Well, right now—it is under attack! Sadly, following an outbreak in the state of Washington, the Federal Drug Administration has issued a warning to the public against drinking raw milk, as it may contain harmful bacteria that can cause life-threatening illnesses. The outbreak included ten people—three of which were children.
I would like to expound on each of the topics discussed by the FDA one at a time:
- Is it possible for raw milk to be contaminated? The answer to that is yes, but it is seldom that it happens. The majority of raw milk dairies are inclined to operate exceptionally clean facilities because of the liability issues. The most recent incident consisted of ten people compared to the hundreds of E.coli contaminated by meat. In addition, we frequently witness contamination of pasteurized dairy as well, but the FDA never appears to suggest that we stop eating meat and pasteurized dairy. It would seem that raw milk just does not possess a large enough lobby to support it.
"E. coli O157:H7 is one of hundreds of strains of the bacterium Escherichia coli. Although most strains are harmless and live in the intestines of healthy humans and animals, this particular strain can make us sick. E. coli O157:H7 was first recognized as a cause of illness in 1982 during an outbreak of severe bloody diarrhea; the outbreak was traced to contaminated hamburgers. Since then, most infections have come from eating undercooked ground beef. According to the CDC (Center For Disease Control), an estimated 73,000 cases of E. coli infection and 61 deaths occur in the United States each year and most of the cases have been associated with eating undercooked, contaminated ground beef."
- What are the health benefits of drinking raw milk? From a nutritional perspective, raw cow’s milk is superior to pasteurized milk in terms of its beneficial enzymes, but must be free of harmful microorganisms. It is also important to know the quality of the milk. Modern animal milk generally has 400% more pesticides than an equivalent sample of grains or vegetables. In addition to pesticides that animals ingest on sprayed plants and fed, livestock raised for meat, eggs, or dairy frequently receive rations of hormones to stimulate growth and production, along with antibiotics to protect against disease. It is therefore important to make sure that your raw milk is organic. Now, if you ask the FDA what the health benefits are, they will tell you none. If all you are interested in is the protein, fat content and added vitamin D, then I guess the FDA has a point, but there are other things to consider. Let’s bring to light the fact that pasteurization involves heating milk to approximately 145 degrees Fahrenheit for 30 minutes or longer and thus kills all enzymes and beneficial bacteria in the process. Add to that the factor that pasteurization makes calcium insoluble and unavailable to the body, and that will explain why countries with the highest pasteurized dairy consumption have the highest rates of osteoporosis in the world. Ok, add that all up and I don’t know about you, but I am right back at raw milk again!
- How about homogenization? Well, homogenization produces fat particles so small that they are pulled irresistibly into your cardiovascular system, which in turn releases xanthine oxidase to wreak havoc on your arteries. Oh, by the way, xanthine oxidase is excreted if you drink non-homogenized milk.
So, should you run right out and purchase some raw milk? Well, I still have a few concerns that don’t make drinking raw milk good for everyone. There are, for instance, proteins in dairy (pasteurized or not) that are inclined to generate allergic reactions. I switch off between almond milk and organic whey, but that is simply dictated by my taste buds. If you are going to drink milk, I still think organic raw milk is a healthier option.
Related Links:
Dairy Operators Question Whether Raw Milk Was the Source of E. Coli
The Safety of Raw Milk
So what has the FDA been up to lately? Not much as far as I am concerned. They are far too busy kicking down doors in the natural health industry. While I wouldn’t expect (or at least I hope) those who are genuinely concerned about their health to be routinely shopping at mainstream supermarkets, this little factoid is especially interesting. The Center For Science in the Public Interest, a 
watchdog group based out of Washington DC, recently sent a letter to the FDA commissioner, urging them to crackdown on fraudulent food labeling. According to CSPI, they have filed several formal complaints over the years with the FDA in regards to egregiously mislabeled foods. Of course, it may come as no suprise, the FDA has done nothing. This inaction on behalf of the FDA has been interpreted by food manufacturers as a signal to make even more deceptive claims. Below are some of the most outrageous products highlighted in the expose:
- Gerber Graduates for Toddlers Fruit Juice Snacks: the package is decorated with pictures of oranges, cherries, and strawberries, but the leading ingredients are corn syrup and sugar. "You can guess why Gerber doesn’t call these things Corn Syrup Snacks-no parent would buy them," says Silverglade. "This is candy, not fruit juice."
- Betty Crocker Super Moist Carrot Cake Mix: the box depicts what appear to be pieces of carrot, but the only carrot ingredient is "carrot powder," which is the 19th ingredient listed, behind artificial color, salt, and dicalcium phosphate.
- Smucker’s Simply 100% Fruit: the strawberry version of this "100% fruit" spread contains 30 percent strawberries; the blueberry version contains only 43 percent blueberries. Both have more fruit syrup than fruit, that comes not from berries but from less-expensive apple, pineapple, or pear juice concentrates.
The integrity of the FDA is all but lost. This is no exaggeration by any means. With so many Americans putting their blind faith in the safety of the products they consume, whether it be synthetic drugs or mislabeled junk food, it is no suprise that our country is plagued with a multitude of degenerative diseases. The genetically modified, over processed, sugar laden, chemically infested products that line commercial shelves can hardly be classified as food these days.
Earlier last week, the FDA addressed 29 warning letters to cherry juice manufacturers and resellers, demanding that they cease making health claims in regards to cherry juice, cherry juice concentrates, and derivatives thereof. The warning letters addressed health claims that referenced the ability of cherries (specifically the anthocyanins) to assist in the relief of joint inflammation associated with gout and arthritis. Well, to make a long story short, the letters were followed with the all too familiar FDA punchline, "…these claims cause your products to be defined as drugs in section 201 bla bla bla… so please stop it or we’ll get our henchmen to raid your little cherry juice companies in full tactical assault gear." (Im not joking about the raids either)
There are a some studies available in regards to the anti-inflammatory effects of cherry juice, yet most of them are immersed in a sea of advertising from the cherry juice manufacturers/resellers that have been targeted by the FDA. Even an advisory board member for the Arthritis Foundation (which is very conservative in regards to anti-arthritic claims) has made remarks in respect to the beneficial anti-inflammatory effects of cherry juice.
"Though it has not been proven in clinical trials, yes, I believe that drinking tart cherry juice mixed with water three times a day may be beneficial for some people with arthritis. Cherries contain varied antioxidants, including kaempferol and quercetin. These compounds, particularly quercetin, may have anti-inflammatory effects that are similar to those of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as aspirin and ibuprofen (Advil, Motrin)…"
Now for the million dollar question: Does it really matter that manufacturers make slightly inflated claims about the health advantages of their product, which is nothing more than fruit juice? Not to me it doesn’t, but it might to a pharmaceutical company who sells an anti-inflammatory drug.
All I can say is this. If I was a pharmaceutical heavyweight with umpteen-billion dollars and an itch to scratch… I would scratch it.
Everything has it place in natural therapies. While cherry juice is definitely not the end all be all to natural arthritis treatment, it does have its place.
Im not going to bash the FDA anymore (I dont want to be their next itch), but I would recommend checking out Gary Nulls new video expose, "Prescription for Disaster."
