https://www.star2.com/food/2018/09/23/curious-cook-food-proteins-googly-eyes-on-fish/

Curious Cook: Food, proteins and googly eyes on fish

My sister and her family recently came to stay in France, and one of their consistent comments was how good and “different” food tastes here – and were therefore curious about the “secret”.

September 23, 2018 

By CHRIS CHAN

Of course, there is no secret as such. For one, the food raised in France (and other parts of Europe) is different from food in Asia. By different, I mean the varieties of vegetables, fruits and animals here are distinct from other parts of the world. The preparation of the food is also often different, and I am also particularly fussy – for example, to get the right bangers for a barbecue, we made a return trip of around 100km to a butcher who sold sausages hand-crafted from pigs raised in the Cantal region.

There are, of course, several other items for which I would consider making such a long trip and top of the list would be good Malaysian durians – but sadly, there is no chance of that here as durians are still banned on flights.

This fussiness applies even to little things like salt. It is hard to believe but there are significant differences in the taste of salt. My personal preference is for Fleur De Sel De Guérande – if you are curious, try comparing a sample with ordinary salt side by side. The difference is usually due to the desiccants and/or flow-improvers in normal table salt.

French cheese Reblochon is made with raw, unpasteurised milk. Photo: The Star

France is largely agricultural and many regions are littered with remote farming communities where there is only one obscure road in and the same route out. Industrial farming is impossible and these communities mainly supply local markets with produce seldom contaminated by modern additives or processes used for mass production.

This is not always riskless – many fine French cheeses are made with “lait cru” or raw, unpasteurised milk and there was recently a recall of many tonnes of Reblochon de Savoie after some batches were found to be contaminated with E. coli. This outbreak had caused hemolytic-uremic syndrome in six out of seven affected children (though nobody died).

Statistically, this still makes eating Reblochon safer than crossing a road, so for that reason, such stories seldom bother me – though I would never offer young children cheese made with unpasteurised milk, just in case.

The right type of ingredients matter very significantly, especially in countries where there are few heavy spices to cover any deficiencies in food elements. For example, the closest to a French national dish might be boeuf bourguinon, a heady stew of beef, Provence herbs and red wine.

Boeuf bourguignon is made with few ingredients, unlike a Malaysian beef curry (see main image, top), which is often heavily spiced. Photos: The Star

In theory, it should be very easy to make (as it is mostly boiling lumps of beef for hours in wine and herbs) but it took a year before getting it right. The main problems were the cuts of meat used and the wine selection, according to a professional cook. So changing the meat for a fresher tougher cut and using a lighter Cote du Rhone (and adjusting the balance of herbs) now results in a pretty good stew every time.

I would probably not bother to make boeuf bourguinon in tropical Asian countries. This is because most “beef” in many South-East Asian countries is actually water buffalo imported from India. The other issue may also be the freshness of meat in tropical climates. Meat decomposes and changes its flavour very quickly, especially at warm temperatures – this rapid decomposition is mainly due to aerobic bacteria breaking down meat proteins and spoiling the flavour.

Hence in the Far East, it would make much more sense to cook food with strong spices or flavours to counteract any possible issues with meat protein decomposition. And of course, this is what most people do.

Check the eyes for freshness. Photo: The Star

Googly eyes

A funny story recently is the use of plastic googly eyes by a Kuwaiti fishmonger to cover the rotting eyes of old fish – a common way to test the freshness of fish is to check the decomposition of the eyes. The other is to check the redness underneath the gills. This indicates that consumers are acutely aware of the problems of protein decomposition.

Snack bars

This brings us round to the subject of proteins itself, especially in the modern diet. My daughter recently informed me that dietary protein is now such a fad that even confectionery manufacturers now offer protein-rich snack bars. This was a surprise to me, but a quick search proved she was right – you can get protein-rich Mars, Snickers and Bounty bars, for example. The Carnivore Diet is also an off-shoot of this protein fad. See “A modern food story – Part 1”.

