Myth-Busting Raw Milk

A frenzy of talk around food safety is currently buzzing around media outlets and across social media platforms. More awareness about the safety and nutrition of food should bolster our individual and communal health., right? Unfortunately many sources of information on food safety (wellness gurus, politicians and doctors with little to no nutrition, chemistry or policy background) seem to have agendas closer to deregulation and institutional distrust than they do on education and policy changes that make a difference. The guise often includes conspiracy to keep people sick for profit. Given the reality of free market, shareholder interest based capitalism, this is not hard to imagine. But imagining something does not make it real and deregulating our network of safeguards is a giant leap backwards in food safety. Increasing fear around food is particularly harmful to those who might struggle with health issues or those who are on a tight budget. Many of our Institutions have put in place processing practices to try and protect as many people as possible from food borne illnesses while increasing food availability. No one is saying that they are perfect or immune from corruption but these practices are still our best option in a globalized food market. An important example of such regulatory processes are the laws around pasteurization of milk and dairy products.

Louis Pasteur performed the the first successful pasteurization test in 1862. This test was performed on wine because clearly they had their priorities straight. This process was then used on eggs, milk, juice and beer: all products that had microbial overgrowth issues.

Pasteurization is the application of heat in order to destroy yeast pathogens and mold without affecting the taste or make-up of the product. The intensity of the heat and the length of the process depends on the acidity level of the food or drink being processed. This heating along with refrigeration increase the safety and the shelf life of the product. Yes, part of the ingenuity allowed for more product to be sold to more people. Widespread availability of safe nutritious food/drink while making a profit. This is ideal.

The most commonly used process is called High Temperature Short Time (HTST) Pasteurization. This involves high heat for 15 seconds or longer followed by a cooling.period. There are several other kinds of pasteurization methods that involve different ways to heat and package the products to increase the shelf life or avoid refrigeration. Some take under 1 second to heat.

Mandatory pasteurization laws were first implemented in New York city in 1910 and after clear evidence of reduced illness and deaths more cities and states began implementing similar laws. In 1973 the U.S. federal government made pasteurization of milk compulsory for any interstate commerce. Canada introduced similar laws in 1991, lowering the rates of food poisoning dramatically.

Raw milk can carry dangerous bacteria including Salmonella, Campylobacter, E coli, Listeria and others which cause food borne illnesses. Recently, wellness influencers use the presence of some of these germs on produce as a sign that it is normal and so it is safe to drink raw milk. They will often cite stats showing the number of listeria outbreaks from pasteurized milk as much higher than that of raw milk. But the data shown does not represent percentages. Because raw milk is illegal to sell in most places in the U.S. so the opportunity for outbreaks is drastically lower. We would need to see percentage of outbreaks matching with product sold to get a clearer picture and when we do this, we see that the risk is higher with raw milk.

The germs mentioned above can cause serious illness or even death. People with weakened immune systems are at a much higher risk, so pregnant women, the elderly, children and those suffering from chronic illness should all steer clear of raw milk. Indeed the vast majority of food borne illnesses from the 202 outbreaks between1998-2018 (in the U.S.) were in children.

In all the single state outbreaks recorded between 2013-2018 ,78% of them occurred in states where sale of raw milk was expressly allowed. The chance of outbreak was 4x higher in states where sale was allowed in retail stores vs states where sale was solely permitted on farms. Clearly, the more lax the laws, the greater the number of outbreaks. But for some reason, the risk of food borne illness is not enough to deter some from drinking it while pregnant and giving it to their children. Much of the fervour for raw milk seems to lay in some common myths circulating the social media sphere. Let’s look at a few of them.

MYTH #1 – RAW MILK CURES LACTOSE INTOLERANCE

All milk contains the disaccharide lactose. The lactose concentration in cows milk is about 4.8% and raw milk does not contain any lactase within it to help breakdown the lactose. The claim you will find on social media is that naturally occurring probiotics in raw milk produce lactase, allowing lactose intolerant people to drink it. This is a far cry from curing lactose intolerance but it is also wrong. The confusion may come from data showing that yogurt eases lactose malabsorption in subjects with lactose intolerance. The mechanism appears to be lactase secreted by microorganisms, specifically Streptococcus thermophilus and Lactobacillus bulgaricus. But raw milk does not contain the same types nor the same amounts of bacteria and so it does not have this affect of lowering intolerance. The bacteria in raw milk are NOT considered probiotics because they are pathogenic. The bacteria in raw milk are often from infected udder tissue, the animals environment or from equipment used to milk them. If bacteria exist it is often because the animal is ill or the environment is contaminated.

