In defense of raw milk: big business not ideal

Recently, an Op-ed piece in the 11.24.11 issue of The Miscellany News made the accusation that the Vassar Raw Milk Co-op was putting out misinformation on its website. This may be true. I've never looked at it. I joined the Co-op last semester and have been drinking the raw milk, from the local diary farm where it's purchased, ever since. I usually drink over a gallon a week. What concerns me is the well-funded bias against raw milk and the misrepresentation of key facts concerning it. The op-ed writer has an informed opinion based on his field of expertise, yet few people have ever had a glass of cold raw milk from a local dairy farmer, down on the farm. One needs only to try a glass of cold, raw milk to find out how incredibly bland store-bought milk is. There is certainly raw milk that I would not drink. An advantage of raw milk is that when it turns sour, it does so quickly. It doesn't leave you guessing, like pasteurized milk often does, by fooling our nose. Pasteurized milk has a lower fat content and consequently has a delayed reaction when turning sour. We are often fooled into drinking it when we shouldn't. However, the Co-op's raw milk doesn't have this problem and its in your refrigerator the day the cows deliver it. Pasteurized milk can take up to a week to finally make it to the store shelves. The members of the Co-op know what tastes good and can make the health benefit/connection from what our bodies are telling us. If we are misinformed by eating food that is not good for us, then this charge could be used to indict every one, at some point in their lives.

Contrary to popular opinion, pasteurization is not the best method of safe guarding raw milk. Refrigeration is much better. The CDC claims, "Pasteurization is the only effective means of eliminating 90 percent or more of harmful organisms in milk." This is true. Yet, take a look at this statement, closely: Up to 10 percent of the harmful pathogens in pasteurized milk will still get into the milk supply—despite the best efforts at pasteurization. The best defense against this is not to let the pathogens grow in the first place! Refrigeration is better at achieving this because, at temperatures of (or below) 4 degrees Celcius, it's 99 percent effective at preventing bacterial growth. The result is contaminating bacteria is not present to require any elimination by pasteurization. One of the selling tricks of the Mad Men of Milk is to get us to believe we've been without refrigeration for the last 100 years. They have helped to promote and to perpetuate the institutional bias against raw milk.

This bias has its origins in the 19th century, when corporations sought to transport raw milk in bulk over long distances without electricity or refrigerators in their homes to preserve it. Without refrigeration, raw milk must be consumed within hours after it comes out of the cow. With it, it's good for 10 days or more. Today, raw milk is immediately refrigerated after the cows are milked. The Raw Milk Co-op picks it up, keeps it cold and transports it over a relatively short distance. Then it goes right into the refrigerator.

Refrigeration of raw milk is essential for obtaining the health benefits from it. This is because the pathogens which can grow in it, and harm the body, are suppressed at normal refrigeration temperatures. In fact, the ideal temperature for storage of raw milk is the same for the storage of human blood. It's no coincidence that this is so. The nutrients of any food product will eventually end up in the blood stream. When someone receives a blood transfusion, unless the donor is connected directly to the recipient, that blood has come out of a refrigerator. I should know this. I once maintained the refrigeration equipment at a blood bank for the largest hospital in NYC. What's good for keeping the blood supply safe is good for the raw milk supply that comes naturally out of a cow. Modern refrigeration, which did not exist at the dawn of pasteurization, makes this feat possible.

Our dairy farmer not only sells to the Co-op, but sells to the big milk companies as well. Big milk handles this product less conscientiously. The big tanker truck stops by the farm, pumps the raw milk into its tank and then it goes sloshing down the road. The tank that holds it is un-refrigerated. Dairy tank trucks can not be economically refrigerated. This would require heavy mechanical refrigeration equipment which is not practical for the large volume of milk these trucks are capable of carrying (6000 gallons or more). It would be less profitable, since delivery costs would be higher. Box trucks, which deliver pasteurized milk products to stores, are required by law to be refrigerated. What pasteurization has been able to do is break the link in the raw milk refrigeration chain and get away with it.

