Milk

I'm not sure if this belongs here or in /r/ but I was looking at the CDC and FDA websites on how likely someone is to get sick from drinking unpasteurized milk but I can't seem to find any information on how like someone is to get sick from drinking pasteurized milk. Does anyone have any scientific (as in not hippy or vegan biological revisionist) sources on that? If this does belong on /r/ then I'm sorry, mods. Please be gentle

Other urls found in this thread:

fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm079516.htm
cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-questions-and-answers.html#who
cdc.gov/ecoli/2013/O121-03-13/index.html
digitalcommons.unl.edu/publichealthresources/73/
statista.com/topics/1284/milk-market/
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1541-4337.2003.tb00031.x/abstract
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Took me using bing for twelve seconds.
I didn't real if its good or bad, but it's got some sources for you.
fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm079516.htm

How likely? Pretty damn likely.
cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-questions-and-answers.html#who

"From 1998 through 2011, 148 outbreaks due to consumption of raw milk or raw milk products were reported to CDC. These resulted in 2,384 illnesses, 284 hospitalizations, and 2 deaths. Most of these illnesses were caused by Escherichia coli, Campylobacter, Salmonella, or Listeria. It is important to note that a substantial proportion of the raw milk-associated disease burden falls on children; among the 104 outbreaks from 1998-2011 with information on the patients’ ages available, 82% involved at least one person younger than 20 years old.

Because not all cases of foodborne illness are recognized and reported, the actual number of illnesses associated with raw milk likely is greater."

In comparison, the great E. Coli outbreak with frozen food only claimed 35 victims.
cdc.gov/ecoli/2013/O121-03-13/index.html and last year's Blue Bell Ice Cream recall was only 10 individuals.

why the FUCK does milk have so much sugar in it

Milk is loaded with fat (which is skimmed off) and sugar because it is a complete food intended to give energy to calves, which unlike human babies are expected to walk within hours of being born. The sugars give the immediate short burst while the proteins give the more sustained energy.

Don't even try. Raw milk research is beyond fucked on both sides.

If you trace the funding for pro-raw milk research, 90% of it goes back to the Weston A Price foundation. And anti-raw milk research is biased at best, dishonest at worst. Read some meta-analyses, a good portion of data is fucking ignored because it doesn't fit with the authors' biases.

That said, you can get some serious life-changing diseases from raw milk. So try it once if you're curious, you'll probably be fine, just don't make it a regular thing.

You don't have to research with "bias". It's raw statistical data.

>life-changing diseases
You mean, diseases that kill you? Because that's what it is.

All research is more than just facts, user. Researchers interpret data and present it effectively to signal to the scientific community that their research is valid and requires further funding. I looked at a ton if articles, and oftentimes the articles contained very misleading information that didn't fit the data, like one that said "pasteurization didn't denature a significant amount of vitamins" when the data table it was referencing showed a huge drop in vitamin D levels. And there's stuff like the CDC doesn't show comparative rates of pasteurized milk outbreaks (which do happen, but not as often) and in many cases they don't know 100% whether outbreaks were caused by the milk or by something else, like eggs.

And yes, the diseases can kill you. But it's very rare for healthy adults to die from them. Usually it's the sick kids whose hippy parents feed them raw milk who die. But there are cases where people have been crippled as a result of a disease they got from raw milk. That's what I meant by life-changing.

Don't get pissy at me, user. I'm on your side. But food science on the whole is pretty messed up, raw milk especially. We should be pushing for higher standards instead of accepting poor research blindly.

Seems like everyone has my question backwards so I'll rephrase it. I've seen how likely raw milk can get you sick but I would like some info on how likely "unraw" milk can get you sick.

>doesn't show comparative rates of pasteurized milk outbreaks
Actually, they do. Did you think raw milk is used for cheese and ice cream? Considering that by definition any outbreak from pasteurized milk means it didn't go through the proper process, you may be looking for the wrong keywords.

>and in many cases they don't know 100% whether outbreaks were caused by the milk or by something else, like eggs.
Yeah sure nobody can rule with a 100% certainty, but no body of science has ever done this. The bureau of meteorology doesn't predict rain with a 100% certainty. The geophysicists don't predict earthquakes down to the last second. "Variance" and "standard deviations" occur even in precision made instruments.

If a significant number of people whose only differentiating dietary factor was the raw milk and they were all sick from a pathogen commonly carried by raw milk, are you going to be the stick in the mud who screams it's not an outbreak for reals because it's not a 100% certainty?

OP, I want you to think about this. Milk that has been pastuerized by definition has pathogen levels below a certain significance threshold. Pastuerization isn't performed by people just heating up milk for a random number of minutes and going "yup that should do it". They take samples of the batches going in and going out and don't stop heating the milk until the pathogen levels are at an acceptable level.

Once any pathogen enters your body, it has to multiply above a certain threshold without the immune system kicking in for whatever reasons in order for the body to trigger the infection response.

Statistically speaking, for an outbreak to occur, a significant cluster of individuals must all have unusually subpar immune system function to have coincidentally consumed a batch of milk that is at the upper threshold levels of pathogens.

Unless you're feeding a lupus colony milk from a dairy staffed by mexican slaves who shit on their hands and create your own sharpshooter fallacy, you are not going to see anything near what the CDC's definition of an "outbreak" is going to happen.

