Chip, Chip, Chip—The More Small Studies We Get Supporting Raw Milk, the Sooner We’ll Put the Lies to Pasture
Saturday, June 27, 2009 at 08:31PM 
The more data there is suggesting that raw milk is not only safe, but also healthy and popular, the more difficult it is for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control, and the various professional medical associations to argue otherwise. Or let me put it this way: the more shrill and hollow their arguments sound.
We’ve seen at least three small studies of raw milk undertaken in recent years: one out of a Michigan food co-op suggesting that sufferers of lactose intolerance do better with raw milk, the one I summarized in my previous post indicating that raw milk sales benefit Massachusetts dairy farmers and local communities more than is generally understood, and one just conducted via an online survey by California raw milk advocate Amanda Rose on the characteristics of raw milk drinkers (some of the intitial results have been posted on an Internet site, showing, most notably, that about three-fourths of the raw milk drinkers in the survey have undergraduate degrees or better). Other similar studies are no doubt under way or being contemplated.
Now, these studies may vary in their scientific depth and credibility, but what they all have in common is that they reduce, little by little, the sense of fear that public health authorities work so hard to create.
Certainly there have been other more scientifically-based recent studies completed that suggest consuming raw milk shows important benefits, but the establishment scientists who conduct them invariably hew the government line, to the effect: It seems as if raw milk confers important health benefits, but we can’t recommend that people drink it because the FDA and CDC say it’s dangerous. (Note that the major study I linked to was funded by the European Union and other European organizations; as such it provides a sense of what an American government agency would expect if it even got to the point of encouraging or funding such research.)
To me, such government-sponsored studies are biased: raw milk is damned in the end no matter what its benefits. So how do we get more of what I would call the unbiased studies completed? A number of people are wondering that, and following my previous post have suggested organizing a foundation or even a research conference devoted to raw milk and related research. These are all great ideas, and if someone wants to take the challenge on (the biggest challenge being raising money) I’m sure there would be all kinds of great proposals for studies. I’d certainly be pleased to do what I can to help move things along.
But if such devices can’t be readily created, I’d suggest an alternative: that small local organizations, or even individuals, think about conducting their own studies, as occurred in Michigan, Massachusetts, and California. Such studies don’t need to be expensive, since the organizations tend to have existing relationships with consumers. Internet technology helps keeps costs down.
Such studies, because they involve real people with real experience, tell the story the government doesn’t want people to hear.
Reader Comments (40)
I know Pottenger did some animal feeding studies, but as far as I know, all of his studies included a variety of foods including milk, but not just milk.
Here's the link.
http://www.pitangogelato.com/index.htm
They already have U-Tube video testimonials of perhaps one hundred raw milk consumers each with their story of healing.
The most prevalent complant we hear about at the Farmers Market consumer connection is Lactose Intolerance with processed milk. That should be our first little study.
I will suggest childhood immune improvement be the second study. This study will attempt to document the changes in prevalence of childhood allergies, asthma, colds and ear infections prior to and after starting drinking retail available raw milk.
The third research study could be IBS and Gut related disorders. It appears that Americans have really chewed upo their GUTS with the SAD diet and the drugs given afterward to suppress the symptoms of its destuction. Raw milk and Raw Milk Kefir fixes these challenges very quickly...
So thats my suggested sequence of studies. We have a database and email list of thousands of willing Raw Milk consumers in CA. Now we just need an expert to provide us the list of study questions for each of these study scenarios.
This is cheap. I am on it. If anyone can suggest a investigatiional study expert that could help out please let me know.
David.....you are so right. Chip, chip, chip and we will have hard proof of what sits in our gut, minds and hearts already.
Mark
"To me, such government-sponsored studies are biased: raw milk is damned in the end no matter what its benefits. "
I would add that funding from groups such as WAPF would be equally biased.
Mark,
"Now we just need an expert to provide us the list of study questions for each of these study scenarios."
