Is pasteurized milk really bad?

[Guest guest]

I've read in NT or WAPF site about experiments in

which calves were fed pasteurized milk and died

because of it. So when talking to somebody who I

though might know someone with a milking goat or cow,

I was asked why I was looking so hard for raw milk.

Previously she had told me that she fed her baby sheep

with goat milk. I told her that according to those

experiments, her sheep would die if she had used

pasteurized milk. Her answer surprised me -- she said

that she'd even fed her sheep with powdered milk (I

take it that was cow's milk as I've never heard of

powdered goat's milk) mixed with water, and she didn't

noticed any adverse effects. Are we using good science

here? Has anyone confirmed truthfulness of the reports

of the experiments? Did the calves really die? Or

maybe sheep are more resistant?

I am confused again. Since many kids are brought up on

baby formulas based on pasteurized milk, this kind of

milk does have some merits. This applies to other

cooked foods. The best conclusion I can come with to

reconcile everything I know, is toxins and decreased

nutrient content that may be caused by cooking foods

is only one factor in developing diseases. Duh! That's

trivial. Some apparently benefit a lot from these

foods, and some don't (e.g. allergies). Maybe, as

Bianca has said, the very sick ones will benefit the

most from not eating cooked food. I am arriving at

conclusion that eating cooked food, including

pasteurized milk, is OK if it doesn't seem to cause

problems. Other factors can make this more or less

tolerable. Chronic stress is one of such factors:

http://askwaltstollmd.com/stress.html.

Roman

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

My understanding is they need the colostrum or they will die. Every dairy

person - goat or cow - I have ever known always bottle feeds the colostrum

until the cow or doe's milk comes in and then switches the animal over to

milk replacer. It's kind of sad in a way that they get formula while we get

the good stuff.

ine

[Guest guest]

Not really.

calves will not die if not given colostrum, they just will not live and produce

well.

Most SMALL dairy farmers do feed colostrum and now they arer feeding milk up to

12 weeks to heifer calves(girls) because they do so much better.

Most though feed colostrum and then at two days switch to milk replacer.The sad

thing is some feed milk that is pastuerized to calves due to es in the herds

and if feeding only pastuerized milk, calves will die.

Food From Afar wrote:

> My understanding is they need the colostrum or they will die. Every dairy

> person - goat or cow - I have ever known always bottle feeds the colostrum

> until the cow or doe's milk comes in and then switches the animal over to

> milk replacer. It's kind of sad in a way that they get formula while we get

> the good stuff.

>

> ine

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>The sad

> thing is some feed milk that is pastuerized to calves due to es

in the herds

> and if feeding only pastuerized milk, calves will die.

>

Are sheep that much different from cows in that regard? As the person

in my story said, the baby sheep didn't die, even though, they were

fed only pasteurized milk. In fact, she didn't notice any health

problems. If calves really do die when fed only pasteurized milk,

then humans are obviously different from them in that aspect because

most human babies don't die when fed only pasteurized milk based

formula. If cows are so much different, then it's not correct to use

them as a basis to make conclusion that pasteurized milk is harmful

to humans.

Roman

[Guest guest]

If calves really do die when fed only pasteurized milk,

> then humans are obviously different from them in that aspect

because

> most human babies don't die when fed only pasteurized milk based

> formula. If cows are so much different, then it's not correct to

use

> them as a basis to make conclusion that pasteurized milk is harmful

> to humans.

Roman,

You are correct in saying that human babies don't die from

pasteurized milk formula, however it is a known fact that children

who were breastfed are much healthier than those who were not. They

are more immune to illness. I would think the same goes for other

mammals. If they are only fed pasteurized milk, then they cannot

fight off illness as well and may get sick, then die.

As for drinking pasteurized milk as an adult, I don't know if

pasteurized milk is really that harmful to you. I do know that I

never tolerated pasteurized milk the way I tolerate raw milk. Some

people would argue that cows milk is for baby cows, human milk is for

baby humans, etc... Is it really a traditional food?

Gianine

[Guest guest]

Yes, I agree, the claim that pasteurized milk kills calves is credibility

damaging. If the movement is going to continue to grow, we're going to have

to start using a higher standard for both evaluating and supporting some of

the claims that are made.

