FWIW via the wiki article on it there is weak to no evidence of benefits but strong evidence of danger. if taste is the reason go ahead and risk your health I've no problem. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/raw-milk-debate/

Sorry unsure if I am allowed to edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_milk

Pasteurization mitigates a lot of microbiological risks associated with raw milk unless the utmost care is taken during its production and storage. It is still advisable that pregnant women, small children and immunocompromised persons do not consume raw milk and products made from it.

Raw milk is dangerous, perhaps if you are fortunate enough to source it directly from a cow and refrigerate it quickly enough you can avoid the deadly bacteria building up, But honestly I wouldn't be risking it if I where you.

Regardless for the rest of us it's not an option and never will be.

Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm guessing that the risk depends on how the cows are kept. Industrialization of milk farming introduced high concentration of cows in cramped spaces, which led to disease/bacteria spread. I'm guessing this, because we kept milk cows for thousands of years and didn't use pasteurization. If that's true, and you know that your milk cow is kept in good conditions, you should feel comfortable drinking its milk raw.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong.

It’s rather the other way round. Pasteurization was invented at the end of the 19th century and quickly becoming widespread in the beginning of the 20th century (1910 in NY) when it was no longer feasible to have cows in urban centers and transportation took significant time. However, since then, the industrialization of milk production and the introduction of safety standards (cold storage, stainless steel vats to transport, mandatory testing,...) made processing raw milk safer, rather than riskier. Major TBC outbreaks were linked to raw milk - TBC linked to milk is basically a non-issue nowadays, even for raw milk.

Milk contamination may occur in these ways:

* Animal feces coming into direct contact with the milk

* Infection of the udder (mastitis)

* Cow diseases (for example, bovine tuberculosis)

* Bacteria that live on the skin of animals

* Environment (for example, feces, dirt, and processing equipment)

* Insects, rodents, and other animal vectors

* Unsanitary conditions in milk processing plant

* Cross-contamination from dairy workers, such as contact with dirty clothing or boots

Source as linked in another comment: https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-questions-an...

From my reading raw milk can be contaminated inside and outside the cow from such a myriad of sources and while cramped industrial farming might increase the likelihood of contamination it doesn't remotely eliminate the risks. Also note pasteurization practices originated prior to industrial farming

Yes and no. Different nation has different laws and testing, and different methods for animal handling can increase disease risks. To take an direct example here from Sweden, if a farmers animal get tested positive for salmonella then most if not all the nearby animals are killed and possible even nearby neighboring farmers flocks just to be on the safe side. Raw milk also get tested a lot more since the risk are higher.

That said, while its true that we have kept cows for thousands of years without using pasteurization, there is a reason why the average life span is high and child mortality is low. We also used to milk the cow and then directly drink it, rather than collect it and store it for a extended period of time.

Raw milk is objectively tastier, more nutritious, and keeps for longer; the dangers of foodborne illness can be greatly mitigated with proper sourcing, which will also help control the amount of pesticides and antibiotics that make their way into the milk (something you can't really do with processed milk).

There are certain gourmet cheeses that can only be made with raw milk; to make them with pasteurized milk is not only blasphemous, it yields objectively inferior product.

That's not what "objectively" means.

Do you know of anyone who prefers the taste of Maillard browning in their milk or cheese?

In Poland, many people look down on pasteurized and UHT milk (which is most of it). The city where I presently live has a vending machine(s) for raw milk, you can even bring your own bottles to save the environment.

A big benefit of raw milk is that it goes sour and is suitable for a variety of fermentation methods. This is rich in probiotics and just plain tasty. Also serves as an intermediate product for some recipes like crumpets. Here's a list of used fermentation methods by country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermented_milk_products

Here's the default state raw milk reaches within a few days: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soured_milk

----

EU and US have opposite approaches to some foods. For example in US, chicken eggs are chemically washed completely clean to fight salmonella and other bugs. Unfortunately, it washes off the protective layer they have and eggs go bad faster. So they repaint eggs with another chemical to protect them. In EU, eggs instead receive only basic washing and you frequently find traces of crap on your eggs. US in general is high on processed foods (Oreo cookies in recipes?).

