![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Advocates of drinking raw milk claim raw milk contains desirable substances" is weasel words.
The "raw milk debate" is not about whether or not such substances are actually present in raw milk. That is a testable factual claim. The debate is about the significance or lack of significance of such substances.
If raw milk actually contains such noteworthy substances -- a verifiable claim -- then those substances should be referenced directly on the Raw milk page itself. The significance or lack of significance of those substances should be discussed here. And those substances should be named; not referred to as "substances". Is that page controlled by a cadre or cabal? Something isn't right here. Xkit ( talk) 06:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe this kind of an aticle belongs on wikipedia. There really is no ongoing "debate." The safety and efficacy of pasteurization has been proven worldwide and there is general consensus worldwide that there are potentially serious, even fatal infections that can be caused by pathogens in raw milk. The reason this page is here is that there is a vocal advocacy group attempting to use the popularity of wikipedia to spead its agenda of promoting raw milk through unverified claims of safety and problems with pasteurized milk. Making it look like an active debate, makes their claims look potentially more valid. The debate was over 40 years ago.
Unfortunately, this may be economically driven. An organization that has a number of small dairy farms among its members is advocating "A Campaign for Real Milk." IMO, the way this is being done on this site is an abuse of the purpose of wikipedia. OccamzRazor 00:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
A big small dairy conspiracy, is it? 2602:306:8015:AE60:40EF:37AA:7A78:CD12 ( talk) 06:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Xkit
Perhaps this page should be named "Raw milk debate in North America" or even "Raw milk debate".
Some of the content is not part of the debate, but is simply verifiable fact, and should be moved to raw milk.
What do you think? Edit, or comment here.
I removed the discussion of cow breeds and buying directly from farms for the reasons you give (they are just facts, not part of debate). Otherwise, I made no substantive changes, just clarified the lists and moved some items from one to the other.
Here is an interesting story on activism as it relates to raw milk: http://www.rebuild-from-depression.com/blog/2006/12/milk_is_milk_billboard_tagged.html The "Milk is Milk" Campaign (all milk is the same, whatever you do to it) had a billboard tagged by a raw milk supporter. (It's from my site.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.43 ( talk • contribs) 01:25, 23 April 2007
I'm not sure how notable it is to include the paper written in 1938 as a reference. Especially since it's a Pro-raw milk paper and it's included in the the Pro-pasteurization section. I'm going to remove it. If anyone can come up for a reason to keep it there, you can put the link back. http://www.realmilk.com/rawvpasteur.html Quasispace 03:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I am aware of numerous scientific studies on the safety of raw milk, but I have not found any that address what I think is an important issue.
Do the studies that claim high incidence of pathogens in raw milk take into account the environment or the methods of raising the cows at each farm? Supporters of raw milk claim that pasture-fed cows in clean environments have natural resistance to disease causing bacteria.
If a study lumps all raw milk producers together, how can we be certain whether any health risks are not simply explained by poor handling of the cows or the milk? In other words, is it the raw milk itself that carries high risk, or is it only the way it is handled that makes it potentially dangerous?