Proteins

After ingestion, proteins are digested down into amino acids which are then released into the blood stream. Amino acids are extremely important as they are the building blocks of enzymes, antibodies, hormones, muscles and connective tissues such as collagen, without which the body simply cannot survive – and we cannot produce all the required amino acids so we require them in our diets. Humans need around 0.8g of protein per kilo of body weight.

One fact about proteins is they provide fewer digestible calories than carbohydrates and fat – as often stated before, not all calories from food are equal. This is because of the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF) which basically means that proteins take up five times more energy to digest compared to carbohydrates and fats. Hence, a piece of lean meat or soy protein delivers fewer calories than a fried doughnut of the same weight. This was reviewed in “The perils of dieting – Part 1”.

The TEF is also known as dietary-induced thermogenesis and appears to be the rationale behind many of the protein diet fads. Unlike dietary carbohydrates, which are chains of glucose molecules easily freed by enzymes (eg. amylase, galactose, sucrase, etc) into energy-giving glucose molecules, proteins are digested via a completely different pathway.

Proteins are more difficult to convert into energy for two reasons: (i) proteins contain nitrogen; and (ii) the digestive system needs to break down the peptide bonds holding together polypeptides. A string of amino acids is a polypeptide and proteins are either polypeptides or chains of polypeptides. Degradation of proteins is known as proteolysis and the first stage is denaturation of proteins in the extremely acidic environment of the stomach, plus the introduction of a stomach enzyme called pepsin. The deconstruction of proteins is further enhanced by the enzymes trypsin, chymotrypsin, carboxypeptidase A and B and elastase produced by the pancreas while passing into the intestines via the duodenum (where bicarbonate is introduced to raise pH to the level needed for the pancreatic enzymes to function efficiently).

After reducing proteins into amino acids, the amino acids are then passed into the intestinal cell walls and released into the bloodstream to be absorbed by other tissues.

Excess amino acids produced after digestion cannot be stored, and can then be converted into energy. These excess amino acids are subjected to processes called transamination and deamination, which remove the nitrogen molecules in amino acids, thereby reducing amino acids to carbon-based structures (such as pyruvate) which can be converted into glucose (energy) or stored as fat. The nitrogen is freed as ammonia, extracted from the bloodstream by the liver and passed for excretion by the kidneys as urea.

Due to the increase in urea production, anyone with chronic kidney diseases may be negatively affected by high protein diets. Healthy people generally have no issues with any amount of protein.

Although a high-protein diet may help weight loss due to the TEF of proteins, in many ways it is not significantly better than eating raw vegetables, which also have a high TEF. Also, a recent cohort study published in The Lancet (based on 432,179 participants) found that high-protein diets involving mainly animal proteins shortened lifespans (the reasons were not investigated). The study also suggested getting 50% to 55% of daily energy requirements from carbohydrates extended lifespans.

In summary, there is no compelling reason to pursue a high-protein diet but if you must do so, then consider a diet with a much higher proportion of non-animal proteins. There is even less sense in eating expensive sugary confections with added protein – if you investigate the protein content, much of it are by-products from other food processing. Examples are hydrolysed collagen, soy protein isolate, milk protein isolate, skimmed milk powder, whey protein, egg albumen, etc, all mixed with sugars and fats.

https://www.star2.com/food/2018/09/23/curious-cook-food-proteins-googly-eyes-on-fish/

Pesticides in Milk Causing Brain Damage - Support Raw and Grass-Fed Dairy

Both pesticides and dairy products have been linked to Parkinson’s disease in the past, and a new study suggests the combination of products – pesticides in your milk – could also play a role.

December 22, 2015

Story at-a-glance

• Residues of the insecticide heptachlor were found in 90 percent of heavy milk drinkers’ brains compared to 63 percent for those who consumed no milk
• Those who drank more than two cups of milk per day had 40 percent fewer brain cells in the mid-brain than those who drank less milk
• Milk intake is associated with SN neuron loss in the brain, a hallmark of Parkinson’s

By Dr. Mercola

Both pesticides and dairy products have been linked to Parkinson’s disease in the past, and a new study suggests the combination of products – pesticides inyour milk – could also play a role.