The two bacteria found in raw milk that are of human origin are Streptococcus pyogenes and Bifidobacteria. The former is sometimes transmitted from humans to animals and then retransmitted to humans as a pathogen which causes strep throat. The latter is often excreted in animal feces and so if your raw milk contains Bifidobacteria then it is most likely contaminated with fecal matter and the farm you are buying milk from practices poor processing hygiene. Yet this is the “good bacteria’ that raw milk enthusiasts persist is what cures lactose intolerance.

MYTH #2 – RAW MILK IS MORE NUTRITIOUS

If you google nutrient differences you will find a myriad of blogs suggesting that pasteurized milk is lacking in beneficial microbes (nope. see above section), minerals, vitamins, fat, protein, immunoglobulins, etc. But if you actually dig to see what the studies have shown you find that there is no evidence that these claims are true. As seen in this study, the heating process of pasteurization does not effect the nutritional quality of milk. Minor denaturation of whey protein (less than 7%) occurs in heating but no changes to protein quality. A slight diminishing of some vitamins occurs during pasteurization but the only vitamin that has any significant concentration level to begin with is b12. Again the loss of b12 is minimal, usually under 10%. For reference, one glass of pasteurized milk holds about 50% of your necessary daily intake of b12. If you eat 2 eggs with your glass of milk then you have reached your daily quota. The risks of raw milk do not warrant the bump in b12 of maybe 10%.

Minerals are very stable and do not change under heat processing. Nor do the fat soluble vitamins like vitamin A and E..The most likely culprits of any nutrition losses are packaging materials, light exposure, storage time and temperatures as well as feed choices. People who prop up raw milk as a superior form probably confuse the fact that pasture raised cows or goats produce different nutrient quality than those in common farming practices. If you get pasteurized milk from farms that follow pasture raising practices then you will see a nutritional bump. It’s not the processing but rather the feed methods.

MYTH #3 – RAW MILK CONTAINS IMMUNOGLOBULINS THAT IMPROVE IMMUNE FUNCTION

Immunoglobulin concentrations in cows milk re inconsequentially low with regards to human health. They sit somewhere between 0,6-1.0mg/ml (reference). Interestingly, the main immunoglobulin found in milk (igG) is quite heat stable and a study using HTST pasteurization method showed only a 1% denaturation. Other researchers have even suggested that the heating process may improve the binding potential of immunoglobulins in humans.

MYTH #4 – FOLATE BINDING PROTEIN IS DENATURED DURING PASTEURIZATION

If you want to increase your folate, milk is a bad choice. 1 cup gets you about 10-16 micrograms and you need roughly 400 micrograms per day. So unless you want to drink 25 cups of milk every day…maybe this isn’t the argument you should be standing behind. Either way, studies have found that moderate heating levels show very little to no folate or folate binding protein loss.

The mythology does not end here. There are several other lies including raw milk being better at preventing osteoporosis, that it cures asthma and that it contains more enzymes and lipases that aid in digestion. None of these are true, in fact when the so called helpful lipases are present in raw milk, it is due to contamination and is usually associated with elevated pathogens.

I just want to be clear, I am not saying that raw milk is always bad for you or always going to contain pathogens. Healthy cows under sterile environments and clean storage practices can be safe and healthy. The question is, given the elevated health risk, does the potential benefit warrant taking it? I have yet to see any solid evidence that it is., not for myself and definitely not for my kids.

I am an advocate for science literacy and this includes knowledge on farming practices, processing and storage methods. The message that people have fear attached to the lack of general education on how foods are processed is not inherently bad. But we can use nuanced, science driven conversation to quell most of these fears. At times, the drive to profits may lead to unnecessary risks in product placement and this is one of the reasons we need out institutions. The food babe is not qualified to monitor this complex system of chemistry, farming, nutrition, health and safety, never mind educate the public. I am not either. But I try hard to stick to the science and I reference those who are qualified.

More damage is done when influencers post sensationalized information that drives more fear and distrust. Even more harm is done when this information includes propping up foods or supplements that are clearly more hazardous to peoples health than the alternatives. Lets not forget, the wellness industry is bigger than “big pharma” now. These influencers are making a profit too and the less regulation, the easier it is for them to rake it in.

Many of the same lies attached to pasteurized milk are attached to seed oils. We don’t have a complete understanding of nutrition and health, we probably never will because it is very complex but when making food choices it is best to look for evidence based information. Sometimes you will fall short of certainty and then going with an educated guess from a qualified practitioner along with your intuition should make you feel good about your decision. Avoid the camps. Food does not need to be an ideology and remember that most healthy practices lay in the middle ground, the boring old middle, far away from the butter brick chewing internet dorks.

If you are lost and need some help putting together an individualized nutrition plan that is based off of science, experience and common sense , contact me here and I would be happy to set up a consultation.

Much love,

J