If anyone can find any info on this (from either side) I think it would be helpful. Dogrun81 ( talk) 00:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This article talk page was automatically added with {{ WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot ( talk) 10:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
A review of infections associated with raw milk contends that pasteurized milk is just as nutritious as raw milk, so that there is neither a scientific nor an aesthetic reason for choosing raw milk products. - What exactly is meant by aesthetic, and what's it got to do with how nutritious it is? -- Random832 ( contribs) 10:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to centralize the discussion for now at Talk:Raw_milk#Moved_to_talk_for_discussion -- Ronz ( talk) 03:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to know the purpose of the tag, and who thinks we have a problem with inappropriate links. -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 15:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
At the end of the section "Arguments of raw milk supporters" is the sentence "Even with the FDA's numbers, raw milk was cited as being no less dangerous than deli meats." Surely this should read "no more dangerous than deli meats"? -- Mwanner | Talk 22:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Anyone out there with full acces to doi: 10.1016/S1043-4526(07)53001-9? I think it would be useful for this article as well as Homogenization (chemistry). — Scien tizzle 17:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The other side gets a brief word in edgewise, and then a huge section on pasteurization. There was a 50 year study in California (I wish I had the source in front of me) where the government kept demonizing raw milk. Nobody got E. Coli or botulism. Then there was one case after all that time, probably due to an accident. 50 YEARS people! And yet this article has a huge amount of fluff propping up pasteurization.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulmabriefs144 ( talk • contribs) 04:17, 26 October 2010
Bulmabriefs144, I don't think the article necessitates a {{ POV}} tag. In fact, almost all of the actionable things you mentioned can be dealt with through adding a little more cited prose or, in some cases, actually reading what's already written. If you can provide quality sources to back up your medical claims, I'll help integrate the information. While the article does discuss the non-selective anti-microbial effects of pasteurization, I think you have a point that the claims regarding the lost "good" bacteria can use further expounding. I'll work on that. However, it is clear from the most reliable sources that while there are probably some tangible nutritional benefits to raw milk, the science indicates they are modest at best and come with a marked increase in the risk of food-bourne disease; it's abundantly clear from the cited sources that, controlled for consumption, raw milk presents a vastly greater risk of pathogen exposure with resulting morbidity and mortality. As this is the well-established "mainstream" opinion, WP:NPOV/ WP:FRINGE requires that the article is properly weighted to present competing opinions in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.
I spent a lot of effort digging up peer reviewed literature that addressed the nutritional values and safety concerns of raw milk. If you've got appropriate sources to add that discuss your particular view of the regulation process, safety, nutrition, etc. please present them. Otherwise, you've really given us awfully little to work with... — Scien tizzle 23:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Quoted stuff:
Smit LA, Baylin A, Campos H (2010). "Conjugated linoleic acid in adipose tissue and risk of myocardial infarction". Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 92 (1): 34–40.
doi:
10.3945/ajcn.2010.29524.
PMID
20463040. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
However, the following article should definitely be cited at
conjugated linoleic acid and probably
Cattle feeding: Dhiman TR, Anand GR, Satter LD, Pariza MW (1999). "Conjugated linoleic acid content of milk from cows fed different diets". J. Dairy Sci. 82 (10): 2146–56.
doi:
10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75458-5.
PMID
10531600. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Strong evidence against the view that Raw Milk is "dangerous", showing instead that it is quite beneficial, is provided here: http://realmilk.com/rawmilkoverview.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottinger's cats ( talk • contribs) 11:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
24.95.76.248 ( talk · contribs) claims to be Gary Cox, a lawyer and general counsel for Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (farmtoconsumer.org), an organization that promotes raw milk and fringe theories about it. There will be a WP:COIN discussion on him shortly, which I'll link here.
The edits from this ip violate all the regular policies/guidelines that come up regularly here: WP:SYN, WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS, and WP:FRINGE. WP:BATTLE and WP:COI apply to the specific editor as well. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