The study tracked nearly 450 men from Honolulu, Hawaii, an area where high levels of the insecticide heptachlor were used on pineapple fields during the 1960s, ‘70s, and ‘80s.1 Very high levels of the insecticide were found in milk in Hawaii during the ‘80s as a result.

The study revealed a strong association between heptachlor residue and the loss of brain cells, especially among heavy milk drinkers. Among those who drank the most milk, residues of heptachlor were found in 90 percent of brains compared to 63 percent for those who consumed no milk.

Further, those who drank more than two cups of milk per day during the ‘60s had 40 percent fewer brain cells in the midbrain substantia nigra (SN) area of the brain upon their death than those who drank less milk. Diminished substantia nigra is often seen in Parkinson’s disease.

The study showed that milk intake is associated with SN neuron loss in the brain, a hallmark of Parkinson’s.

And while the milk in the study wasn’t directly tested to determine if it was contaminated, heptachlor was known to be found at excessively high levels in the Hawaiian milk supply during the time of the study’s milk-intake data collection.

What Else Might Be Lurking in Your Milk?

In 2011, Spanish and Moroccan researchers used a highly sensitive test to determine what types of medications could be found in a variety of milk (cow, goat, and human breast milk).

They hit the chemical jackpot. Medications used to treat diseases in both humans and animals were revealed. Among the drugs and hormones detected were:2

Anti-inflammatories (niflumic acid, mefenamic acid, ketoprofen, diclofenac, phenylbutazone, naproxen, flunixin, and diclofenac)	Antibiotics (florfenicol)	Natural hormones (estrone)
Sex hormones (17-beta-estradiol)	Steroid hormones (17-alpha-ethinylestradiol)	Anti-malaria drugs (pyrimethamine)
Anti-fungal drugs (triclosan)

While all types of milk tested contained chemicals, cow's milk contained the highest levels. Some of these drugs and hormones were given to the cows directly, while others were likely ingested from the cattle food or contamination on the farm.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authority to require milk be tested if evidence exists that drug residues may be in the milk supply.

However, although the FDA has stopped some dairy farms from selling their cattle for meat after drug residue violations, this prohibition doesn’t typically extend to the milk.3

This is ironic, since the FDA and other government agencies seem to have no problem going after raw milk farmers, even when there is no evidence of contamination whatsoever.

Farmers Continue to Be Harassed for Selling Safe Raw Milk

Michael Schmidt, a raw milk farmer in Canada, has been battling with the government for decades in order to provide safe raw milk to area residents.

He has been harassed with threats, surveillance, intimidation, and raids, even though no one has ever gotten sick from drinking the raw milk products he provides.

Since it is illegal to sell raw milk in Canada, those who wanted to enjoy Schmidt’s raw milk products formed the Glencolton farm share, in which each owned a piece of a cow and could therefore legally enjoy its milk.

The government eradicated this loophole, however, so the shareholders moved to own the farm instead of just the cow. The government still intervened, forcing the members to “operate with caution” out of fear that they might be raided while trying to pick up a gallon of milk.

Although members have tried to set up meetings with government officials to outline their concerns and reach an agreeable conclusion, the government has not been interested.4

Surveillance Cameras Take the Raw Milk Wars to the Next Level

The case is getting even more outrageous, as the Ministry of Natural Resources reportedly set up surveillance cameras on public property without residents’ permission.

Schmidt and others believe the cameras’ purpose is to monitor Glencolton farm’s raw milk production, although area police wouldn’t disclose who owned the cameras or why they were there.

Schmidt and other residents removed the cameras and now he’s being charged with theft. As reported by Collective Evolution:5

“Neighbors of Schmidt took it upon themselves to take down the cameras and work to discover who placed them there (and why). They found over 80,000 images and video on SD cards of citizens jogging, walking dogs, and moving through day-to-day life.

They called the police to find out whose cameras they were but were unsatisfied when police refused to disclose their ownership and instead demanded the cameras be handed over.