The type of research you propose above is not simple or cheap (if you are truly talking about science, not new quick and dirty material for an activist brochure). However, I completely agree with you that the best place to start is with a list of priority research areas. Keep in mind though that the expert(s) you seek will also want input into the list, and their list of priorities might difer. In fact, I'd guess that everyone on this blog would have a different list of priorities if queried (some minor and some major differences in opinion). If there is room to discuss and come to an agreement about the type of research that would provide the most bang for the buck, this idea has some chance of attracting interest.
DW and I take no meds and visit no MDs and in a combined total of 10 years we have cost the Medicare system nothing absolute zero dollars and now are in our 5th year consuming raw dairy and real food. IMHO consuming raw dairy and real food would soon solve the enormous health care funding problem.
I recently received a call from a classmate of 1955 that gave me a very depressing story of all the dire physical sufferings and all the costlly operations that these elderly folk are [perhaps needlessly] experiencing.
Why the stark difference between DW and I and our friends and our peers? We have REJECTED all the advise that this parasitic system has to offer.
I already know the results of consuming the SAD for 68 years [not good] and I now am enjoying major beneficial health results of consuming raw dairy for over 4 years. So I guess we do need to produce the truth about raw dairy in a manner that the system can not refute and what shall they do then?
While I agree with your experience of dramatically improved health for the elderly...these may be harder things to quantify. The reason my list seems so basic is because they seem to be very common and easier to measure.
Our experience in CA has been....the consumer tells us that they get severe gas cramps and or diarrhea when drinking pasteurized milk. We then try raw milk and no gas or diarrhea.
That is the kind of easy black and white data I was hoping to be able to measure.
Lykke....alas...I agree with you. You are so correct that studies conducted by WAP or any raw milk group will be shot down in buring flames. I tried last year to get Dr. Linda Harris at UC Davis to conduct a very basic study on raw milk coliforms and the deviation of data when lab assessed at different labs. She agreed and said she would assign a PHD student to work with me. I was not able to get her to speak with me again. She did not return emails and phone calls I left for her. This is the type of political stuff Raw Milk collides with. It is depressing and it is part of the problem. The Universities that get millions from Monsanto BST patents...are also the same Universities that will not look at raw milk.
We need profressors that will look at our studies and be above corruption. I do not fear the results one little bit.....not even a little. I am so compelled with what I see over and over and over again with our consumers that I know the data by heart.
Perhaps a lesser PhD at a lesser University would study this data. There is an "excerise physiology" PhD at Fresno State that seems very interested. I will see what she says. We need people that are not part of the political paradigm yet part of the system to do this research. It does not need to cost a fortune and the numbers of subjects studied does not need to be huge. If this study is profound....the NIH is somewhat obligated to assist and fund further inquiry. These little chip away studies open doors for the more expensive big bang studies.
Lykke...you are just the person to designate the study PhD...a person that is critical of raw milk is precisely the right person to help assess its real value. I agree that I am biased....How could I not be....I get hugs all day long by people that swear by raw milk and what it has done for them. Lykke....I am open to any resources that you or even CP may suggest to study this data. The subjects are available and very interested in helping out. Any ideas??? We need an unbiased or even anti raw milk biased researcher. That way the study would be tough to be critical of...let the data speak for itself.
Mark
Is it more dangerous than lunch meats? hotdogs? etc. Which has more illnesses? more contamination? Processed foods? these are proven to lead to illnesses, yet they are promoted by tptb.
Indeed an up-hill battle. What studies has tptb done to PROVE that raw dairy is so dangerous? And if it is so dangerous why hasn't the human race declined in numbers? or died off? The 40000+ consumers in CA alone don't appear to be suffering.
I'm not saying new raw dairy studies are a waste of time and money, I think its a good thing. Will it change my consumption of raw dairy? No, not at all. I would like to see what the make-up (nutrients/enzymes) comparison is of raw milk and pasteurized milk (I refer to raw milk from a grass fed and of course from a clean dairy, for example Claravale/OP)
I’m very touched you would like to include me. Here’s the problem you need to work on—lies/exaggeration. The CREMA website has 32 stories posted, not hundred. One is a repeat, so it is actually 31 stories. Of these stories, 22 involve information about healing from something after drinking raw milk; the other 9 are only opinions about raw milk being healthier than pasteurized.