COIN discussion started. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Currently the article says, "In 2007, the FDA estimated over 3,000,000 people in the US consumed raw milk on a daily basis. [1]" I wasn't able to find the information in the report. Can someone identify it for verification, quoting the information and indicating the page number? Also, if I read it correctly, the information is from the 2006 census, so it would be better to indicate when it applied rather than when it was reported. It looks like the numbers still work out correctly. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Protection against non-infectious disease was changed to Protection against non-infectious disease research. The information that I changed was based-on reading the provided references, (the ones that were there), and noticing that the information was out of context and false when seen in light of the entire body of work that ISAAC has accumulated on this research. There were some critical mistakes which I boldly changed so I hope that I will be forgiven for any unintentional mistakes which I could have made myself. Also, the "farm effect" research was an international effort, and is now a global effort, http://www.globalasthmanetwork.org/ so I'm not sure how it should be presented in an article titled United States raw milk debate? 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 18:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no more research going on from the ISAAC study-it is over but there is a huge body of research that they produced up to 2012-(they have a Guinness Book World record for the amount). Sorry but facts are facts and you just re-posted incorrect statements that were not true to the sources provided or the sources (done under the same umbrella of research), which came AFTER the studies mentioned. The later studies tested and retested some of the ideas proposed and proved that they were false-(not "likely" as the article(s) state, also the statement, for example that only farm children were tested is false as well. I tried to update things but if you want to keep incorrect, false info. you should at least verify what you are doing.Which you obviously did not or you would not have made the reversal. 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 21:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The protective effect that exposure to stables and consumption of unprocessed cow’s milk independently have for asthma and atopy were identified already a decade ago
Although the farm dust studies discussed above emphasize the protective role of microbial diversity, the factors underlying the other major asthmaprotective and allergy-protective exposure, unprocessed farm milk, remain partly elusive. A recent, large cross-sectional study showed that reduced risk of asthma and allergy is associated with early life consumption of unheated, unprocessed farm milk, whereas boiled milk conferred no protection [19&&]. Contrary to expectations, though, no association was found between total viable bacterial counts (or specific subgroups) or total fat content and asthma or allergy. Moreover, a significant inverse association was found between levels of whey proteins (albumin, a-lactalbumin, b-lactoglobulin) and asthma but, again, not atopy. Because a-lactalbumin and b-lactoglobulin are major milk allergens, early life exposure to these proteins may decrease the risk of asthma by promoting early tolerance.
Idaho should be added to the list. I don't have a citation that I can point to but I have bought raw milk in retail grocery store in Idaho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.51.165.93 ( talk) 19:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I was only vaguely aware of the controversy before I stumbled upon this article. So I'm kind of an unbiased observer. And phrases like "miracle cure" tend to trigger BS alarms.
This article appears to be pretty tightly controlled by the milk industry or maybe the manufacturers of Pasteurization equipment. It goes beyond describing the controversy and takes a strong advocacy position. So now I'm sitting here wondering if I should suggest a major rewrite or just delete the entire article. FatBear1 ( talk) 15:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"Advocates of drinking raw milk claim raw milk contains desirable substances" is weasel words.
The "raw milk debate" is not about whether or not such substances are actually present in raw milk. That is a testable factual claim. The debate is about the significance or lack of significance of such substances.
If raw milk actually contains such noteworthy substances -- a verifiable claim -- then those substances should be referenced directly on the Raw milk page itself. The significance or lack of significance of those substances should be discussed here. And those substances should be named; not referred to as "substances". Is that page controlled by a cadre or cabal? Something isn't right here. Xkit ( talk) 06:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe this kind of an aticle belongs on wikipedia. There really is no ongoing "debate." The safety and efficacy of pasteurization has been proven worldwide and there is general consensus worldwide that there are potentially serious, even fatal infections that can be caused by pathogens in raw milk. The reason this page is here is that there is a vocal advocacy group attempting to use the popularity of wikipedia to spead its agenda of promoting raw milk through unverified claims of safety and problems with pasteurized milk. Making it look like an active debate, makes their claims look potentially more valid. The debate was over 40 years ago.
Unfortunately, this may be economically driven. An organization that has a number of small dairy farms among its members is advocating "A Campaign for Real Milk." IMO, the way this is being done on this site is an abuse of the purpose of wikipedia. OccamzRazor 00:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
A big small dairy conspiracy, is it? 2602:306:8015:AE60:40EF:37AA:7A78:CD12 ( talk) 06:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Xkit
Perhaps this page should be named "Raw milk debate in North America" or even "Raw milk debate".
Some of the content is not part of the debate, but is simply verifiable fact, and should be moved to raw milk.
What do you think? Edit, or comment here.
I removed the discussion of cow breeds and buying directly from farms for the reasons you give (they are just facts, not part of debate). Otherwise, I made no substantive changes, just clarified the lists and moved some items from one to the other.
