Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lawmakers Drink Raw Milk to Celebrate Legality, Become Immediately Sick (2016)

modernfarmer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 271 posts

Re: Lawmakers Drink Raw Milk to Celebrate Legality, Become Immediately Sick (2016)

#231

Post by panick21_ »

smcl wrote: post #192
blfr wrote: post #187

I have been drinking raw milk from one of these machines[1] and various grey market sources for years, routinely order steak tartare or make it at home, almost always with a raw egg yolk, not to mention raw fish, and never had an issue. There is a risk to everything but I've noticed online that Americans tend to focus on food safety a lot, keep their eggs in the coolers, freeze, pasteurize, and homogenize everything…

> keep their eggs in the coolers This is down to a very specific thing that happens in the USA and doesn't tend to happen here. If you wash an egg (because it has feathers or looks a little "dirty") you remove a sort of protective membrane[0] on the shell's surface which leaves it open to infection. To prevent this you need to refridgerate the eggs. That said, we do refridgerate eggs in the EU. Every supermarket I've…

Eggs are not refrigerated in Switzerland in stores.

I do put my eggs into the fridge but mostly because I don't have much space for them and there is egg store thing int the fridge.

Re: Lawmakers Drink Raw Milk to Celebrate Legality, Become Immediately Sick (2016)

#232

Post by lupire »

RealityVoid wrote: post #109
folli wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a modern western cultural thing that everything that's more 'natural', 'untreated', 'non-GMO'... is automatically considered more healthy, see also antivaxxers etc. Without any evidence of course.

It's like it stems from some sort of self-hatred, as if we have this belief deep down that we are wrong or corrupted and whatever we are not MUST be good. These naturalistic fallacies are certainly a strange, ilogical thing, but one at the core belief of _many_ people. I wonder if it's a western thing though and if we don't find it in other cultures as well.

Naturalism is like Luddism and Conservativism. It is a preference for ideas that have been proven by survival over a long time, over new ideas that have less testing. Of course the principle can be misapplied.

Re: Lawmakers Drink Raw Milk to Celebrate Legality, Become Immediately Sick (2016)

#233

Post by lupire »

RC_ITR wrote: post #69
mngnt wrote: post #59

When I was a kid, we lived in a village in northeastern Slovakia. On the hill above the village there was a farm with a big herd of cows. And every morning at around 5, a tractor would bring a few dozen litres of milk down to a small shack just by our house. People were usually waiting in line already, in a room that stank of rancid milk, to get a liter or two. When we brought the milk home, we'd pour a cup and let i…

It’s amazing that in a supposedly science-driven forum, an entire set of comments can imply that pasteurization, one of humanity’s great accomplishments, is a folly. People die from drinking raw milk. It is genuinely a risky thing to do. Not everyone will die but enough that society should work hard to limit it as much as possible.

Almost none of the comments show awareness of the difference between fresh raw milk and week old rotten raw milk, a distinction that by design does not exist in pasteurized milk.

Also, some commenters ignore the relevant distinction between pasteurization and homogenization and fat separation.

Re: Lawmakers Drink Raw Milk to Celebrate Legality, Become Immediately Sick (2016)

#234

Post by lupire »

onionisafruit wrote: post #101
RC_ITR wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s amazing that in a supposedly science-driven forum, an entire set of comments can imply that pasteurization, one of humanity’s great accomplishments, is a folly. People die from drinking raw milk. It is genuinely a risky thing to do. Not everyone will die but enough that society should work hard to limit it as much as possible.

Are you calling hacker news a science-driven forum? It was created by venture capitalists for venture capitalists and their employees. I don’t mean this in a negative way. HN is what it is and I love it. But don’t confuse it with a scientific journal.

HN is a forum for people who are even smarter than scientists. It's the most rational, as seen by how much money users make, or will soon.

Re: Lawmakers Drink Raw Milk to Celebrate Legality, Become Immediately Sick (2016)

#235

Post by lupire »

deserted wrote: post #148
saagarjha wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely curious: why would you want to pasteurize your own milk? I get the “homemade cake” reasoning for desserts but I see very little benefit to pasteurizing milk yourself.

