I thought it might be helpful to bring a bit of rationality to the "raw milk debate."  Here is a summary of the findings of a review of peer-reviewed literature on the topic of the consumption of raw milk at least the pros:

•    There is substantial epidemiological evidence from studies in Europe that consumption of raw milk products in childhood has a “protective” effect for some allergic conditions (e.g., asthma, hay fever, eczema); other factors associated with living on a farm such as contact with animals and barns showed a similar effect in these studies.  Plausible explanations for these observations exist including the “hygiene hypothesis” and modulation of the immune system early in life.  At the same time, no author recommends raw milk as a preventive measure for allergies at this time because of the potential hazards due to foodborne pathogens such as EHEC and Salmonella  known to occur in raw milk.  The body of literature suggests that further studies are needed to identify the specific factors in raw milk (and other farm exposures) that lead to a protective effect for allergic conditions.

•    No articles could be found substantiating an increased risk of autism due to pasteurized milk or a protective effect from raw milk consumption, respectively.

•    Probiotics are increasingly recognized in the literature as an effective approach for managing some gastrointestinal and allergic conditions.  Specific criteria that define “probiotics” have been published and raw milk does not fit this definition.  No articles suggested that raw milk should be used as a probiotic.

•    Raw milk and cheeses may contain microflora (“beneficial bacteria”) that produce metabolites and other antibacterial compounds that may be toxic to foodborne pathogens.   The presence and quantity of these specific compounds, the bacterial species involved, and the log reduction for different foodborne pathogens from these bacteria/compounds has not been defined in raw milk; therefore, these properties cannot be considered a substitution for a “kill step.”

•    Although studies have shown modest reductions in some vitamins and other nutrients after pasteurization of milk, these changes are insignificant according to a review by Potter et al (1984), human nutrition studies have shown no advantage of raw over pasteurized milk.  A review of more recent literature did not reveal any changes in this position.

•    No references could be found to support some benefits reported by raw milk advocates such as promotion of tooth development/reduction of dental caries; enhanced fertility; or existence of an undefined substance to protect against arthritis (“anti-stiffness” factor)

Detailed Literature Review of the “Pros” of Raw Milk Consumption:Continue Reading Raw Milk Pros: Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature

King County Bar Association
By: Karen Sutherland

Bill Marler, a founding partner of Marler Clark, LLP, is being recognized by the KCBA as this year’s Outstanding Lawyer for his efforts to educate health officials, the community and the food service industry on how to avoid outbreaks of food-borne illnesses and the lawsuits that result from…