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

FDA links raw cheese to outbreak; Makers "100% disagree," refuse recall

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–109 of 109 posts

Re: FDA links raw cheese to outbreak; Makers "100% disagree," refuse recall

#101

Post by pseudohadamard »

bsder wrote: post #88
black_puppydog wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole of France is eating quite a lot of unpasteurized cheese. If done correctly, it can be quite safe. Although of course contamination does happen if a significant proportion of your cheese production nationwide is unpasteurized, that's just a numbers game. So yes, it is par for the course, but probably not at this level where the same producer shows up over and over again. I guess this producer must be extreme…

> The whole of France is eating quite a lot of unpasteurized cheese. If done correctly, it can be quite safe. "If done correctly" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. The "classic" processes are generally done for exactly the reasons of maintaining safety. They create conditions where, even if bad bacteria exist, the growth is minimized in various ways--temperature, acidity, competing good bacterial growth, etc. The prob…

I grew up in a location where people always drank raw milk, not from any bizarro beliefs but because for several centuries the way you got your milk was to watch for the cows heading for the barn, then about 30 minutes later send one of the kids over with a pail to collect the milk for the day. It was still warm from the cow, you put it in your fridge or, before electricity, in the basement cool room, and there was never any problem with it. As you say though, industrialisation of the processes and it taking days, weeks, possibly months between squirted-out-of-the-cow and consumption have messed that up.

Re: FDA links raw cheese to outbreak; Makers "100% disagree," refuse recall

#102

Post by yread »

bsder wrote: post #86
yread wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pasteurized != UHT Pasteurization is heating to 70C and cooling it down quickly to kill pathogens. The milk needs to be refrigerated afterwards and used within 2 weeks. UHT is heating it to 140C for 2s a cooling it to kill pathogens and their spores. It significantly changes flavor, destroys 90% of vitamins and changes some of the proteins structure. Lasts a year afterwards

> destroys 90% of vitamins Gonna make you cough up a reliable citation on that one. The kombucha folks don't seem to have a problem with vitamins of aseptic purees after processing and generally seem to have converged to aseptic as being superior in terms of nutritional content than any other mechanism including freezing and preservatives. And Vitamin C is notoriously fragile to heat. Generally, Vitamin C is far more…

Would this do? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8844253/

Re: FDA links raw cheese to outbreak; Makers "100% disagree," refuse recall

#103

Post by em-bee »

jhawk28 wrote: post #46
pingou wrote: post #3

"The FDA has highlighted studies finding that pasteurization does not negatively affect the nutritional value of milk. Still, advocates of raw milk continue to claim, without evidence, that raw dairy has benefits." Well, perhaps it has taste benefits?

There is no taste difference between raw and pasteurized milk. The taste comes from the container. If you have both in glass, there is no discernible difference. My father is a dairy farmer and bet his professor (many years ago) that he could taste the difference. The professor setup a blind taste test where he gave my father pasteurized and raw milk in glass cups. There was no difference. "Nutritional value" is a ve…

the difference in taste comes from the amount of fat. raw milk tends to have more fat

Re: FDA links raw cheese to outbreak; Makers "100% disagree," refuse recall

#104

Post by [deleted] »

em-bee wrote: post #103
jhawk28 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no taste difference between raw and pasteurized milk. The taste comes from the container. If you have both in glass, there is no discernible difference. My father is a dairy farmer and bet his professor (many years ago) that he could taste the difference. The professor setup a blind taste test where he gave my father pasteurized and raw milk in glass cups. There was no difference. "Nutritional value" is a ve…

the difference in taste comes from the amount of fat. raw milk tends to have more fat

[deleted]

Re: FDA links raw cheese to outbreak; Makers "100% disagree," refuse recall

#105

Post by bsder »

yread wrote: post #102
bsder wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> destroys 90% of vitamins Gonna make you cough up a reliable citation on that one. The kombucha folks don't seem to have a problem with vitamins of aseptic purees after processing and generally seem to have converged to aseptic as being superior in terms of nutritional content than any other mechanism including freezing and preservatives. And Vitamin C is notoriously fragile to heat. Generally, Vitamin C is far more…

Would this do? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8844253/

This is probably a stronger reference: https://juniperpublishers.com/jdvs/JDVS.MS.ID.555822.php

Overall, though, the nutritional content is "mostly" unaffected by UHT. B1 and B12 drop roughly 10-20% for both types of pasteurization.