You can pasteurize it yourself with very little extra effort when making espresso drinks, since you need to heat the milk with a steam wand anyway. The flavor and especially foam of a cappuccino are slightly better when made with self-pasteurized-while steaming raw milk vs equivalent non raw Jersey milk in my at home blind taste tests.

Note: it's not a blind test of you've tasted one of them before but not the other.

Re: Lawmakers Drink Raw Milk to Celebrate Legality, Become Immediately Sick (2016)

#236

Post by lupire »

earleybird wrote: post #153

A common pattern in the "I get my raw milk from and I'm fine" appears to be that it is a nearby source, it is perhaps only a few hours old (no shelf life requirement) and the source is not at scale (a few cows perhaps). My dad grew up on a homestead where they had a few milk cows and raw milk was just how it was. Their health depended on the quality of care the gave their animals. Pasteurization is a basic requiremen…

Why are small forms less error prone, on a per unit basis?

Re: Lawmakers Drink Raw Milk to Celebrate Legality, Become Immediately Sick (2016)

#237

Post by gus_massa »

29athrowaway wrote: post #112
smilespray wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were using heat to neutralize germs. No need to be pedantic.

Per cup (whole/pasteurized -> whole/boiled) - Calories: 152 -> 146 - Protein: 8.14 g -> 8 g - Carbs: 12 g -> 11.4 g - Calcium: 28% DV -> 23% DV - Vitamin D: 24% DV -> 13% DV - Vitamin B12: 18% DV -> 13% DV - Phosphorus: 22% DV -> 20% DV

Do you have a source for this? Is this after deskimming the milk? Natural milk has about 3.3% of fat, but commercial milk usually has 3% or less (here you can buy 3%, 2%, 1.5%, 1% and 0% milk, and perhaps other values).

Unless you remove the skim, it's difficult to imagine that some parts just disappear.

> - Calories: 152 -> 146

Dubious: But it's easier to discuss proteins and carbs separately.

> - Protein: 8.14 g -> 8 g

Possible?: Some proteins may denaturalize (like the white of the egg), but they are sill there. Proteins are weird, so I can't say it's impossible.

> - Carbs: 12 g -> 11.4 g

Dubious: Unless you are overheating the milk to make caramel, this is very strange, almost impossible. Carbs are composed of smaller sugar units and with heat they may split or for new bound, but they don't disappear unless it's very hot.

> - Calcium: 28% DV -> 23% DV

Impossible: I don't expect calcium to react with the container or to evaporate, so it's impossible that it goes away. The biological availability may change, but it's difficult to measure.

> - Vitamin D: 24% DV -> 13% DV

Possible: Some vitamins are sensible to heating, and heating them changes the molecular structure to make then unusable, so this is totally possible. I don't remember about vitamin D in particular. Anyway, many commercial milk has additional vitamin A and D.

> - Vitamin B12: 18% DV -> 13% DV

Possible: Idem. Anyway, I but I never heard of milk with additional B12, and other foods are better sources of B12.

- Phosphorus: 22% DV -> 20% DV

Dubious: I don't expect potassium to evaporate. It may react with the container, but I doubt it. The biological availability may change a lot, because phosphorus is used to bind some molecules and they may split and the isolated phosphate may not be as useful.

Re: Lawmakers Drink Raw Milk to Celebrate Legality, Become Immediately Sick (2016)

#238

Post by b112 »

SapporoChris wrote: post #174
b112 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Raw pork meat is not fine, as pork can have many worms, and other things, humans can catch. Cooking kills these things. People eat raw eggs in North America, but that's safe because of antibiotics in chicken feed. Salmonella can kill. Beef is safer, which is why you only need char the outside to be safe.

Salmonella outbreaks in USA are fairly commonly reported by the CDC. I was able to quickly find three listings for salmonella in eggs. July 26, 2018 https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/braenderup-04-18/index.html November 9, 2016 https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/oranienburg-10-16/index.html December 2, 2010 https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/2010/shell-eggs-12-2-10.html Regarding ground beef https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/ehsnet/…

A few points here.