Schdmit refused and cited an infraction to privacy, transparency, and justice as his main reason for not giving them up. Now, he is being charged with theft under $5k for not sitting by while the government invades the privacy of his community.

… All Schmidt and his advocates ask for is their right to choose what they put into their bodies … This group of people is fighting for way more than the right to drink raw milk.

In a way, they are a microcosm of the greater threat to our privacy and rights, and the more we go along with whatever the state says without question, the more we give up our individual sovereignty.”

Australians Rally for Raw Milk

In Australia, it’s illegal to sell raw milk for human consumption, so it may instead be labeled as “bath” milk that’s sold for cosmetic purposes. In December 2014, a 3-year-old boy from Victoria reportedly died after drinking raw milk labeled as “bath” milk, but the coroner’s report into the death has not been released.

After the death, the government introduced a requirement that a bittering agent be added to all “bath” milk to prevent anyone from drinking it.

Mark McAfee, the founder of Organic Pastures Dairy, and one of the leaders in the raw milk movement, spoke at an event in Melbourne hosted by the Australian Raw Milk Movement.

He believes the time is right in Australia to begin the debate about consumption of raw milk products, and noted that the bittering agent requirement was “continuing the charade that bath milk is not consumed and people are taking a bath in it.”6

Milk from Grain-Fed Cows Likely Contains Glyphosate

Glyphosate is another pesticide that’s likely to be contaminating pasteurized milk, as many dairy farmers feed their cows genetically engineered (GE) corn in lieu of their natural diet, grass. Their cornfields, in turn, are sprayed with Roundup, of which glyphosate is the active ingredient. This is even true in states like Vermont, which was the first in the U.S. to require labeling on GE foods.

Raw milk from grass-fed cows is far less likely to be contaminated with glyphosate, even if it’s not organic, because the cows don’t eat corn. According to VTDigger in June 2015:7

“Most conventional Vermont dairy farmers this spring sprayed their fields with glyphosate, a weed killer that is gaining popularity among dairy farmers who grow corn to feed their cows.

On fields where weeds and grass are brown, many farmers have already sprayed the herbicide this year and will likely spray again. According to state data, nearly all of the corn grown in Vermont is genetically engineered to survive the application of pesticides.

Over the past decade, farmers who plant ‘Roundup Ready’ corn have increasingly turning to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, to kill a variety of weeds that take nutrients, water and sunlight away from corn, which can affect yields.

In 2013, Vermont farmers and chemical applicators purchased five times more glyphosate than they did a decade ago, according to new data requested from the Agency of Agriculture.”

It’s unclear just how much glyphosate may be in U.S. milk because the U.S. Department of Agriculture doesn’t test for its residues in food.

This is concerning because in a study published in The Lancet, scientists convened by the World Health Organization found that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans."8 Past research has also found glyphosate residues “enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease.”9 

Glyphosate also causes extreme disruption of microbes’ function and lifecycle. What’s worse, glyphosate preferentiallyaffects beneficial bacteria, allowing pathogens to overgrow and take over. In a study published in 2013, researchers even concluded that glyphosate is a xenoestrogen that is functionally similar to estradiol, the most potent human estrogen, and concentrations in the parts-per-trillion range had carcinogenic effects.10

Overall, glyphosate has a number of devastating biological effects, including the following, which is why it’s a chemical you certainly do not want in your milk:

Nutritional deficiencies, as glyphosate immobilizes certain nutrients and alters the nutritional composition of the treated crop	Disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids (these are essential amino acids not produced in your body that must be supplied via your diet)
Increased toxin exposure (this includes high levels of glyphosate and formaldehyde in the food itself)	Impairment of sulfate transport and sulfur metabolism; sulfate deficiency
Systemic toxicity — a side effect of extreme disruption of microbial function throughout your body; beneficial microbes in particular, allowing for overgrowth of pathogens	Gut dysbiosis (imbalances in gut bacteria, inflammation,leaky gut, and food allergies such as gluten intolerance)
Enhancement of damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and environmental toxins as a result of glyphosate shutting down the function of detoxifying enzymes	Creation of ammonia (a byproduct created when certain microbes break down glyphosate), which can lead to brain inflammation associated with autism and Alzheimer's disease