When dealing with non-mainstream or older science like we often are, the

level of peer review is often not as high as what the mainstream enjoys. We

need to be cautious of these areas where it would appear that overstated,

naive, or outright fallacious claims or conclusions are being made.

Nobody's perfect or omniscient, but when people put out informational

literature, it must read as though they are. Perhaps instead of quietly not

challenging when we see dubious claims, we should be playing the role of

reviewer so as to help " tighten-up " the literature.

[Guest guest]

>>>> Dairy goats are almost always raised on pasteurized milk or milk

replacer. There is a disease passed through the milk to the offspring called

CAE. People who raise dairy goats go to the trouble to milk the mother,

pasteurize the milk and then bottle feed the kid. They also frequently use a

milk replacer. It's a formula for goats and/or sheep, which is similar to

what's fed to human infants in that it's powdered milk products and a host

of additives.

Carmen,

Is this CAE disease passed on to humans if they drink the milk or is only

passed on to the offspring?

Barb

[Guest guest]

I also agree. What fascinates me about the vegan websites is the

culture and the groupthink. I'd hate to see us WAPers do that. We

need everything we say about nutrition to be bombproof.

And besides, its a win/win situation. If we're wrong about some

things - and we probably are - then that's just one less headache!

[Guest guest]

This is purely my personal and clinical experience. I have

no " bombproof " research to back this up. However I see client after

client and patient after patient tolerate raw milk far better than

pasturized milk I find that nearly all the raps on milk

ie.www.notmilk show up only with pasturized milk. It is unusual to

find a really healthy individual who does not tolerate raw milk well

and it is not uncommon to find that same individual struggling with

pasturized milk. And I have seen this over and over. So use that

for what its worth.

DMM

> I also agree. What fascinates me about the vegan websites is the

> culture and the groupthink. I'd hate to see us WAPers do that. We

> need everything we say about nutrition to be bombproof.

>

> And besides, its a win/win situation. If we're wrong about some

> things - and we probably are - then that's just one less headache!

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- In @y..., " drmichaelmarasco " <mmarasco@c...>

wrote:

> This is purely my personal and clinical experience.

I think this is what we need to get away from. Lets leave clinical

experience in the clinicn - its great for treating sick people, but

not a good line of evidance generally. Even as we speak, vegen

dieticians and others are mentioning that their clinical experience

supports the health benefits of veganism.

> I have

> no " bombproof " research to back this up. However I see client

after

> client and patient after patient tolerate raw milk far better than

> pasturized milk I find that nearly all the raps on milk

> ie.www.notmilk show up only with pasturized milk.

Notmilk is a vegan website. Do an internet search

on 'cohen', 'walsh', 'milk', and 'vegsource'. There is a huge infight

going on, because cohen was distorting and altering the evidence on

notmilk.com (in this case, he lied about a study that found that

heavy milk drinkers were less likely to get breast cancer).

Walsh is a vegan who feels like many of us here do - that we don't

help our case by distorting the evidance.

Vegans have threw being objective to the wind decades ago, but it

isn't too late for us.

[Guest guest]

> Roman,

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what your saying is the same

thing

> that's bothered me, but I've just not brought it up. Here is a

quote from

> the Real Milk website. " Calves fed pasteurized milk die before

maturity. "

> I've actually NOT sent people to this website just because of

this

> statement. I know this statement is not true. If the person I'm

sending to

> the website to learn about the benefits of raw milk also knows this

> statement is not true, how can the weigh the validity of the other

> information?

This is exactly what I was trying to say. Thank you for confirming

the facts. I felt like a fool when I told confidently the sheep

rasing person that her sheep would die if she had fed them

pasteurized milk only. That was a major piece of infomation I used as

a basis to form my believe in superiority of raw milk. It's been

shaken now. What if it's not even better at all (or significantly),

for most (or some) people?

said, " We need everything we say about nutrition to be

bombproof. " I would explicitely add that the information must also be

correct, not just difficult to dispute. We need it for ourselves,

first. Otherwise, we are just another cult, as once said. I

don't want WAPF's philosophy to be a religion for me. I need facts.

Sure, everyone can and does make mistakes, but unless personally

verified, statements need to be explicitely qualified as opinions.

