- First of all, nowadays, it is now quite easy and practical to deliver healthy raw milk from animals to consumers.
- Raw milk contains vitamins, enzymes, and other bioactive components destroyed by pasteurization which are very likely to confer benefits to the immune, reproductive, and digestive systems [reference]. (Lactase is one example. Lactase is the enzyme necessary for the digestion of lactose, a component of milk. Roughly 75% of adults worldwide [reference] are not able to produce adequate lactase on their own. Thus, for most people in the world, raw milk is more digestible than pasteurized milk.)
- Raw milk contains a dynamic balance of bacteria that actually makes it less prone to spoiling than the sterile pasteurized milk, which is like an unpeopled frontier waiting to be overrun.
- Because of this balance of bacteria, raw milk is more versatile when making cultured milk products (cheese, yogurt, kefir, etc.).
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Let's talk about raw milk. The "experts" have told us confidently that raw (unpasteurized) milk is bad. Just like they've told us confidently that butter is bad, and margarine is good...um, I mean, bad. (They change their minds every so often.) So what is the real story of raw milk? The short version: Once upon a time, all milk was "raw milk". That's how it comes out of mammals. As the industrial revolution surged forwards, and milk started to be produced on an industrial scale, it became uneconomical for large dairy conglomerates to maintain hygienic conditions. So they stopped trying. After selling unhygienic milk for a while, sickening and killing people, they decided to start pasteurizing their milk to kill off pathogens. Due to their political clout, they were able to convince governments and the medical establishment to support compulsory pasteurization for all milk producers. This put all dairies, large and small, on basically an even footing. So what's the problem? Who needs raw milk, anyway?