Wellness Billionaire's Blog

The Raw vs. Pasteurized Debate places the alleged health benefits vs. the health risks of consuming raw, unpasteurized milk. Although agencies such as the CDC and FDA say raw milk pathogens make it unsafe to consume, other organizations say that raw milk has health benefits that are destroyed in the pasteurization process.

The potentially harmful pathogens found in raw milk, most commonly brucellosis, Q-fever, campylobateriosis, strep infections, staph intoxications, E. coli, salmonellosis, yersiniosis, toxoplasmosis, listeriosis, cryptosporidiosis, and tuberculosis, can be safely controlled by pasteurization. The health of dairy animals can be managed by continual testing of dairy herds and careful storage of milk products. However, other pathogens cannot be eliminated from dairy herds entirely since they are carried by other common wildlife and passed on.

While pasteurization does kill 99.999% of the number of viable micro-organisms in milk, raw milk supporters are quick to point out the process also destroys the vitamin A, B complex, and C nutrient content that naturally occurs in milk to some extent, as well as other trace nutrients, vitamins and enzymes. Raw supporters claim that although pasteurization kills dangerous bacteria, it also kills off “good” bacteria that have significant health benefits. To some extent this is true. So, does raw milk get a bad rap. What is the truth?

In 2008 scientists discovered that raw milk contains more bacteria than previously thought, but the amount found in raw milk has not been proven harmful. Most states impose restrictions on raw milk suppliers due to concerns about safety. The FDA reported recently that consuming partially heated raw milk and raw milk products caused 200 Americans to become ill for the year. Given the nation’s population of over 300 million, is that number unexpected or abnormally high for any food source? Dr. Joseph Mercola recently wrote “while it is certainly possible to become sick from drinking contaminated raw milk, it is also possible to become sick from almost any food source. It seems that raw milk has been unfairly singled out as a risk, when only a very small risk exists.”

It is worth noting that it seems the illnesses connected to raw, non-pasteurized products generally seem to be contracted mostly by the young, elderly, and others who are already at a higher risk level.

Many governmental officials hold to the need for pasteurization. In a country driven by lawsuits and finger-pointing, the raw vs. pasteurized debate seems more driven by fear and the legal system than nutritional fact or common sense at this point. For now, choice will continue to be in the hands of the individual consumer in the struggle between health benefit vs. health risk.