1

votes

pasteurized milk is a big no no?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created January 27, 2013 at 8:02 PM

Pasturized milk is a big no no? i've no doubt that raw milk or not very pasteurized milk is alot healthier, but I cant have it right now.

so my question is if it's ok to drink milk in moderation while you are not Sensitive to milk?? I eat hard cheeses and butter and i love it but i want to drink also milk.

i don't eat gluten, sugar and refined oils and i don't miss it at all and I feel better.

7e6644836cdbcbe2b06307ff7db92d31

(693)

on January 30, 2013
at 02:30 AM

Two F's, real nice (I had to look up your internets acronyms). You have access when I don't where I work. OK, what is the slight decrease? What are the numbers? I'm not going to buy that article. Thanks in advance.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on January 29, 2013
at 08:15 PM

1 -- Raw milk that is available in the US is grass fed, not CAFO; 2 -- Yes I have access to the article; 3 -- FTFA *vitamin C is reduced by pasteurization*; 4 -- Yes cooking reduces B6 and higher heat = great reduction; 5 -- RTFA; Are there better sources? Sure. Am I going to waste 6 hours to research for a post on PH? No.

7e6644836cdbcbe2b06307ff7db92d31

(693)

on January 29, 2013
at 07:30 PM

Here's a review...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23178060...it's a people paper, but kind of cuts to the chase.

7e6644836cdbcbe2b06307ff7db92d31

(693)

on January 29, 2013
at 07:08 PM

Help with links: #1) 1999 - didn't see any mention of pasteurization (there was pasture = eating grass), #2) 1994 - says slight decrease in abstract, costs $35.95 to public ($22.00 to me) did you buy article? #3) that's the CDCs website where they say the nutritional profile is unchanged and that raw is dangerous #4) is a practically unreadable PDF from WAP that says any cooking (heat) reduces B6 #5) 1989 - seems off topic, maybe you wanted something showing pasteurization lowers BLG? Seems like you could probably find five better references to support your opinion. Good Luck

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on January 29, 2013
at 05:25 PM

Not all, Roth. I'm just saying it's not magic because it's raw, raw hype doesn't help the raw cause.

61844af1187e745e09bb394cbd28cf23

(11058)

on January 28, 2013
at 03:10 PM

70 degrees CENTIGRADE, which is 161 degrees Fahrenheit, and that's only one process in particular. Other pasteurization processes heat the milk to above boiling. These temps cause nutrient degradation.

3327924660b1e2f8f8fc4ca27fedf2b2

(2919)

on January 28, 2013
at 01:03 AM

Tamir, it's illegal where I live too. Doesn't stop me from getting it. Matt, are you seriously poo pooing raw milk?

Bbae431256192d2c57ba2a2122d12cd3

(84)

on January 28, 2013
at 12:55 AM

there's nothing wrong with pasteurized milk that has been heated to 70 degrees. but in my country almost all dairy products are heated to very high degrees.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on January 27, 2013
at 11:07 PM

There certainly are different types of pasteurization out there. VAT, LTLT, HTST, UHT... certainly producing different quality of product in the end.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on January 27, 2013
at 11:04 PM

Pasteurization become largely necessary when dairy farms were industrialized. Proper hygiene could not be maintained.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on January 27, 2013
at 10:24 PM

It doesn't destroy all the nutrients, that's ridiculous.

Bbae431256192d2c57ba2a2122d12cd3

(84)

on January 27, 2013
at 10:11 PM

Roth, Raw milk is ilegal in my country. and not to mention that most of the olive oil and honey and many other foods are fake.

C4deaa6bb01626b4569e8992890381ab

(930)

on January 27, 2013
at 09:30 PM

As in what Matt? im interested as i have recently started buying raw myself, i don't drink it as such, i use it for coffee, tea etc. I was led to believe it is far better than regular pasteurized, i have also been looking into the A1/A2 thing as well..am i wasting my time bothering? it's not a massive issue for me either way as i don't feel i drink enough to have a real impact but i'm curious all the same.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on January 27, 2013
at 09:00 PM

There's a lot of hoodoo surrounding raw milk. Not all of it should be believed.

3327924660b1e2f8f8fc4ca27fedf2b2

(2919)

on January 27, 2013
at 08:10 PM

Do yourself a favor and order some raw milk and raw heavy cream. You'll never look back. Pasteurized milk DOES NOT COMPARE to raw milk. It just doesn't. It's intellectually dishonest for me to tell you that even if you don't have access to raw milk, that pasteurized organic milk is a decent alternative.

  • Bbae431256192d2c57ba2a2122d12cd3

    asked by

    (84)
  • Views
    7.6K
  • Last Activity
    1425D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

6 Answers

3
3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on January 29, 2013
at 04:34 PM

The advantages of raw milk over pasteurized milk are fairly well accepted (I think)

Pasteurized milk has lower quantities or bio-availability of

  • CLA [1]
  • manganese [2]
  • copper [2]
  • iron [2]
  • vitamin C [3]
  • Vitamin B [4]
  • Beta-lactoglobulin [5] (which in turns reduces the BA of vitamin A)

Also some initial research (not released, but you can find it in University of Michigan's database if you have access) suggests that areas of the world where pasteurized milk was introduced before raw milk show significantly higher lactose intolerance (correlation not causation).

What all of this shows is that pasteurized milk is not as healthful as raw milk. This does not mean that pasteurized milk is not healthful. This is an very individualistic question. For me, I do great on dairy, and I consume it regularly and thrive on it. I use it in soups, sauces, and as a drink. I eat cheese and yogurt and kefir. If you are not symptomatic to milk, and you enjoy it, then by all means you should consume it. It is not essential, but can provide a good source of nutrition whether it is pasteurized or not.