Another case is hygiene. Circumcision is common in US for 'hygienic reasons'. Alternatively, you can use soap.

My point is that you can go too far with fixing nature.

I don't know. Oreo cookies in recipes and not getting salmonella both sound like perks to me.

Would you mind explaining the qualities? I don't see how pasteurization or homogenization would change the percentage of cream or mineral content. I've never tasted it so I can't speak to flavor, and you're right about beneficial bacteria but I don't know if that outweighs the chances of harmful bacteria.

The amount of cream in pasteurized milk is tightly controlled; the milk is literally run through a centrifuge and the skim milk separated from the cream, then cream is re-added to a certain percentage. With raw milk, this processing doesn't occur, allowing for cream content as high as it comes straight from the cow.

That's not what pasteurized means. You are describing a different process.

And anyway the centrifuge process also allows for cream content higher than what the cow produces.

I know what pasteurized means. But any milk that is pasteurized is about 100% likely to go through this other process also.

You really have to get it directly from cow to table to get the true flavor of milk.

It is all for taste. Heating leads to changes in the proteins and sugars (caramelization / maillard reaction) affecting the taste. The more heat and the longer the time it is applied, the more pronounced this change is.

Homogenization has a slight impact on mouth feel and taste, usually described as an improvement.

Yes, I used to do the same. Though I found my whole family is lactose intolerant and we eventually became vegan.

And you accept the risks of bacteria from raw milk?

I think it's irresponsible to talk about all the great things of raw milk without mentioning that it's also dangerous.

Pasteurization isn't mandated because people like the taste. It's one of many safety regulations written in blood.

Many people have died from raw milk, and would still be dying if it was widely consumed

The chance of you dying from raw milk from the farm next door, consumed within a few days, is minute. Since that's what GP was talking about, I don't think they're irresponsible for not mentioning dying.

Pasteurization is mandated because most people do not live next door to farms, so milk needs to travel and last more than a few days.

IMO this is a classic "no true scotsman". The CDC does not say anything about distance and time making raw milk any safer https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-questions-an...

It kind of implies the opposite, that the bacteria don't need to multiply, they're already present.

Have you seen studies that show most outbreaks are from bacteria multiplying in the milk rather than contamination at the source? Since even raw milk is promptly cooled which greatly slows bacterial reproduction, I find it more likely that all the contamination needed to cause sickness happens during processing.

The concept of buying from the farmer next door doesn't only encapsulate less distance (meaning less time and fewer chances for the cold chain to be broken), but also an element of trust.

You can view the facilities, and make a judgement about the cleanliness -- as you might in a restaurant before considering the beef tartare -- and you have likely been buying from this farmer for some time.

Ah yes, using your expert knowledge of food safety practices and cow biology to tell if you are eventually going to consume contaminated milk. It's coming out of the tap contaminated.

Food can be contaminated at any number of places along the supply chain, but I don't see how trust enters into it. It's like trusting that you won't be served a bad oyster, impossible to rule out at even the nicest, most "trustworthy" establishment.

If you think that non-experts can't make a judgement about food safety that, while not being perfect, is still useful, then I don't think we will agree about much.

I think that certain kinds of risks are just risks regardless of your "judgement". If you want to drink raw milk, that's cool, but don't kid yourself that you can tell the safety by the cut of the farmer's jib.

It's just not black and white like that. You can tell a lot of useful things about the food safety of an establishment by looking at it. If the farmer's equipment is filthy, or she keeps chickens in the same room she processes the milk, I'm probably not gonna drink milk from there. If it's all spotless, and there are clearly systems and processes being followed, I feel reasonably safe (I've been drinking raw milk most of my life and never once became ill from doing so).

These kinds of risks are similar to the risks of eating beef tartare or oysters (things that I also do fairly regularly, including sometimes in developing countries!), and humans have been reasonably successfully managing these risks for a long time, meanwhile some other humans seem to massively overstate the risks for some reason.

A throwaway declaring a rhetological fallacy - how LOL

I just don't want my identities connected. I talk too much smack about big tech on here to risk my career, sorry.

Yeah don’t be using tired debating tropes. It’s so boring to read at this stage and doesn’t sound as clever as it did 5 years ago. Stick to substance.