Nutrition Group Tells the FDA: Raw Milk Cheese Is Safe

In August 2015, the FDA issued a request for comments on "potential intervention measures to reduce the risk of foodborne illness" from raw milk cheeses. More than 70 comments have been added, including a comprehensive comment from the Weston A. Price Foundation. Sally Fallon Morell, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation who is also a cheesemaker, explained:11

"Unfortunately, the FDA is starting with an incorrect assumption, namely that more regulations would benefit consumers of raw milk cheeses … But the government's own data shows that there have been very, very few outbreaks from raw milk cheeses produced under the current regulations. Imposing additional testing or lengthening the aging period would simply drive many artisan producers out of business and reduce consumer choices."

Included in the Weston Price Foundation’s comments was an extensive review of the scientific literature related to raw milk cheeses, including their safety in comparison to pasteurized cheeses. According to Fallon Morell:12

“The scientific studies show that the diverse community of microorganisms in raw milk cheese effectively limits the growth of pathogenic organisms, and thus post-process contamination is actually a greater risk in cheeses made from pasteurized milk."

Mark McAfee has on many occasions tried to set the record straight with U.S. authorities regarding the safety of raw milk products, including cheese, to no avail. Most of the outbreaks associated with raw milk cheese have been linked to illegal Mexican bath tub cheese that is not made from raw milk produced in the U.S. – and new regulatory requirements against illegal bathtub cheese would be “futile.”13

Support Raw, Grass-Fed Milk Products

Raw milk dairy products from organically raised pasture-fed cows rank among some of the healthiest foods you can consume. It’s far superior in terms of health benefits compared to pasteurized milk, and if statistics are any indication, it’s safer, too.

While many believe that milk must be pasteurized before it can be safely consumed, it’s worth remembering that raw milk was consumed for eons before the invention of pasteurization. It’s also important to realize that pasteurization is only really required for certain kinds of milk; specifically that from cows raised in crowded and unsanitary conditions, which is what you find in confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

It really needs to be pasture-raised, NOT pasteurized. Organically raised cows that are allowed to roam free on pasture where they can graze for their natural food source produce very different milk. Their living conditions promote and maintain their health and optimize their milk in terms of the nutrients and beneficial bacteria it contains. A number of supportive legislative efforts are underway.

This includes the Milk Freedom Act of 2014 (HR 4307) and the Interstate Milk Freedom Act of 2014 (HR 4308), the latter of which would allow raw milk to be sold nationwide, across state lines. HR 4308 would also prevent the federal government from interfering with trade of raw dairy products between states where distribution or sale of raw milk is already legal. In 2014, Rep. Thomas Massie said:14

"As a producer of grass-fed beef, I am familiar with some of the difficulties small farmers face when marketing fresh food directly to consumers. Our bills would make it easier for families to buy wholesome milk directly from farmers by reversing the criminalization of dairy farmers who offer raw milk. The federal government should not punish farmers for providing customers the foods they want, and states should be free to set their own laws regulating food safety."

The fight over raw milk stands as a symbol of the much larger fight for food freedom. If the FDA and other government agencies are allowed to impose their view of "safe food" on consumers, raw milk won't be the only thing lost — all food could potentially be pasteurized, irradiated, and genetically engineered.

The effort to reclaim your right to buy and consume raw milk is leading the way for everyone who wants to be able to obtain the food of their choice from the source of their choice. So please, get involved! Getting your raw milk and other food from a local organic farm or co-op is one of the best ways to ensure you're getting high-quality food. You can locate a raw milk source near you at the Campaign for Real Milk Website.

California residents can find raw milk retailers by using the store locator available at www.OrganicPastures.com. As with all foods, the source matters, and this is just as true with raw milk as any other food. If you’re interested in raw milk, here are tips for finding high-quality raw milk sources.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/12/22/pesticides-milk.aspx

This post is on Healthwise