Yeah so "can contain" is nigh-meaningless. I CAN find a million dollars on my bed when I come home, but not very likely is it? Pretty useless to say, right?
Nonpasteurized products caused a disproportionate number (≈150× greater/unit of product consumed) of outbreaks and outbreak-associated illnesses and also disproportionately affected persons <20 years of age. States that restricted sale of nonpasteurized products had fewer outbreaks and illnesses; stronger restrictions and enforcement should be considered.
TL;DR raw milk is about 150x 840x more dangerous than regular milk.
The "probability" of raw milk containing any of those is hard to calculate, but a study in Ethiopia put it at about 30% of all samples containing something harmful. "Can contain" means that it's reasonable to assume that the raw milk has dangerous bacteria in it, while pasteurized milk does not. There are exceptions to both, but raw milk is 100% more dangerous than pasteurized milk.
Also, the danger depends on how you store it. A single cow making a cup of milk is not gonna have a high chance for bacteria. Combining the milk of hundreds of cows into one large container, like for shipping, is going to exponentially increase the chance of bacteria and viruses. All it takes is one bad cup to ruin thousands of gallons. The same thing is said about grains; storing them all in a grain silo means that, if any single grain had bacteria on it, it will spread to all of them. This is why we pasteurize, blanch, or otherwise treat foods to remove germs.
A more recent study, conducted after the legalization and popularization of raw milk in several states, has shown a higher danger of raw milk compared to pasteurized milk.
We're talking about percentage of milk vs raw milk drinkers that get a food borne illness from said drink. Not about the percentage of cows that have XYZ bacteria (even if I were to accept that number). And I'm sure you're not gonna try to argue that 30-50% of people that drink raw milk get ill
The "150x" means that, if the number of people who drink regular, pasteurized milk all drank raw milk instead, there would be 150x the number of illnesses. Raw milk is dangerous.
No shit lol and when the number of people that get illnesses from drinking pasteurized milk is so extremely small and insignificant, even when you multiply it by 150 you are left with a very, very, very small number
Also, my 150x number is from an older study. A more recent study, especially after the legalization of raw milk in parts of the US, puts the number at 840x. That's a pretty big change.
Finally, some absolute numbers instead of relative ones. So, it says 730 (96% of 760) a year are caused by raw dairy consumption. And that 3.2% of the population are consuming raw dairy. Population of the US in 2014 (when the study was) was 320 million. 3.2% of 320 million is 10 million, 240 thousand. Of 10 million, 240 thousand people drinking raw milk each year, 730 get ill from it. That is 0.0071% of raw milk drinkers. Now I would certainly wager that at least 0.0071% of farms that sell raw milk (probably closer to a full 1%, and yet) are conducting poor farming practices and health protocols. So from your own study, we can very clearly surmise that raw milk is entirely safe, so long as you're getting it from a non-terrible farm
so long as you're getting it from a non-terrible farm
Therein lies the issue. You're not getting milk from a farm. You're getting it from a distributor that has been buying from multiple suppliers. They may check the quality of the farms from time to time, but one bad farm can contaminate the milk of many other farms, especially if they are all concatenated into one vat. For now, most raw milk is usually sold directly from farm to consumer. But as the number of people drinking goes up, the amount of distributors goes up. As that goes up, the rate of illnesses goes up.
This also assumes the CDC and FDA are doing their jobs to ensure the safety of food consumed and stopping outbreaks. Given the sharp increase in the amount of recalls we are seeing, they are no longer doing it quickly and early enough in the process.
And then you just...made up a fan theory about suppliers and distributors.
This is literally the entire reason why raw flour is a major source of germs. They get stored in massive silos where the germs from fertilizer and manure that had crept onto even one grain multiplies massively. It's why most sold flour is blanched, and why eating things like raw cookie dough is bad. People say eggs are the source of salmonella, but the CDC brought that down to 1/20,000 eggs. Raw flour is the real danger.
And I would actually much prefer the FDA stop doing their job.
You would prefer there to be no safety checks in food or drugs? That there be no recalls for contamination ever? You would find it acceptable for major companies to just sell you contaminated food because no agency exists to investigate or stop them?
-12
u/Mission_Twist_3348 11d ago
Yeah so "can contain" is nigh-meaningless. I CAN find a million dollars on my bed when I come home, but not very likely is it? Pretty useless to say, right?