I'm just looking for numbers based on statistical analysis on how the odds of getting sick from drinking pasteurized milk with legit sauce. I'm not looking to actual drink anything based on this. It's pure curiosity. It's crazy how hard it is to get an answer

Lactose bro. It's lactose. You can tell it's a sugar because of the suffix.

>Glucose
>Fructose
>Sucrose
>Lactose

All sugar. Lactose intolerant people are like Diabetes Lite, they can't deal with sugar but only one specific type of sugar.

Bump for an answer

I know it's dangerous and all but man, you don't know shit about milk until you've drank a cup of milk still warm right after your grandma finished milking a cow.

I used to work in this hippy shop that sold raw milk labeled as "bath milk."

Pretty sure none of our customers were going home to bathe in fucking milk.

They don't have lactase, the enzyme that breaks down lactose. In european descendants, we continue to make small amounts of lactase instead of just a bunch at birth. So lactose intolerant people end up with a free sugar that their gut flora can process and they can't- which makes them fart a lot and make gas.

Some people are allergic too, but not as many.

I hate to be the one to break it to you pal but your grandma didn't own no cow. That wasn't a cup of warm milk

Whats the chance of this happening? I really dont want to have to boil milk from my (future) cows every time i want to drink it.

OP here. Are people still thinking I'm asking about raw milk?

it's entirely a cleanliness and transit issue, the milk itself is fine if it's being handled correctly

the issue is that if you buy it from someone's garage you have no idea where it's from or how it was stored or transported or how clean the farm is

SHUT THE FUCK UP

>SHUT THE FUCK UP
All I want to know is how likely someone is to get sick from drinking milk that ISN'T raw. I have no idea why people are still talking about raw milk. What's with the terrible reading comprehension on this board?

I'm not seeing anything there that describes how likely you are to get sick, just absolute figures.

Wtf do you even want to know, data on how many people get sick from completely dead (=pasteurized) food? = none unless allergy or lunginfection or other serious illness before consuming it. Raw milk isnt dangerous, pasteurized milk is 100% harmless. looking for data on it is like looking for data about how many people got sick from eating broccoli, it just wont exist

If you're someone who doesn't have it or can't help me find it then why even comment?

>Read OP
>It says unpasteurized milk
>Discussion start on unpasteurized milk
>OP had written wrong, he correct in a post lost somewhere itt.
>nobody gives a fuck and goes on about unpasteurized milk
Make another thread later I guess.
Maybe yuropean organisations will have more data, since they have a more relax legislation concerning raw milk products.

And go suck on a cow's tits.

>I'm not sure if this belongs here or in /r/ but I was looking at the CDC and FDA websites on how likely someone is to get sick from drinking unpasteurized milk
Here is where I said I already got that info.
>but I can't seem to find any information on how like someone is to get sick from drinking pasteurized milk. Does anyone have any scientific (as in not hippy or vegan biological revisionist) sources on that?
Here is where I was asking about the harmful effects of drinking pasteurized milk.

Fixed formatting.

It doesn't look like anyone's actually come up with a figure. Most of the time you are going to have to work that sort of thing out yourself, as individual papers tend to just report numbers, and actually coming up with a percentage likelihood isn't as simple as you might expect. We can probably make a rough estimate though.

This study looked at e.coli outbreaks over the course of 20 years:
>Escherichia coli O157:H7 causes 73,000 illnesses in the United States annually. We reviewed E. coli O157 outbreaks reported to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to better understand the epidemiology of E. coli O157. E. coli O157 outbreaks (>2 cases of E. coli O157 infection with a common epidemiologic exposure) reported to CDC from 1982 to 2002 were reviewed. In that period, 49 states reported 350 outbreaks, representing 8,598 cases
>Seven outbreaks were associated with dairy products, including 4 from consuming raw milk. The others were due to cheese curds made from raw milk, from butter made from raw milk, and from commercial ice cream bars (possibly due to cross-contamination).
>Outbreaks reported as unknown transmission route accounted for 21% of outbreaks
Epidemiology of Escherichia coli O157:H7 Outbreaks, United States, 1982–2002
digitalcommons.unl.edu/publichealthresources/73/

So dairy accounts for 2% of the reported cases. If that maps to the 73000 annual total (I haven't followed through their reference for that figure, but I'm assuming it's reasonable), that's 1460 cases.

That translates into odds of ~1/220000 if you consume an average amount of dairy products annually.

There were four cases from raw milk out of seven total, so call it about half, which would make the odds of you getting ill from pasteurised dairy products closer to 1/440000

This says people drink on average 128 glasses of milk a year: statista.com/topics/1284/milk-market/ And this suggests liquid milk is about 75% by weight of dairy product available.

Plugging those numbers in gives you odds of an e.coli infection from a single glass of milk of 1/74M.

If you assume half of the unknown cases were due to dairy products, it's more like ~1/12M.

That's just for e.coli, and it's obviously got a lot of guesses and assumptions, but I think the numbers sound reasonable. It would suggest about 700 people in the US get e.coli from drinking pasteurised milk every year.

Bear in mind I'm drunk so I might have entirely fucked up though.

>looking for data on it is like looking for data about how many people got sick from eating broccoli, it just wont exist
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1541-4337.2003.tb00031.x/abstract