And some statements can easily be validated. The " pasteurized milk

kills calves " is one them. Since pasteurized milk doesn't kill

calves, and calves apparently grow up, it means that pasteurized milk

has substantial nutritive value. Therefore, at best, I'd agree (or

actually, be willing to consider evidence for) that raw milk may be

better nutritionally. It doesn't appear that pasteurized milk only

promotes degeneration and needs to avoided at all costs. This applies

to other cooked animal and plant foods.

Someone who's in touch with Sally, please pass this thread to her and

request a reply. I know she's working with s, the

author of The Milk Book, to have the book updated and reprinted. I

would like the new edition not to contain statements that have not

been verified.

Roman

[Guest guest]

Well this is exactly what I'm not saying . I am speaking of

healthy people. I can show you any number of actual healthy folks

who will tolerate raw milk just fine and not pasturized. I'm not

even talking about sick people.

DMM

> > This is purely my personal and clinical experience.

>

> I think this is what we need to get away from. Lets leave clinical

> experience in the clinicn - its great for treating sick people, but

> not a good line of evidance generally. Even as we speak, vegen

> dieticians and others are mentioning that their clinical experience

> supports the health benefits of veganism.

>

> > I have

> > no " bombproof " research to back this up. However I see client

> after

> > client and patient after patient tolerate raw milk far better

than

> > pasturized milk I find that nearly all the raps on milk

> > ie.www.notmilk show up only with pasturized milk.

>

> Notmilk is a vegan website. Do an internet search

> on 'cohen', 'walsh', 'milk', and 'vegsource'. There is a huge

infight

> going on, because cohen was distorting and altering the evidence on

> notmilk.com (in this case, he lied about a study that found that

> heavy milk drinkers were less likely to get breast cancer).

> Walsh is a vegan who feels like many of us here do - that we don't

> help our case by distorting the evidance.

>

> Vegans have threw being objective to the wind decades ago, but it

> isn't too late for us.

>

>

[Guest guest]

, In addition to what I just posted. I am not saying that my

observations are an absolute conviction of pasturized milk however

people need to be able to have something to go on. There obviously

is confusion on this topic and I am simply conveying my experience

what you do with it is entirely up to you.

As an addendum as a rule of thumb, not always but generally speaking

a food source rich in beneficial enzymes is going to be a better

choice if it is not heated. You do not have to be a rocket scientist

to follow this as a general rule. There may be some confusion on

this topic however if we refer back to the basis of this discussion,

the masai and other cultures certainly did not pasturize all of their

milk. In the face of confusion in addition to seeking more solid

ground it would seem far more appropriate an assumption to assume

that basing the choice of raw vs. pasturized milk on the behavior of

centuries old indigenous cultures and their practices as opposed to

basing our assumption on how modern day farmers feed goats or sheep.

If there is any burden of proof here I'd say its on the farmers.

I am not saying this should not be delved as deeply as possible into,

and I certainly do not have the final word on milk, however in the

mean time I think raw milk is a more sensible choice. The long term

facts may prove me wrong, but as of this moment there are certainly

more irrefutable facts on the side of raw.

DMM

> > > This is purely my personal and clinical experience.

> >

> > I think this is what we need to get away from. Lets leave

clinical

> > experience in the clinicn - its great for treating sick people,

but

> > not a good line of evidance generally. Even as we speak, vegen

> > dieticians and others are mentioning that their clinical

experience

> > supports the health benefits of veganism.

> >

> > > I have

> > > no " bombproof " research to back this up. However I see client

> > after

> > > client and patient after patient tolerate raw milk far better

> than

> > > pasturized milk I find that nearly all the raps on milk

> > > ie.www.notmilk show up only with pasturized milk.

> >

> > Notmilk is a vegan website. Do an internet search

> > on 'cohen', 'walsh', 'milk', and 'vegsource'. There is a huge

> infight

> > going on, because cohen was distorting and altering the evidence

on

> > notmilk.com (in this case, he lied about a study that found that

> > heavy milk drinkers were less likely to get breast cancer).

> > Walsh is a vegan who feels like many of us here do - that we

don't

> > help our case by distorting the evidance.

> >

> > Vegans have threw being objective to the wind decades ago, but it

> > isn't too late for us.

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

>...we don't help our case by distorting the evidance.

>

Making one fallacious statement (such as " pasteurized milk kills

calves " ) in a court would shooting yourself in a foot... if you are

caught, of course. Your credibility in the court would probably not

rise much above zero afterwards.