Here is an interesting story on activism as it relates to raw milk: http://www.rebuild-from-depression.com/blog/2006/12/milk_is_milk_billboard_tagged.html The "Milk is Milk" Campaign (all milk is the same, whatever you do to it) had a billboard tagged by a raw milk supporter. (It's from my site.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.43 ( talk • contribs) 01:25, 23 April 2007
I'm not sure how notable it is to include the paper written in 1938 as a reference. Especially since it's a Pro-raw milk paper and it's included in the the Pro-pasteurization section. I'm going to remove it. If anyone can come up for a reason to keep it there, you can put the link back. http://www.realmilk.com/rawvpasteur.html Quasispace 03:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I am aware of numerous scientific studies on the safety of raw milk, but I have not found any that address what I think is an important issue.
Do the studies that claim high incidence of pathogens in raw milk take into account the environment or the methods of raising the cows at each farm? Supporters of raw milk claim that pasture-fed cows in clean environments have natural resistance to disease causing bacteria.
If a study lumps all raw milk producers together, how can we be certain whether any health risks are not simply explained by poor handling of the cows or the milk? In other words, is it the raw milk itself that carries high risk, or is it only the way it is handled that makes it potentially dangerous?
If anyone can find any info on this (from either side) I think it would be helpful. Dogrun81 ( talk) 00:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This article talk page was automatically added with {{ WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot ( talk) 10:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
A review of infections associated with raw milk contends that pasteurized milk is just as nutritious as raw milk, so that there is neither a scientific nor an aesthetic reason for choosing raw milk products. - What exactly is meant by aesthetic, and what's it got to do with how nutritious it is? -- Random832 ( contribs) 10:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to centralize the discussion for now at Talk:Raw_milk#Moved_to_talk_for_discussion -- Ronz ( talk) 03:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to know the purpose of the tag, and who thinks we have a problem with inappropriate links. -- THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 15:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
At the end of the section "Arguments of raw milk supporters" is the sentence "Even with the FDA's numbers, raw milk was cited as being no less dangerous than deli meats." Surely this should read "no more dangerous than deli meats"? -- Mwanner | Talk 22:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Anyone out there with full acces to doi: 10.1016/S1043-4526(07)53001-9? I think it would be useful for this article as well as Homogenization (chemistry). — Scien tizzle 17:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The other side gets a brief word in edgewise, and then a huge section on pasteurization. There was a 50 year study in California (I wish I had the source in front of me) where the government kept demonizing raw milk. Nobody got E. Coli or botulism. Then there was one case after all that time, probably due to an accident. 50 YEARS people! And yet this article has a huge amount of fluff propping up pasteurization.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulmabriefs144 ( talk • contribs) 04:17, 26 October 2010
Bulmabriefs144, I don't think the article necessitates a {{ POV}} tag. In fact, almost all of the actionable things you mentioned can be dealt with through adding a little more cited prose or, in some cases, actually reading what's already written. If you can provide quality sources to back up your medical claims, I'll help integrate the information. While the article does discuss the non-selective anti-microbial effects of pasteurization, I think you have a point that the claims regarding the lost "good" bacteria can use further expounding. I'll work on that. However, it is clear from the most reliable sources that while there are probably some tangible nutritional benefits to raw milk, the science indicates they are modest at best and come with a marked increase in the risk of food-bourne disease; it's abundantly clear from the cited sources that, controlled for consumption, raw milk presents a vastly greater risk of pathogen exposure with resulting morbidity and mortality. As this is the well-established "mainstream" opinion, WP:NPOV/ WP:FRINGE requires that the article is properly weighted to present competing opinions in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.
I spent a lot of effort digging up peer reviewed literature that addressed the nutritional values and safety concerns of raw milk. If you've got appropriate sources to add that discuss your particular view of the regulation process, safety, nutrition, etc. please present them. Otherwise, you've really given us awfully little to work with... — Scien tizzle 23:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Quoted stuff:
Smit LA, Baylin A, Campos H (2010). "Conjugated linoleic acid in adipose tissue and risk of myocardial infarction". Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 92 (1): 34–40.
doi:
10.3945/ajcn.2010.29524.