================================================================================= Links:

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10531600

[2] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0308814694900507

[3] http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-questions-and-answers.html

[4] http://www.westonaprice.org/vitamins-and-minerals/vitamin-b6-the-under-appreciated-vitamin/pdf

[5] http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/49/4/690.abstract

7e6644836cdbcbe2b06307ff7db92d31

(693)

on January 29, 2013
at 07:08 PM

Help with links: #1) 1999 - didn't see any mention of pasteurization (there was pasture = eating grass), #2) 1994 - says slight decrease in abstract, costs $35.95 to public ($22.00 to me) did you buy article? #3) that's the CDCs website where they say the nutritional profile is unchanged and that raw is dangerous #4) is a practically unreadable PDF from WAP that says any cooking (heat) reduces B6 #5) 1989 - seems off topic, maybe you wanted something showing pasteurization lowers BLG? Seems like you could probably find five better references to support your opinion. Good Luck

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7

(26217)

on January 29, 2013
at 08:15 PM

1 -- Raw milk that is available in the US is grass fed, not CAFO; 2 -- Yes I have access to the article; 3 -- FTFA *vitamin C is reduced by pasteurization*; 4 -- Yes cooking reduces B6 and higher heat = great reduction; 5 -- RTFA; Are there better sources? Sure. Am I going to waste 6 hours to research for a post on PH? No.

7e6644836cdbcbe2b06307ff7db92d31

(693)

on January 29, 2013
at 07:30 PM

Here's a review...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23178060...it's a people paper, but kind of cuts to the chase.

7e6644836cdbcbe2b06307ff7db92d31

(693)

on January 30, 2013
at 02:30 AM

Two F's, real nice (I had to look up your internets acronyms). You have access when I don't where I work. OK, what is the slight decrease? What are the numbers? I'm not going to buy that article. Thanks in advance.

3
973c21f7bc31c09d12675c1ba45df153

(145)

on January 27, 2013
at 08:06 PM

I do perfectly fine from organic pasteurized milk from the supermarket drinking about 1-2 pints per day. Some people can handle it and some can't.

1
14b8422e9b449a21e06fa3349953d4f7

on July 28, 2013
at 11:12 PM

Here's how I look at it, pasteurized dairy is a nutritious food, while raw dairy is one of the most nutritious foods available in today's society. Make a decision based on availability and cost, but don't let perfect be the enemy of good

1
E2db1519690001648433e8109eb2c013

on January 27, 2013
at 10:26 PM

http://www.ncahf.org/articles/o-r/rawmilk.html (some reliable, if old, information)

In my neighborhood, the raw milk in stores is local and grass fed. Such milk is vastly superior to the tank-truck factory milk in supermarkets.

Milk is either pasteurized or not, there is no 'slightly.' Pasteurization has been enforced for decades because raw milk COULD be, and has been, a vehicle for transmission of several serious diseases. Back in the 1920s-30s, treating the milk was effective public safety. Nowadays, it probably isn't needed--most of the time.

Anti pasteurization propaganda tends to date from back when pasteurization was needed. A tremendous amount of crackpot anti germ-theory foolery. There is SOME loss of nutrients from heating, but not very much.

Personally, milk is too carb heavy for me, so I do culture supermarket milk into yogurt. If I could afford it, I would use local 'organic' milk, perhaps raw, as it tastes better.

If you have a good source for raw and/or grass-fed milk, which you can afford, go get some. Just don't buy into the tin-foil hat school of health.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on January 27, 2013
at 11:07 PM

There certainly are different types of pasteurization out there. VAT, LTLT, HTST, UHT... certainly producing different quality of product in the end.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on January 27, 2013
at 11:04 PM

Pasteurization become largely necessary when dairy farms were industrialized. Proper hygiene could not be maintained.

1
32d059a467e99a4fc83201407a4a238d

on January 27, 2013
at 08:47 PM

I strongly advise against it. The process of pasteurization renders milk a virtually useless form of sustenance. It destroys all the nutrients and digestive enzymes. That's why a bunch of synthetic franken-vitamins have to be added back in, vitamin D2 being the worst offender. That's also why some people have such a hard time digesting milk -- more often than not, it's a "pasteurization" allergy. Organic pasteurized milk is even worse because it is often ultra high-temp pasteurized. UHT-pasteurized milk can be kept on a shelf at room temperature for months without spoiling because it is literally a dead food.

Normal pasteurized milk, if that is all you have access to, can be coaxed back to life if cultured into homemade kefir or yogurt. I personally recommend that.

A2c38be4c54c91a15071f82f14cac0b3

(12682)

on January 27, 2013
at 10:24 PM

It doesn't destroy all the nutrients, that's ridiculous.

-2
383127951e2e17f23b584cd3842bb796

(835)

on January 27, 2013
at 10:36 PM

there's nothing wrong with pasteurized milk. if you think heating milk to 70 degrees makes it unhealthy then you're out of your mind

Bbae431256192d2c57ba2a2122d12cd3

(84)

on January 28, 2013
at 12:55 AM

there's nothing wrong with pasteurized milk that has been heated to 70 degrees. but in my country almost all dairy products are heated to very high degrees.

61844af1187e745e09bb394cbd28cf23

(11058)

on January 28, 2013
at 03:10 PM

70 degrees CENTIGRADE, which is 161 degrees Fahrenheit, and that's only one process in particular. Other pasteurization processes heat the milk to above boiling. These temps cause nutrient degradation.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!