Roman

[Guest guest]

So has someone emailed to Sally to change this " Calves fed pasteurized

milk... " statement on the website?

" r_rom "

<r_rom@...

om> cc:

Subject: Re: Is

pasteurized milk really bad?

03/20/2002

01:05 PM

Please respond

to

native-nutriti

on

>...we don't help our case by distorting the evidance.

>

Making one fallacious statement (such as " pasteurized milk kills

calves " ) in a court would shooting yourself in a foot... if you are

caught, of course. Your credibility in the court would probably not

rise much above zero afterwards.

Roman

[Guest guest]

>From: " r_rom " <r_rom@...>

>Making one fallacious statement (such as " pasteurized milk kills

>calves " ) in a court would shooting yourself in a foot... if you are

>caught, of course. Your credibility in the court would probably not

>rise much above zero afterwards.

Unless you represent the state, of course.

_________________________________________________________________

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

[Guest guest]

>

> So has someone emailed to Sally to change this " Calves fed

pasteurized

> milk... " statement on the website?

>

>

I think merely changing this statement on her web site would not be

enough. She may need to change her approach to making statements in

public.

Roman

[Guest guest]

Carmen,

Is it " specific " only to goats? I ask because I plan to share my raw goat's

milk (which I have not yet located!) with my dogs.

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://www.suscom-maine.net/~cfisher/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

-----Original Message-----

From: Carmen [mailto:ctn@...]

Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 5:25 PM

Subject: RE: Is pasteurized milk really bad?

Hi Barb,

CAE stands for caprine arthritis-encephalitis virus and as far as they

know it does not infect humans. It is a species specific virus.

Carmen

[Guest guest]

>

> Unless you represent the state, of course.

>

Funny. But, seriously, government agencies have lost lawsuits. So,

even they have to use valid statements, if you have a good lawyer.

Roman

[Guest guest]

Roman,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what your saying is the same thing

that's bothered me, but I've just not brought it up. Here is a quote from

the Real Milk website. " Calves fed pasteurized milk die before maturity. "

I've actually NOT sent people to this website just because of this

statement. I know this statement is not true. If the person I'm sending to

the website to learn about the benefits of raw milk also knows this

statement is not true, how can the weigh the validity of the other

information?

As I have mentioned in other posts, I have personal experience raising

goats. Dairy goats are almost always raised on pasteurized milk or milk

replacer. There is a disease passed through the milk to the offspring called

CAE. People who raise dairy goats go to the trouble to milk the mother,

pasteurize the milk and then bottle feed the kid. They also frequently use a

milk replacer. It's a formula for goats and/or sheep, which is similar to

what's fed to human infants in that it's powdered milk products and a host

of additives.

The same for dairy calves, especially in large dairies. Calves are for the

most part not raised on raw milk from their mother. At birth they are

completely removed from their mother and raised on " calf replacer " . A

reconstituted powdered formula for calves. The point is that if a calf is

nursing where is the farmer going to get milk to sell, which obviously what

he's in business for? Calves have been fed all sorts of things other than

raw milk. I have a dairy science book from the 1930's, which is the

classroom text for future farmer's describing the different diets calves can

be raised on. They all involve pasteurization. The only time a dairy calf is

allowed to nurse from it's mother is if it's a particularly valuable calf.

Or as someone else mentioned, some farmers are now leaving girl calves with

their mothers for a period of time because they are finding that they do

better (but they certainly don't die, if they're not).

So the statement from the real milk website, " Calves fed pasteurized milk

die before maturity. " is simply not true. Calves are rarely are fed anything

BUT some form of pasteurized milk and are obviously reaching maturity. The

commercial dairy where I get my raw milk from has cows ranging in age from

two to ten years old. I think that qualifies as " maturity " .

I personally have raised orphan Angora goats on powdered " goat formula " .

They are several years old and have gone on to produce and mother lovely

little babies of their own. Both my dairy goats were raised from birth on

powdered goat formula. They are approximately six years old.

All this to say that in the dairy world whether it's goat or cow,

offspring raised on raw milk is the exception, not the rule.

Carmen

<<<<< I've read in NT or WAPF site about experiments in

which calves were fed pasteurized milk and died

because of it. So when talking to somebody who I

though might know someone with a milking goat or cow,

I was asked why I was looking so hard for raw milk.