* people getting samonella from eggs, when those eggs are cooked, has no bearing on my statements about antibiotics in feed, and the safety of raw eggs vs cooked.

If you follow the first link, including going to the FDA, you will see the company responsible for the outbreak was sent a letter, and finally forced closed, as they were not folllowing safe egg handling guidelines.

Samonella can appear in the yolk, which is why antibiotics in chicken feed in North America.

However salmonella can be anywhere, such as in the nest where the hen lays, or 100 other contact surfaces, which is why you should always wash your eggs with soap and water before cracking.

Bets are, the company with the recall and forced close, was not doing so.

So again, to reiterate, cooking or not is not relevant to your link / data.

* You show ground beef in one link, and cooking guidance in another.

Ground beef invalidates "charring the outside", for one has ground up the meat, thus mixing all the bacteria on the outside of a cut of beef, throughout the meat. Always cook ground beef throughout.

If you hunt around, you will find safe guidelines for a cut of beef, which does not require cooking to 75C or what not, all through, to be safe.

One cavaet here...

Some cuts of beef are not as tender, so grocery stores will tenderize them with a mincing tool.

This is basically a tool which creates small slices in the cut, and again, is pushing the bacteria into the interior of te beef. For this reason, one must then cook to safe temps inside.

Lamb and beef do not have parasites we known of, in their flesh, as pork and chicken do. This is why chicken and pork require more stringent cooking instructions....

Re: Lawmakers Drink Raw Milk to Celebrate Legality, Become Immediately Sick (2016)

#239

Post by peoplefromibiza »

voakbasda wrote: post #131

I milk my own herd of dairy cows and goats. I drink the milk raw, and it is far superior to pasteurized milk both in taste and purity. Raw milk is nearly perfectly sterile when it comes out of a freshly cleaned teat. After that, virtually every microorganism wants to grow in it. The equipment must be handled and cleaned with precision and diligence. Any contamination provides a seed that will grow uncontrollably. I t…

> I drink the milk raw, and it is far superior to pasteurized milk both in taste and purity.

I've grown up with cows, sheeps, goats and my family lived on farming

Pasteurized milk is not in any way less pure or tasty than raw milk.

Actually the opposite is true: pasteurized milk flavour can be taken for granted, raw milk? not at all.

> Raw milk is nearly perfectly sterile when it comes out of a freshly cleaned teat

But the environment is not.

Unless you farm your animals in a sterile environment, which is highly unlikely and probably undesirable too.

Re: Lawmakers Drink Raw Milk to Celebrate Legality, Become Immediately Sick (2016)

#240

Post by elhudy »

folli wrote: post #79
elhudy wrote: post #21

I put raw cream in my coffee daily, but don’t have the balls to drink raw milk. That said, it makes fantastic yogurt. I don’t really understand the concept of illegal raw milk though. Why can’t people consume raw milk if they want? If anything, make it illegal to feed to children (except of course, raw breast milk!!)

Why is it illegal to not wear a seat belt in most societies? Why are there limits on lead content in food stuff? Why are there any regulations at all? Some of the comments in this thread really left my head scratching. Food borne pathogens were a major burden on humankind for millennia, advances in microbiology and hygiene have massively improved the life span. All of that gets belittled in the comments as some minor…

>Why is it illegal to not wear a seat belt in most societies? Why are there limits on lead content in food stuff? Why are there any regulations at all?

These are false equivalencies to the question of restricting raw milk consumption. E.g., it’s illegal to not wear a seat belt because i don’t want a stranger splattered on my windshield - that affects me yet i would have had no choice in the matter.

Think about the question of limiting lead content in food stuff; the equivalency would be bacterial testing requirements in raw milk, not the restriction of consumption of raw milk. You can support advances in microbiology and hygiene without legally restricting raw milk consumption. The consumption of tuna isn’t illegal yet undoubtedly if you ate tuna every day for a few months you would likely contract lead poisoning!

Post reply on HN