The primary issues with UHT are Lysine and folate. Lysine gets clobbered by the Maillard reactions. The folate you cited is definitely a concern given that folate and Vitamin D are factors in preventing birth defects.

And, you are correct that the taste does change since UHT kicks off Maillard reactions in UHT milk. TIL.

However, we come back to the fact that "standard" HTST pasteurization changes are so minimal that the risks of raw milk FAR outweigh any possible gains therefrom.

And if you don't have a reliable cold chain, UHT pasteurization is pretty good with caveats.

Re: FDA links raw cheese to outbreak; Makers "100% disagree," refuse recall

#106

Post by bsder »

pseudohadamard wrote: post #101
bsder wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The whole of France is eating quite a lot of unpasteurized cheese. If done correctly, it can be quite safe. "If done correctly" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. The "classic" processes are generally done for exactly the reasons of maintaining safety. They create conditions where, even if bad bacteria exist, the growth is minimized in various ways--temperature, acidity, competing good bacterial growth, etc. The prob…

I grew up in a location where people always drank raw milk, not from any bizarro beliefs but because for several centuries the way you got your milk was to watch for the cows heading for the barn, then about 30 minutes later send one of the kids over with a pail to collect the milk for the day. It was still warm from the cow, you put it in your fridge or, before electricity, in the basement cool room, and there was n…

Nope. Don't believe you.

And the reason I don't believe you is because my family two generations back milked cows just like you claim. And everybody in the family boiled their milk religiously.

Folk wisdom was "boil the milk" and they didn't worry much about what it did to vitamins or taste.

Even worse, they would freeze the milk afterward. I still remember the horrible taste of that stuff. Yuck.

Re: FDA links raw cheese to outbreak; Makers "100% disagree," refuse recall

#107

Post by yread »

bsder wrote: post #105
yread wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would this do? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8844253/

This is probably a stronger reference: https://juniperpublishers.com/jdvs/JDVS.MS.ID.555822.php Overall, though, the nutritional content is "mostly" unaffected by UHT. B1 and B12 drop roughly 10-20% for both types of pasteurization. The primary issues with UHT are Lysine and folate. Lysine gets clobbered by the Maillard reactions. The folate you cited is definitely a concern given that folate and Vitamin D are factor…

You're also right that apart from the folate the losses are not so dramatic.

Taste is significant though. My kids (spoiled brats) refuse to drink UHT and they recognize it immediately

Re: FDA links raw cheese to outbreak; Makers "100% disagree," refuse recall

#108

Post by rbanffy »

UncleMeat wrote: post #82
fwipsy wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At what point do they just get shut down?

Given that RFK is deep in the raw milk psychosis… maybe never.

We can hope they get shut down as soon as a sane government is installed.

Re: FDA links raw cheese to outbreak; Makers "100% disagree," refuse recall

#109

Post by andyclap2 »

yread wrote: post #107
bsder wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is probably a stronger reference: https://juniperpublishers.com/jdvs/JDVS.MS.ID.555822.php Overall, though, the nutritional content is "mostly" unaffected by UHT. B1 and B12 drop roughly 10-20% for both types of pasteurization. The primary issues with UHT are Lysine and folate. Lysine gets clobbered by the Maillard reactions. The folate you cited is definitely a concern given that folate and Vitamin D are factor…

You're also right that apart from the folate the losses are not so dramatic. Taste is significant though. My kids (spoiled brats) refuse to drink UHT and they recognize it immediately

I hate UHT - and one thing I've learnt from cheap hotels is a teaspoon of natural yoghurt makes the milk taste fresh enough to me to have with cereal. Not sure why.
Post reply on HN