How many people are you claiming drink raw milk in California? 40 thousand? 50 thousand? Viewed through this lens, 22 healing stories is weak. If I added up the number of people who have become ill from drinking raw milk (not cheese) since 2005 (throughout the U.S.) there are more than 22 victims.
I think the idea of uniting people who drink raw milk and having them pitch in money to run a research study on raw milk is a good idea. Since I’m fixated on the pathogen aspect of raw milk, I think a safety focus would give you the biggest bang for the buck. Both sides (pro and con) are interested in this topic.
What stood out for me when I read the 2003 version of Untold Story of Milk (besides the lies about the BSK study) was historically raw milk was not consumed straight from the cow. Prior to refrigeration, raw milk was consumed fermented. Here’s my question, “Is the fermentation process equivalent to pasteurization for pathogen safety?
Run it like the BSK study, but have only one pathogen at a time tested. Use the same raw milk for both. For example, put E.coli 0157:H7 in two samples of identical milk. Pasteurized one and let the other one sit for however many hours/days is necessary to ferment it with kefir grains. Measure the results of both samples. Do the same thing for Salmonella, Listeria and Campylobacter.
Does anyone have any predictions as to what the outcome of this study would reveal?
cp
http://www.soilfoodweb.com/01_services/what_tests.html
http://www.soilfoodweb.com/03_about_us/approach.html
miguel, this is the potential problem with your approach of simply hiring a contract lab....I don't want to beat this dead horse again, but look at the BSK study. A private lab was contracted to conduct a small study, and the results were subsequently misinterpreted. The BSK study ultimately became entrenched in the raw milk movement's propaganda and represent one of the biggest impediments to gaining trust in the scientific community. Since David provided a link to the BSK report on this blog and I reviewed it closely, I'm willing to give Mark the benefit of the doubt and say that the private lab did not provide a clear description of the methods or how to interpret the data; thereby, leaving the study open to widespread misinterpretation. However, I also think it is time to admit that and move on. Any scientist can look at the BSK data and see clearly it does not support the hypothesis of "competitive exclusion" of pathogens by "good bacteria," and recognize that the methods were not rigorous or repeated to allow for definitive conclusions.
Back to the trust thing - the BSK study (and some cherry picking of the European studies on benefits relating to allergies) have made many nervous about working on raw milk related questions (beneftis and limitations as David K. put it). This is why I like the idea of a group with diverse opinions working together to establish a list of priority research areas - some like cp and myself (representatives of food safety concerns) will want food safety questions answered. Others like the majority on this blog will want to answer questions about benefits and consumer preferences. If there could be some agreement on a priority list without everyone throwing their hands up and storming out of the room, it would suggest that there is the possibility of developing enough trust to work together in a research environment.
I agree with you 100%. When you put raw milk up against other foods, the other foods cause a lot more illness and death. Should these other foods be banned because they kill people?
Far more people die on American highways than from food illness, about 40,000 per year versus 5,000 per year. We could probably save 20,000 lives a year by cutting speed limits to 30 mph or less on all highways. That's 4 years worth of deaths from food related illness. Where is the outcry for highway deaths?
As far as nutrient comparisons between raw and pasteurized milk, I suspect that there is more variation from the type of feed given the cows than from raw versus pasteurized. Some vitamins are reduced a bit by pasteurization, but in my mind the biggest difference is the loss of enzymes and beneficial microbes that promote proper digestion (bioavailability of nutrients) and strengthen our immune system. The simple study that I suggested in the first comment above would address this issue.
I agree with you 100% that the dangers on the highways outweigh all other safety concerns (might even say that worldwide). Here's the but...we're talking about raw milk. Everyone could change focus and get a job or activitst focus in traffic safety. Forget about food safety or raw milk benefits - change gears and only work on the horrible and preventable deaths from traffic accidents - put 100% of the funding there.
Not a good approach, IMHO. For example, should we ignore malaria or HIV because there are more traffic accidents? Should we ignore childhood obesity because more kids will die in car accidents than from diabetes?
