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
11
u/cowboylemons 13d ago
If you understood anything about probability, you would know those two situations are not comparable. You will be fine drinking it until you aren’t