Comments on: Those Pathogens, What You Should Know

By: Webmaster Realmilk.com

Webmaster Realmilk.com — Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:48:49 +0000

In reply to Kevin. He is not sharing the database, but the bottom line is that there are about 42 reported (not proven) illnesses from raw milk per year.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sun, 25 Sep 2016 16:59:07 +0000

Where is the comprehensive database mentioned in reference 2?

By: Webmaster Realmilk.com

Webmaster Realmilk.com — Tue, 19 Jul 2016 14:13:47 +0000

In reply to jeff reed. I don't think it is a silly comparison; if it's riskier to eat a number of common foods vs. raw milk, that's relevant. If raw milk happened to be slightly riskier than pasteurized milk, but still far less risky than a number of common foods, that's relevant. Sally will be hearing Ted Beals speak next month. He'll be giving these comparative numbers and she is planning to report on them in a future WAPF journal article. Stay tuned.

By: jeff reed

jeff reed — Fri, 15 Jul 2016 18:09:48 +0000

This is a really great article that helps to quantify the risk of drinking raw milk. But, I think it’s only mildly helpful at best (silly, at worst) to compare raw milk sickness with sicknesses from spinach and chickens.

Isn’t the better comparison raw milk compared to pasteurized milk? Where is this study?

By: Webmaster Realmilk.com

Webmaster Realmilk.com — Sun, 24 Apr 2016 15:22:27 +0000

In reply to Peggy. From Sally Fallon Morell: Testing is important, to monitor the cleanliness of the milk and the dairy. The easiest is rapid testing for coliform, which can be done with every batch of milk. And yes, raw milk should be cooled down quickly.

By: Joel Rosenblum

Joel Rosenblum — Mon, 14 Mar 2016 02:54:31 +0000

In reply to J McK. A population estimate has a multiplier of some sort on top of actual reported illnesses to account for underreporting. So you can't compare the two stats without first figuring out how to get a comparable multiplier.

By: J McK

J McK — Wed, 24 Feb 2016 15:09:58 +0000

In reply to joel rosenblum. The foodborne illness data is from the CDC FoodNet Surveillance Center. All population level data like this are estimates, but the CDC figures are the best available. The raw milk figures are "actual" only in the sense that they were taken from reports of actual outbreaks from various sources, but the population level number is still an estimate. The two are, in fact, quite comparable. It is not a "manipulation" of statistics. Of course, if you know of a way to better collect "actual" food illness in 320,000,000 people, the CDC would love to know!

By: Peggy

Peggy — Sun, 21 Feb 2016 23:28:46 +0000

So is there any point to bacteria, standard plate count and coliform testing for a producer’s raw milk? Is it necessary, do you think?

Its good to read this article. I believe that there are a lot of hype and scare tactics in what is often posted on raw milk. I grew up drinking raw milk and feel so good when drinking it. Never had a problem.

Just the same, I think that if one isn’t clean with the production, one can cause bad bacteria to get into the milk.

What about lack of proper quick cooling of the milk?

By: joel rosenblum

joel rosenblum — Tue, 07 Jul 2015 04:56:47 +0000

Dr. Beals, why are you comparing *actual* (even suspected actual) cases of illness from raw milk (42 avg per year) with an *estimate* of 48 million foodborne illnesses per year? That is outrageous manipulation of statistics. You need to compare *actual*/suspected cases of illnesses from all sources with those from raw milk.

By: Webmaster Realmilk.com

Webmaster Realmilk.com — Sun, 01 Feb 2015 22:35:00 +0000

In reply to Jasmine Birlew. Sally Fallon Morell replies: There are probably hundreds of types of bacteria in milk--most of them of the beneficial lactic-acid producing type.