Each area of concern offers important research questions. Therein lies the fight to get a "place" on the list of priorities for funding research and prevention/health education.
anyone who has done some reading/thinking/looking around research can tell you what causes well more then 90% of these childhood issues.
you seem to have very little concern for any food issue beyond raw milk. while this blog might be raw milk centric it also touchs many other food and health issues, but you mostly go to extremes to avoid mentioning them, you never answer the well worn question about the other 76 million food illnesses estimated to occur in the usa each year.
by doing so and by debasing anyone pro raw milk you diminish any credibility you may be (or have been able to earn here).
you want us all to have balance? but you offer no balance youself. why is that?
now it seems, from reading you posts on this blog entry, you want to steer how the proposed research is conducted? i don't think so....
if you think you have a bully pulput to dictate from, think again. i truly don't care if you hate, fear, dispise or are revolted by raw milk, that's your choice.
what i do object to, and object passionately to is your slant toward forcing your view on me and everyone else here. your repeated beating of the powers that bes' drum is farily wornout here, and while a few hgere continue to try to engage you in a politically correct manner it's my opion that the days of political correctness are gone.
america is badly damaged as a nation and as a people and you can point the fingure directly at political correctness as a major cause of that damage. the claptrap of "save the children" is a purely manipulative weapon to force people to accept totaliarian control over their lives and choices.
remember that you can't give a tottler a spanking anymore... it's now child abuse... you want to see child abuse i can point you in the right direction to see some of the most horrid abuse well beyond your sheltered lifes ability to imagine. a spanking is not child abuse....
not to go too wide of the mark to make a point. you and your control freak types are going to face a rude awakening in the next few years as millions of americans are waking up to the distruction brought upon them by our gov't and the special interests and the corporate power base that wants to take more and more liberty and choice and decision making and freedom from us all, yet insist we are still 100% responsible for the conquences of tptb actions.
answer the first question i asked you in this post and answer everyone who has posed basicly the same question to you ad-nausium for many months.
you need a reality check lyke... you are not in charge here and you will not be n charge anywhere (except inside your own house) for much longer. americans are about to let you all (tptb) that we are done. we are not socialists. we will not accept fashism. we will restore america and it's basic values or die trying.... what will you do?
As you pointed out, nutrient comparisons between raw and pasteurized milk would inflict a large variation from the type of feed given, along with the soil health, etc. I've read that there is a decrease in the vitamins from pasteurization and the loss of enzymes and beneficial microbes which is required for proper digestion and strengthen the immune system also occurs. I vaguely recall reading a study of rats as you describe. (or perhaps it is confused with another,cats mabe? I've read so many over the last few years they are running together)
Dr. Pottenger was an original thinker and keen observer whose imagination, integrity and common sense gave him the courage to question official dogma. Dedicated to the cause of preventing chronic illness, he made significant contributions to the understanding of the role of nutrition in maintaining good health.
In his classical experiments in cat feeding, more than 900 cats were studied over 10 years. Dr. Pottenger found that only diets containing raw milk and raw meat produced optimal health: good bone structure and density, wide palates with plenty of space for teeth, shiny fur, no parasites or disease, reproductive ease and gentleness.
Cooking the meat or substituting heat processed milk for raw resulted in heterogeneous reproduction and physical degeneration, increasing with each generation. Vermin and parasites abounded. Skin diseases and allergies increased from 5% to over 90%. Bones became soft and pliable. Cats suffered from adverse personality changes, hypothyroidism and most of the degenerative diseases encountered in human medicine. They died out completely by the fourth generation.
The changes Pottenger observed in cats on the deficient diets paralleled the human degeneration that Dr. Price found in tribes that had abandoned traditional diets.
Thank you for your links to the FoodWeb. I started reading them and then saved them in a folder for my wife (the gardener) to read.
The info is comprehensive, well-written and easy for me to read (once I'd copied it over into Word and enlarged it). The captions for the Microscope Pictures to the right were informative too. Great material for those who want to improve what they take from their gardens - nevermind their farms or dairies.