Study finds unpasteurized milk is dangerous

Raw milk, the natural and unprocessed form of milk, has grown in popularity many think it tastes better and is healthier than regular milk. However, new research from the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future suggests that raw milk might actually be harmful. The study was conducted in response to a bill presented to the Maryland House of Delegates during the 2014 session of the General Assembly, which aimed to loosen regulations regarding the sale of raw milk in Maryland. Currently, all sales of raw milk are prohibited in Maryland, and the bill called for allowing on-farm sale. According to the Maryland House of Delegates website, a formal decision on the bill has not yet been passed. Keeve Nachman, director of the Food Production Program and a professor at the Bloomberg School of Public Health (JHSPH), led the study along with his team from the Center for a Livable Future, including Benjamin Davis and Cissy Li. Nachman previously worked for the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers after receiving his Ph.D. at JHSPH. His current work revolves around human health risks associated with the drugs used in food animals. The team’s method included reviewing over 1,000 journal articles published on the subject and analyzing some of them to determine the health risks and benefits of raw milk. They concluded that drinking raw milk carries an increased risk of foodborne illness as compared to drinking pasteurized milk, but that the reason why has not yet been identified. The researchers stated that any benefits that could come from drinking raw milk do not outweigh the definite health risks. Raw milk not gone through the pasteurization process in which milk is heated in order to kill bacteria that could have contaminated it during milking or transportation. Proponents of raw milk believe that it tastes better and is significantly healthier because it contains natural proteins and bacteria, which reduce allergies and lactose intolerance. However, opponents fear it could risk public health and safety. Some who experience lactose intolerance claim that the raw milk lessens the symptoms of the condition, but a study done at Stanford University concluded that raw milk does not decrease symptoms. Raw milk contains just as much lactose as properly pasteurized milk. According to the FDA, the bacteria that can be found in unpasteurized milk include salmonella, campylobacter, listeria, and Escherichia coli. Infections of this type can lead to vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, fever, headache and in some serious cases, even death. Young children, pregnant women and the elderly are particularly at risk. The Farm-to-Consumer Defense Fund states, though, that consumers should have the right to access the foods they want. Nachman’s research did find that raw milk increased the risk of illness to nearly 100 times greater than pasteurized milk. This correlates with other studies from the FDA that found that over half of milk-related illness was caused by raw milk, even though only around 3.5 percent of the population drinks it. Nachman’s research did not however find any solid evidence supporting the claims that raw milk is healthier. Most people understand the risks of drinking unpasteurized milk, and that the consequences can even be deadly. However, the benefits are less understood. Nachman believes that they would have to be investigated further. Forty-two states currently allow the sale of raw milk to varying degrees, but Maryland is among states including Montana, Nevada, Iowa, Louisiana, West Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey and Hawaii where it is completely banned. Nachman concludes that from a public health perspective, it is safer right now to discourage the sale of raw milk. He also suggests in the study that people should be more aware of the potential risks of consuming raw milk, especially the risks to vulnerable members of the population such as pregnant women, children and the elderly. For many the question is not as much about the actual health benefits and risks of raw milk, but about the freedom to decide for one’s self. Does the government have the right to restrict an individual’s right to choose their milk source, or does it have the obligation to protect that individual from danger? These are not easy questions to answer, and more research is certainly needed, but the decision will left to the Maryland House of Delegates.