Previously she had told me that she fed her baby sheep

with goat milk. I told her that according to those

experiments, her sheep would die if she had used

pasteurized milk. Her answer surprised me -- she said

that she'd even fed her sheep with powdered milk (I

take it that was cow's milk as I've never heard of

powdered goat's milk) mixed with water, and she didn't

noticed any adverse effects. Are we using good science

here? Has anyone confirmed truthfulness of the reports

of the experiments? Did the calves really die? Or

maybe sheep are more resistant? >>>>>>

[Guest guest]

Roman wrote:

>

> said, " We need everything we say about nutrition to be

>bombproof. " I would explicitely add that the information must also be

>correct, not just difficult to dispute. We need it for ourselves,

>first. Otherwise, we are just another cult, as once said. I

>don't want WAPF's philosophy to be a religion for me. I need facts.

>Sure, everyone can and does make mistakes, but unless personally

>verified, statements need to be explicitely qualified as opinions.

>And some statements can easily be validated. The " pasteurized milk

>kills calves " is one them. Since pasteurized milk doesn't kill

>calves, and calves apparently grow up, it means that pasteurized milk

>has substantial nutritive value. Therefore, at best, I'd agree (or

>actually, be willing to consider evidence for) that raw milk may be

>better nutritionally. It doesn't appear that pasteurized milk only

>promotes degeneration and needs to avoided at all costs.

Well, that's an obvious straw man. Most of us grew up on pasteurized

milk. The issue is not whether one can grow on it, because we

obviously did. It's whether it causes degenerative disease. There's

no point in a farmer letting livestock live long enough to get

degenerative diseases. So feeding milk to calves would be fine for

them, but not necessarily fine enough for us, given that nobody but

foreign armies and rival drug gangs will slaughter us as soon as we

reach adulthood.

>This applies

>to other cooked animal and plant foods.

>

>Someone who's in touch with Sally, please pass this thread to her and

>request a reply. I know she's working with s, the

>author of The Milk Book, to have the book updated and reprinted. I

>would like the new edition not to contain statements that have not

>been verified.

We too. When you're going against conventional wisdom, your arguments

have to be better than the competition's.

--

Quick

www.en.com/users/jaquick

" One of these days someone smarter and younger and more articulate

than I is going to get through to the American people just how really

messed up it has become. And when that happens, the American people are

going to rise up like that football crowd in Cleveland and run both

teams off the field. " --Sen. Zell

[Guest guest]

Hi Barb,

CAE stands for caprine arthritis-encephalitis virus and as far as they

know it does not infect humans. It is a species specific virus.

Carmen

<<< Carmen,

Is this CAE disease passed on to humans if they drink the milk or is

only passed on to the offspring?

Barb >>>>

[Guest guest]

I think the issue here is not whether or not raw milk is better than

pasteurized. I think the issue is trying to prove it by making outlandish

statements like, " Calves fed pasteurized milk die before maturity. " Does

anyone know how this statement actually came into being?

Carmen

<<<< mean time I think raw milk is a more sensible choice. The long term

facts may prove me wrong, but as of this moment there are certainly

more irrefutable facts on the side of raw.

DMM >>>>>

[Guest guest]

> The issue is not whether one can grow on it, because we

> obviously did. It's whether it causes degenerative disease.

I see two issues. First is using unsubstantiated claims (just to get

people following? I hope not.). Second issue is whether pasteurized

milk (and other animal foods) is meritless and brings only

degeneration (I've seen claims like that). But the first issue is the

primary one.

Roman

[Guest guest]

> I think the issue here is not whether or not raw milk is better

than

> pasteurized. I think the issue is trying to prove it by making

outlandish

> statements like, " Calves fed pasteurized milk die before maturity. "

Does

> anyone know how this statement actually came into being?

>

>

> Carmen

>

>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hello Carmen: Hold on a minute. How do you know

pasteurized milk does not kill calves before or near maturity? You

mention milk replacer is successfully fed to calves. The milk

replacer I've seen is not pasteurized milk. Milk replacer is powdered

formula which has water added just prior to use. And the calf only

consumes milk replacer a short time (a month or so) before he's eating

all sorts of other things. Anyway there are about a hundred

unanswered questions here in this thread and what is needed is

information regarding how the actual test was conducted which

determined " pasteurized milk _______________ the baby calf " .

>

> Dennis Kemnitz

>