No study has ever focused on the contamination of raw milk due to the variable conditions of bulk transport. Here's why: The big milk tank truck goes to several dairies on a route. The distances of routes vary as do the temperature conditions throughout the year. The secret benefit of pasteurization is that raw milk can be allowed to start spoiling while in transit. Additionally, the truck picks up milk from different dairies. Bad batches will get mixed-in with the good ones and the lack of refrigeration on these trucks will only make things worse. Dairy farms with poor sanitation practices can still sell a product at the same price as those farms which offer a healthier product. The good and the bad gets mixed together. In this way, "No bad milk is left behind," and bad dairies are rewarded at the expense of the good ones. Dairy farmers have, for years, complained about this.

Additionally, the bias against raw milk was driven by the economic ponzi scheme that homogenization created. What big milk discovered was that greater profits were to be realized by selling milk with a lower fat content. The fat that was left over could then be sold at a higher profit margin--being made into butter, candy and ice cream. Today, even greater profits are realized by the (faux) health trend of ultra-low-fat milk of less than two percent. This type of milk should, ethically, be labeled: "White Drink."

Homogenization had another side benefit: Farms producing milk of a lower nutritional quality, due to cows in poorer health, could be blended with the milk from those of healthier dairy herds—thereby producing a product with a uniform bland taste. The profit motive behind pasteurization and homogenization, if applied to the wine industry, would destroy the unique aspects of it. Wines would be blended, taste the same and sold for the same price—just like milk. This is a business model that works great for Kool-Aid. No one can tell if a particular flavor is made with tap water from New York or San Francisco.

The most important omission in the op-ed is one significant fact that the diary industry does not wish any one to know. It's this: If you want to kill a newborn dairy calf then put it on a diet of cow's milk from a super market. This fact is well known to every dairy farmer (and some have even proved it). The effect would be the same for an infant, if a mother's breast milk first had the majority of its fat content removed and then was heated to the extreme temperatures of pasteurization. For pasteurization is not the only process that raw milk undergoes before hitting store shelves. It's always found homogenized, as well. It's impossible to purchase milk that's only been pasteurized, because no farm or big milk company produces it in that form. Pasteurization and homogenization always go hand in hand. For the newborn calf and the infant, the end result would be the same. Both would soon be suffering from malnutrition, if their respective natural foods were treated so rudely.

There has never been (nor should there ever be) a dairy farmer who would not drink the raw milk from their cows. It would be highly unethical for a dairy farmer to refuse to do this and every dairy farmer (who has a soul) knows it. My dad's aunt and uncle drank the milk straight from their cows on their farm in Michigan, and lived well into their 80s. Studies are never done on the health of dairy farmers or their families, since their population is relatively small and is considered to be of no research value. The Co-op's dairy farmer drinks the raw milk her cows produce, every day. She's raised her kids on it. She stands by its quality. CEOs of big corporations stand by the ability of their corporate liability insurance to cover any law suits filed against them. They never have to put their health on the line for any their products. Our dairy farmer does this every day.

In closing, it's worth mentioning that Louis Pasteur did not invent his process in order to pasteurize raw milk. He wanted to preserve wine and beer. Milk was first pasteurized, by a German scientist, nearly 25 years after Pasteur began his work (next year will be its sesquicentennial). Apparently, the great French scientist was oblivious to the dangers of raw milk or the necessity for pasteurizing it.

Also, there is this historical point to contemplate: The Mongol armies of Genghis Khan drank raw mare's milk—straight from their horses. They did not take the precautionary step, recommended in the op-ed, of boiling it first. Somehow, without any regard for the so-called dangers of this practice, they managed to conquer the largest contiguous land mass the world as ever known. We, in the Vassar Raw Milk Co-op, did not wish to conquer an empire. Good health, provided by food that tastes good, is enough for us.

—Mark Peura works for Buildings and Grounds at Vassar College.