PMID
20463040. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
However, the following article should definitely be cited at
conjugated linoleic acid and probably
Cattle feeding: Dhiman TR, Anand GR, Satter LD, Pariza MW (1999). "Conjugated linoleic acid content of milk from cows fed different diets". J. Dairy Sci. 82 (10): 2146–56.
doi:
10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75458-5.
PMID
10531600. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Strong evidence against the view that Raw Milk is "dangerous", showing instead that it is quite beneficial, is provided here: http://realmilk.com/rawmilkoverview.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottinger's cats ( talk • contribs) 11:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
24.95.76.248 ( talk · contribs) claims to be Gary Cox, a lawyer and general counsel for Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (farmtoconsumer.org), an organization that promotes raw milk and fringe theories about it. There will be a WP:COIN discussion on him shortly, which I'll link here.
The edits from this ip violate all the regular policies/guidelines that come up regularly here: WP:SYN, WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS, and WP:FRINGE. WP:BATTLE and WP:COI apply to the specific editor as well. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
COIN discussion started. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Currently the article says, "In 2007, the FDA estimated over 3,000,000 people in the US consumed raw milk on a daily basis. [1]" I wasn't able to find the information in the report. Can someone identify it for verification, quoting the information and indicating the page number? Also, if I read it correctly, the information is from the 2006 census, so it would be better to indicate when it applied rather than when it was reported. It looks like the numbers still work out correctly. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Protection against non-infectious disease was changed to Protection against non-infectious disease research. The information that I changed was based-on reading the provided references, (the ones that were there), and noticing that the information was out of context and false when seen in light of the entire body of work that ISAAC has accumulated on this research. There were some critical mistakes which I boldly changed so I hope that I will be forgiven for any unintentional mistakes which I could have made myself. Also, the "farm effect" research was an international effort, and is now a global effort, http://www.globalasthmanetwork.org/ so I'm not sure how it should be presented in an article titled United States raw milk debate? 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 18:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no more research going on from the ISAAC study-it is over but there is a huge body of research that they produced up to 2012-(they have a Guinness Book World record for the amount). Sorry but facts are facts and you just re-posted incorrect statements that were not true to the sources provided or the sources (done under the same umbrella of research), which came AFTER the studies mentioned. The later studies tested and retested some of the ideas proposed and proved that they were false-(not "likely" as the article(s) state, also the statement, for example that only farm children were tested is false as well. I tried to update things but if you want to keep incorrect, false info. you should at least verify what you are doing.Which you obviously did not or you would not have made the reversal. 24.0.133.234 ( talk) 21:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The protective effect that exposure to stables and consumption of unprocessed cow’s milk independently have for asthma and atopy were identified already a decade ago
Although the farm dust studies discussed above emphasize the protective role of microbial diversity, the factors underlying the other major asthmaprotective and allergy-protective exposure, unprocessed farm milk, remain partly elusive. A recent, large cross-sectional study showed that reduced risk of asthma and allergy is associated with early life consumption of unheated, unprocessed farm milk, whereas boiled milk conferred no protection [19&&]. Contrary to expectations, though, no association was found between total viable bacterial counts (or specific subgroups) or total fat content and asthma or allergy. Moreover, a significant inverse association was found between levels of whey proteins (albumin, a-lactalbumin, b-lactoglobulin) and asthma but, again, not atopy. Because a-lactalbumin and b-lactoglobulin are major milk allergens, early life exposure to these proteins may decrease the risk of asthma by promoting early tolerance.
Idaho should be added to the list. I don't have a citation that I can point to but I have bought raw milk in retail grocery store in Idaho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.51.165.93 ( talk) 19:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I was only vaguely aware of the controversy before I stumbled upon this article. So I'm kind of an unbiased observer. And phrases like "miracle cure" tend to trigger BS alarms.
This article appears to be pretty tightly controlled by the milk industry or maybe the manufacturers of Pasteurization equipment. It goes beyond describing the controversy and takes a strong advocacy position. So now I'm sitting here wondering if I should suggest a major rewrite or just delete the entire article. FatBear1 ( talk) 15:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)