Header graphic for print
Marler Blog Providing Commentary on Food Poisoning Outbreaks & Litigation

Stanford bites Raw Milk in the Udder

The Stanford raw milk lactose intolerance study was touted (and funded) by raw milk proponents in the belief that it would prove a benefit of raw milk over pasteurized milk.  However, that was before the study’s results:

These results, collected under standardized and controlled conditions, do not support the widespread anecdotal claims by proponents that raw milk has benefits over pasteurized milk regarding the symptoms of lactose intolerance.

Screen shot 2010-11-02 at 12.34.46 PM.png

  • Dog Doctor

    I look forward to seeing all the comments from the Raw Milkers on what was wrong with the study, and how it was paid for by Big Dairy, etc. Or maybe it was because all the milk came from Holsteins, so some other breed of dairy cow they don’t like. Just like they make excuses for all the outbreaks linked to raw milk. I have book marked the page to follow the comments as they flow in as well as the comment from our favorite raw milk advocate who will no doubt he will inform us that only correct information will be found in his book about all the magic property of snake oil opps I mean raw milk

  • Curious George

    1. The authors seem to alternate between using one space or two spaces between sentences.
    2. There are two spaces after “dairy milk” in the second paragraph in the Background section.
    3. The authors alternate between: “grams” and “g,” “ounces” and “oz,” and”Day” and “day.”
    The real question I have is how the participants could not know what they were drinking. Soy, raw, and pasteurized milk, all look and taste different. I would like to see how the authors ensured “double-blind” testing.
    Other than that, the authors did a fair job.

  • Doc Mudd

    The moon was in the wrong phase when the scientists were working on this.
    And they refused to swing the dead chicken counter-clockwise over their heads as they worked.
    And science can’t measure magic anyways.
    And, of course, it is a darned unfair conspiracy against know-it-all quacks and their make-believe remedies.
    So, move along…nothing to see here, nothing at all.

  • Evan in Colorado

    I suppose this is the easiest thing to test. Let’s see if people still get the runs from lactose whether from raw or pasteurized milk (why was soy added though, as there is no lactose in soy, geniuses?). Some people have the genetic variation that allows them to continue to produce lactase beyond early childhood (we all start on milk, and its even RAW! OMG!! What about the GERMS!!!). If you do not produce lactase into adulthood, then too bad, the lactose will not break down into glucose and galactose and that duty thus falls upon bacteria in the large intestine and thus all the fireworks. So, thanks for the exercise in confirming the obvious Stanford. Now how about they move onto the differences in immunoglobulins, vitamins, minerals, proteins, and enzymes between raw and pasteurized milk. But this requires much more in depth analysis of course than asking people if they got the runs.

    The only claims serious raw milk proponents make is that some people just do not tolerate pasteurized milk well, and not necessarily just in regards to bowel issues, but allergic issues also. If you don’t make lactase though, sorry, end of story, regardless of milk. Its fermented milk products or forget it.

    And there is a difference, Dog Doctor, in the milk from certain cow breeds. Holsteins produce milk with type A1 beta-casein, whereas Jersey cows produce (mostly) type A2 beta-casein. In the case of A2 beta-casein, the 67th amino acid in the chain is “Proline,” in contrast to “Histidine,” the amino acid found in the same spot in A1 beta-casein protein chain. Owing to this small structural difference in the amino-acid chains of the A1 and A2 beta-casein proteins, A2 beta-caseins can break down differently during digestion, creating different biologically active peptides for the milk drinker. And a peptide known as BCM7, from type A1 milk, has been correlated with health issues (however, no causal studies have been performed yet, to my knowledge).

    Oh wait, is this too much science from a raw milk proponent, Doc Mudd? Don’t try to label us as backwoods voodoo idiots. Perhaps you ought to do some research of your own instead of just nodding your head along with everything the FDA and USDA spoon feed your brainwashed minds.

  • Doc Mudd

    OK. Swing the dead chicken clockwise, then, as if it will make a difference in your “science”, such as it is.
    Proline in the place of histidine and the world shifts on its axis – hurrah for Jersey cows! I am barely overwhelmed by your hypothetical pseudo-science theories. Gimme a break.

  • Doc Mudd

    Might also point out interesting results relative to hypochondria in this little study. The original pool of subjects was comprised of individuals who had convinced themselves they were lactose intolerant. Fewer than half screened positive for the disorder – more than half had misdiagnosed themselves (surprise, surprise!). Among lactose intolerant subjects, some still managed to work up symptoms of lactose intolerance on soymilk – scared anything but sh!tless at the thought of any milk, apparently. Orthorexia must be a miserable existence; worrying over food all of the time, obsessing over bowel movements, fantasizing over health & sickness.

  • Jim Bone

    All universities are bought-and-sold and forever sucking on corporate America’s tit. They wouldn’t survive if they didn’t have these ridiculous studies to perform.
    Have you ever tasted soy milk? There’s is no way a little vanilla is going to mask that taste. Do they not teach logic at Stanford University?